The following is City Harvest Church’s response on the public’s disquiet about its S$310 million investment in Suntec Singapore.

ABOUT THE SUNTEC DECISION

City Harvest Church’s (“CHC”) search for additional premises, to serve its growing congregation, started since 2005. To date, we have considered 26 plots of land and found Suntec Singapore to be the most suitable in terms of size, location, facilities and price. Via the pulpit, Senior Pastor Kong Hee gave regular updates on CHC Building Committee’s search for suitable premises and how CHC’s leadership was looking at a facility in a more central part of Singapore that can seat 10,000 to 15,000 members.

Our voting members were regularly updated on the different plots of land that the Building Committee considered and tried for. The Management Board also updated them, during each General Meeting, on the detailed income and expenditure of CHC’s Building Fund.

To facilitate the process, during the 20 April 2008 Extraordinary General Meeting (“EOGM”), the voting members of CHC approved the empowerment of the Management Board to make investment decisions on behalf of the church, particularly in its search for a commercial building in a central location in Singapore.

In that EOGM, the voting members of CHC also resolved to amend Article II, Clause 6 of the CHC Constitution. The amended clause reads:

To make such investments, to acquire and hold by way of investment either in the name of the Church or in the name of any nominee (whether directly or indirectly) whether in debt or equity securities, real property, movable property or personal property as the Board of Directors may from time to time deem to be in the interests of the Church; and from such funds as the Board of Directors deems surplus to the normal operational needs of the Church, or such funds raised, set aside or designated by the Board of Directors for the purpose of such investments.

This amendment was then submitted to and approved by the Registrar of Societies and the Commissioner of Charities (“COC”).

ABOUT THE NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

CHC signed a Share Sale Agreement, Non-Disclosure Agreements and a Deed of Accession and Ratification, all of which were done at arm’s length with the Vendors, and with reputable law firm Rajah & Tann LLP representing CHC’s interests. The Vendors required CHC to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements and the Deed of Accession and Ratification, which made us party to the initial Shareholders Agreement. The Shareholders Agreement required CHC to keep confidential all matters and details relating to the transaction, including the share price and the percentage of shares acquired.

However, under those Non-Disclosure Agreements, CHC was entitled to, and did, disclose all material details of the transaction to the relevant authorities (being the COC and the Urban Redevelopment Authority (“URA”)) as requested.

In March, when the Board sought to give its members some information pertaining to the transaction, the other members of the consortium did not appear pleased as they felt CHC was in breach of its obligation of confidentiality. On 1 April 2010, the Board received a letter from the solicitors acting for various other shareholders in the consortium, reminding CHC of its obligations of confidentiality and obliging us to adhere to them.

The Management Board has now engaged Drew & Napier LLC to review the situation, given that there is a strong and unfounded allegation floating around in the blogs and online forums that CHC Management Board and Reverend Kong Hee are deliberately concealing a number of embarrassing facts from its members.

This is furthest from the truth.

They have advised CHC Management Board that Clause 12.1.3 of the Shareholders Agreement, which is

binding on CHC through the Deed of Accession and Ratification, obliges CHC to use “all reasonable

endeavours to keep confidential … any information which relates to the contents of this Agreement (or any agreement or arrangement entered into pursuant to this Agreement).

NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF CHC

2 – 4 April, 2010

In plain words, CHC is required by the Agreement not to disclose any information and details pertaining to the transaction save for disclosure to the relevant authorities.

We are also advised by our lawyers that further disclosures may be regarded as an “Event of Default” under Clause 15.1 of the Shareholders Agreement, in which event there is a possibility that CHC will be obliged to put those shares it had purchased for sale to the non-defaulting shareholders at a substantial discount on the original purchase price.

As such, CHC urges all members to please appreciate that we did not give you full details and information on the transaction due to a legal requirement of the Vendors / other shareholders, but we have disclosed such details and information to the relevant government authorities as requested by them.

ABOUT THE $310M

This $310m consists of (1) the shares we have already bought, (2) the shares we intend to purchase in the coming years, (3) the committed rentals, (4) the optional rentals in the coming years, (5) refundable rental deposits, (6) renovation and equipment costs, (7) professional building, management logistic and maintenance fees, and (8) periodic shifting costs.

Therefore, $310m is what we aim to raise in order to acquire the stake that we hope to have in Suntec, as well as to pay for the other costs mentioned above. The full sum of $310m is not our committed payment to Suntec for the shares. We have arrived at this figure by calculating the point at which the return of our investments will cover the yearly rentals. In other words, CHC hopes that by being an indirect shareholder of Suntec Singapore, it will become self-sustaining in respect of payments of future rentals and there will be no need for more fundraising for this matter.

ABOUT OUR LIABILITY

The members of a society, the voting members and also the non-voting members, are not personally liable for any of the society’s financial obligations.

