Thursday, 30 January 2014

Who Is The "Fairest" One of All?

I hope this will not end up being the talk of CNY visitation - which paper is more fair - Our mainstream media Straits Times or City Harvest Church's in-house paper City News Singapore? But it just might help some get away difficult questions during Chinese New Year visitation (i.e. "why don't you find a boyfriend?")

How Did It Even Matter?

Well, it all started when Sun Ho embarked on the "Crossover Project" to Taiwan in 2002/2003. During that time, we seen the famous Roland Poon saga where he alleges that the church support her career using church funds, but was later threatened with lawsuit and had to issue a public apology (now we know he can maintain his integrity while Kong Hee and the entire management board is one down - the church had supported Sun Ho's secular music career using church funds while blatantly lying to the entire church that "not a single cent was used" from the church).

Then we see the face-of between Sun Ho and the now-defunct Mando-pop group 5566, who boycotted the 933 music awards in 2004 - because church members were ferociously buying up her Chinese albums in quantities 5s/10s/30s just to make her #1 in album sale. Then we see the "she's a pastor, she's not a pastor, she's actually a reverend, she's never been one" fiasco.

There was never a lack of news when it comes to Singapore's Hollywood Star with a series of Billboard Dance Chart Singles spun from church funds (yes - apparently it was one of the latest revelations in Court as a result of the CBT case involving the 6 CHC leaders).

Since many moons ago, CHC leadership had been accusing ST's style of reporting as being "biased", "one-sided", "sensationalists", among other names. And with this on-going trial involving the 6 leaders, the accusations have become even more cutting, coming from pastors and leaders themselves.

There's differing view, obviously - there's always someone who appreciates ST - especially when they make you look good:

Apparently, City News SG has got what it takes to be the "only source you could trust" (wonder if it's an accolade only foreigners knew - where did that come from??), when it comes to receiving news from what is now unfortunately called the "CHC trial"  

Well who can blame them? It's a well known fact that our MSM need more than a slap from some co-driver somewhere, and we know Bertha Henson is not going to make it since MDA has did some ninja work on her Breakfast Network, as well as other popular news sites like Yahoo.

So Maybe ST is Thrash... How About CN?

We know for sure it's a force to be reckoned with - when it comes to the misappropriation of funds case, it reports the "other side of truth" (perhaps I'm just gonna add "according to what one deems it"). Looking at what their worship leader and one of the Executive Member claims (that the authorities is scared of them), I think harmless Bertha should have a reason to ask MDA why her site got into their list but not CN's:

Perhaps Bertha will also find encouragement from one of the pastors suspended by COC - sometimes bad things just happen to "good" people who did nothing - yes you can do it, Bertha:

I generally enjoy reading CN, especially when it comes to the lighter side and a "inside perspective". But there are certain misleading elements as well, such as the way it selects headlines and frames its contents and leaving out certain elements - often stirs up the emotions of it's readership. Not too nice if it results in anti-government sentiments accusing the government of being bias, don't you think? (refer to the previous blog article:

If it comes from ST, I can understand because they want and have no choice but to sell news. But for an in-house paper with international reach aimed at reporting truth, I think Bertha can offer some advice on how to be cordial yet factual and objective, and concurrently ask MDA why is her site is being "persecuted" in such an unfair world, when an in-house international paper enjoys such freedom.

Does the authorities fear them so much as their leader claim? Who is the fairest one of all would be another CNY discussion topic at visitations to spice up the usual "how are you" and "you are still not married???" type of small talk.

What do you think?

Wednesday, 29 January 2014

Are Members of CHC Unconsciously Manipulated or Influenced to Toy with the Sedition Act?

Is City Harvest Church turning into a anti-government religious institution? Just because 6 of the leaders were charged with Criminal Breach of Trust, Falsification of Accounts and Misappropriation of Church Funds does not mean that the government is anti-CHC. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, DPM Teo Chee Hean had explicitly stated the charges are related to individuals and have got nothing to do with CHC. Below is the statement issued by Ministry of Home Affairs stating the Country's stand on this case:

However, the leadership of CHC do not think so - and since the investigations began, the leadership from Pastors to Zone Supervisors and lay leaders have taken to social media to rally their displeasure with the government and stir up the emotions and sentiments about the government using their influence as religious leaders. Here's some examples:

1) CHC full time Zone Supervisor trying to insinuate that the government is not giving the accused a fair trial via their in-house news arm, City News SG's article:

2) Ex full-time Zone Supervisor and current Executive Member implying the DPP of non-disclosure thereby denying the accused a fair trial:

3) Teacher and long time member expressing his opinion according to a report by CityNews:

4) Leader from dialect ministry asking for a tax-rebate - implying???

