The CPF is not like CHC Building Fund
The  CPF is not like CHC Building Fund

 

The attempt by a famous Singaporean Blogger Roy Ngerng of Heart Truths to associate the Government investments/CPF to the City Harvest Court case was met with a quick legal response.

I just wonder if Roy had talked about gays and their lack of rights, whether he would still be accepted by the general public. Nevertheless, his heart for basic freedoms, equality and accountability is something we need  for a better society. However, the mob at speakers corner which Roy frequents as a speaker could easily turned against gays!

In fairness, the association of financial misappropriations was very far off, unlike CHC where the accused have a clear case to answer.

  1. In CHC Building Fund, payment is given to the church for the building fund, and the returns (10, 20, 30 folds) were all possible returns not from the church but from God. There was no capital guarantee. If the capital was lost and there was no returns, the only person to be blamed is us since we can't blame God or the church. We must have sinned or lack faith or not given enough! It takes faith and a miracle whilst the CPF returns are fixed.

  2. In CPF,   the capital is guaranteed, and the returns stated very clearly at 2.5% of Ordinary Account and 4% for Special Account. Compared to the bank Fixed Deposit, this is a very good rate. The money that is deposited will be returned one day and is clearly accounted for. For CHC, once the money is given, you can't go online to check how much the money that was given, or whether the money is growing with the multi fold returns. There is no return, not even 1 cent. The returns at best are spiritual!

Hence, to blame the Government for financial misappropriations on the same manner as City Harvest Church is clearly not correct since the money given to City Harvest is theirs forever with no returns from the church itself. Possibly, spiritual blessings are received.

In CHC, there was a clear case where the funds given for the purpose of the building fund was not used as such nothwithstanding the mitigation arguments. The funds in the CPF on the other hand is used for investments with returns that is specified.

The Government is bearing the financial risk which on a Financial crash can be significant. They have a guaranteed capital liability. It cannot be compared to the stock market returns which could go south at any time.

The investment in the Cross Over in Hollywood has no promise of returns and have low probability of earthly returns as we could not expect a China Wine performance in Jamaican dialect by a Chinese to be popular.

There is no similarity since there is no pastor Kong Hee with the dramatic preaching of why Jesus was rich, and with tears talking about sacrifice of those who paid tens of thousands. Equal sacrifice  not equal giving. There is no sacrifice in the CPF since the money will be paid back to us in interests.

The very firm and quick distancing by the Government from the CHC court case is wise. A secular Government should not be equated to a messy religious business cause. The Government should make a strong stand against any religious fundamentalism especially seeking to enter into public and political space.

 In closing, God is high above all earthly powers, and He has blessed Singapore with a good Government, with peace, prosperity and fairness as much as could be expected when we look at other countries where corruption rules, and jobs given only to certain races.

 

 

 
Locations of visitors to this page