Of the 8 expenditure items that make up the $310m, the only continuing financial liability of CHC will be the committed rental costs for the use of Suntec Convention Center. In the event of non-payment of rent, the creditors have a cause of action against the assets of CHC (i.e. our Jurong West St 91 Church Building), but there is no cause of action against any member or his personal assets – see Section 35(d) of the Societies Act, Chapter 311.

ABOUT CHARITY INVESTING

Charities are allowed to invest donor funds into different investments such as stocks, bonds, currency deposits, properties, etc. While adhering to standards of sound investment and risk management, charities invest with an aim of using the investment income to fund the objectives of the charity. For instance, Foundations often use donor funds to invest into properties, and use the rental income to fund its philanthropic activities.

For CHC, the objective is simply to use its share of dividends from Suntec Convention Center to fund some of the rental costs of running its worship services. CHC, through a special purpose investment holding company wholly owned by CHC but administered by a reputable independent bank trustee, has acquired and holds a substantial*, minority** stake in the holding company of Suntec Convention Center.

That minority stake is an indirect stake because our shareholding is in a consortium company who is the majority shareholder of the company that owns Suntec Convention Center. The use of this special purpose investment holding company facilitates distinct accounting for the investment and segregates the investment from the other regularactivities of the Church. This holding company does not have charity status.

For any further queries regarding this matter, please feel free to email us at: [email protected]

* “Substantial” referring to any stake that is more than 5% of the total shareholding.

** “Minority” referring to any stake that is less that 50% of the total shareholding.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

未出征先遭港网民起底 大陆网军“帝吧”解散

大陆网军“帝吧”原本计划“出征香港”,到港社交媒体平台洗版,殊不知遭香港网民先发制人,搜出和公开帝吧管理员个资,结果“出师未捷”,群组不得不解散。 连日来港反“逃犯条例”风波延续,而中国“帝吧”群组以声援香港警察和特区政府为名,要到香港社交平台“连登”、“民间人权阵线”脸书专页等响应反逃犯条例的平台洗版。 “帝吧”原名“李毅吧”,是百度贴的论坛版块,原本是在2004年为嘲讽李毅而设,攻击模式并不是技术性的黑客攻击,而是“人海战术”,号召大量网民洗版迅速留言发帖,即便其微博群组也打着“帝吧出征,寸草不生”的旗号。 个资保护薄弱  高考分数都搜得到 帝吧扬言要在7月23日攻击连登,殊不知其主要管理员的身份迅速被起底。由于中国采网络实名制,个资关联性很高且保护薄弱,被暴露的信息非常多,包括真名、身份证号码、住家地址、照片、手机号,甚至连银行余额、支付宝记录,就连高考分数都找得到。 甚至有人代其中一名管理员报名参军,在宗教栏填写“伊斯兰教”,标明优先加入“艰苦地区部队”。 最终,“帝吧”团长尹垣程则以“不破坏香港民众正常生活秩序”为名,宣告出征连登活动落幕;至于帝吧官微公开“帝吧”解散,但强调解散不是人数,而是群组被渗透得太厉害,信息过多连微博都开不了,解散后再组另一个五千人的群组。 过去,帝吧曾攻击被指“台独”的台湾艺人周子瑜,迫使后者录视频道歉;2018年,大陆游客声称在瑞典遭不公待遇,帝吧也翻墙洗版瑞典外交部,以及攻击被指“辱华”的名牌Dolce&Gabbana。 曝露中国个资管理不足问题 而网军出师不利,个资先被起底,也显示中国个资保护的隐忧,甚至只要花钱就能获得详细的个资。

过去五年,金融业外籍高管增1100人 本地高管增900人

疫情下国民的就业焦虑、外籍雇员议题,在此次国会会议成为热门议题。据交通部长兼金管局董事王乙康辩解,金融服务业高层外国人比较高,很大程度是他们管理的是区域或全球性业务。 早前金管局局长孟文能解释,金融机构劳动力的全貌比预期还要好,在整体银行领域,43巴仙高管都是本地人。但反过来,这是否意味着另外57巴仙的高管,都是外籍人士? 王乙康在昨日(2日)的国会上称,能理解国人对本地人和外籍人士比例的担忧。但过去五年,金融业中新加坡籍高层人员已增加50巴仙,从2014年1700人,增至2019年2600人。 事实上这五年来,整体金融高管人数从3900人,增至5900人。这也意味着,外籍高管也从2200人增至3300人,也增长了1100人。 但他表示,金融管理局对于金融机构设有高标准,绝不容忍不公聘雇。 对于一些金融机构的科技部门,倾向聘请单一国籍雇员,王乙康则表示,将向这些机构反映关注。

PAP flags – contravening Parliamentary Elections Act? (Updated)

Members of the public have observed that party flags of the People’s…

Amos Yee concerned about rape threat made against him

The mother of 16-year old video blogger, Amos Yee, says she is…