Regulation of large NON-IPC charities, is regulation lax?

Regulation of large NON-IPC charities, is regulation lax?

I note that under the category 'other information' (a must for IPCs though I must add- CHC is NOT yet an IPC, but a ginormous 'charity'), disclosure I feel is lacking in the 'other information' category of the CHC financial report- this should be changed.



Using as example of accounts of an 'Institution of Public Character (IPC)' charity: 'Riding for the Disabled Association of Singapore (financial statement)' as an example of the proper application of 'Annual Online IPC Disclosure Template.doc'- pls see comment 8 on last page of guideline: "Related Party Transactions" under the category of 'other information'.

"Related Party Transactions refer to transactions between the IPC and another person where either person could have influence over the other. For example, if a board member of an IPC is related to a certain supplier of services for the IPC, the value of the transactions should be disclosed. Refer to the Financial Reporting Standards for the full definition of Related Party Transactions."

True City Harvest Church is just an 'ordinary charity', not yet an IPC-charity , but then again, wouldn't it be good if these 'Related Party Transactions' were too listed, given the fact that ALL charities are income-tax-exempt and also given the fact that assets of CHC: > TWICE that of RenCi Hosp.
History has forewarned that larger charities/ societies such as the in the example of PKMS, a currently defunct political party plagued by infighting over assets; 'orphaned assets' are ought to be a cause of discord and public disturbance. see: 'Is this $10m site the reason behind the PKMS fracas?'


Balance Sheet: 'Total Funds and Liabilities'- 2009 unless otherwise stated
- Ang Mo Kio – Thye Hua Kwan Hospital, Financial Information : $10,269,000
- RenCi FINANCIAL STATEMENT: $51,134,000
- CHC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: $111,099,000
- NKF, Financial Information (2008):$ 287,890,000

This is not an accusation of any wrong doing, just an example of what I think is lax disclosure requirements on part of CHC despite its not being an IPC; since, being a 'charity' bestows privileges inaccessible to country clubs/ entertainment ctr whose various receipts go towards property tax, stamp duties, GST, not to mention income taxes on any profits made. And being a religious charity, focused upon 'the advancement of religion', CHC should make its accounts clear and beyond reproach.
Comments to this article of the same on my blog are welcomed.

References:
Applying for charity status> Being a charity is a matter of status, not of organisational structure. Charity status brings certain benefits such as:
1. All registered charities in Singapore enjoy automatic tax exemption.
2. It gives a standing and credibility to the organisation.
3. Charitable status is beneficial for fund raising. Many grant-giving trusts and foundations can only give funding to recognised charities. "Charity" is a very emotive word and can be very persuasive in encouraging the general public to donate.

=======================
This article also posted to:
A1forums, 2April2010, 6.41pm, 3Apr2010  (CHC $300million Suntec investment thread got trashed?)
A1 forums: 4April2010 (Re: Megachurches' tax status bears scrutiny !!!)
ST discuss board: 2April2010 ( S'pore doing a lot to help needy: PM), 2April2010 (Confidentiality and investments)
Google gps: 2April2010
HWZ forums: 2April2010 (Resolution of the Charity/ NFPO taxation dilemma)

Sammyboy forum: 2April2010 (City Harvest Church questioned over its $310 million stake in Suntec), 3April2010 (Religious leaders who learn from Anthony Robins )