5) Full time pastor leading a charge to sign a petition. How many members followed?

6) Declaration of "Holy War" from a worship leader and Executive Member? 

We can go on and on and on with more nonsense but let's look at some interesting articles suggesting the government's tall poppy syndrome:!/notes/real-truth-disclosed-tlc/truth-disclosed-or-truth-disposed/304628639639967

The leadership of CHC even changed their Statement of Belief to show their disapproval of the government - by removing the statement that recognizes that the government is ordained of God, and then lamely replace it with something else. Below is the original statement of belief, captured in early 2012 (before the 6 were charged), and also what was found in the constitution lodged with Registry of Societies:

Then this, captured in middle of 2012 after the charges: 

Can the statement of belief, written in the constitution of the church be changed just like this, without having passed by the EMs via a proper EGM?

The of course, when this was found out and first appeared in social media, the church made a u-turn and changed the statement back to the original in late 2013, and then the one that was replaced (marriage) is removed:

Is The Government Fair?

I cannot claim to be 100% supportive of the ruling party and I do get upset by some of their policies, but I have to objectively say that at least in the area of protecting citizens and maintain law and a strong hand against corruption, they have been rather fair and have demonstrated that they do not bring charges against individuals without proof. What happened to the likes of SCDF Peter Lim, NParks Brompton Scandal, SLA Fraud Case, MHA officer Fraud case, etc. are some examples of the government not covering up, but demonstrating their resolve to tackle corruption and fraud. 

So I can only say that in CHC's case, there's a very strong reason why action have to be taken against the 6, and they have been very clear that the charges are not against the church - so why do the leadership want to put the church in the spotlight? Leverage on people pressure? 

Are The Leaders of CHC Doing the Right Things?

Is it right to allow the accused individuals to continue preaching and take on key leadership role in the church, while their subjects continue to insinuate anti-government sentiments and rally the church against the government who are merely meting the course of justice?

Is it right to subject the church to public scrutiny in open court, when the book of Corinthians called Christians to judge themselves internally to avoid such a situation that brings shame to the religion?

I think the leaders should be good stewards, and free the church of such shame by stepping down until after the verdict is out. 

Thursday, 23 January 2014

The Logic of Delusion

Here we go again:

Another reason why I'm not surprised as to why this case took "so long". If there is no case, it will NOT take so long. 

It is precisely there's a case so BIG, it takes time to SLOWLY uncover. Don't forget the AGC/DPPs are dealing with a team of 5 Senior Counsels and a litigator from a highly reputable law firm who is also the Deputy Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for the Ministries of Home Affairs and Law. In spite of coming against such a strong line-up of litigators and most prosecution witnesses who are closely linked to the 6 accused, the AGC held its ground well so far.

Put it this way - if there is really "no case", why would such a strong legal team take so long to crush the allegations without much effort? Why was the case not thrown out during the Pre-trial conferences? Was there no evidence to counter the charges brought forth by the AGC and throw the case out even before it reach the Court and disgrace Christianity?

If Sun Ho took 10 years to enjoy her lifestyle at her unknowing church member's expenses, surely a couple of years taken to uncover their plot is not too long a time to wait. By the way, what has she shown so far in her "Hollywood" Crossover feat? Nothing but controversies for the wrong reasons - gyrating her body in some China Wine, doing Jamaican Dancehouse about a woman killing her husband, showing off her fake plastics in a fish tank just to name a few, and nothing Christian to do with soul winning.


Monday, 20 January 2014

What the "Crossover Project" Is All About

From the early days... wholesome...

To the present days... whoresome...

The Outcome of the "Crossover Project"

Bringing the Gospel to Hollywood and China

When all it took to turn heads and change hearts...

The Goddess of Nectar and All Things Divine

"My Life's a Circus Show"

A Web of Lies

Lies, Deception, Plastic Surgery, Extravagant Spending of Churchgoer's Money

Crossover - Coming to take the world by storm

Sunday, 19 January 2014

Just Be True To Yourself - Lamentations of a Christian Parent

One of the most intense words coming from an old friend:

"One of the personal thing I can tell you is: we shudder to think that our children was supposed to grow up and come under a corrupt and biased and yes-men leadership team of KH/SH/AZ/ET... sorry no way! Associating with them eventually corrupts good morals and behavior. They lost me the day Kong proclaimed that Sun was never a pastor. We didn't need the legal case to realize anything further.

Some of my long time friends who are leaders can even tell me that if they leave now or say something against them, they will stumble many people in the church and cannot be accountable to God for them. Please! They stay there just for the:

1) People looking up to them
2) Fact they don't know where to go when they leave because already very long in that church
3) They will lose their friends whom they made over many years

Ok, in short, it's selfish and hypocritical. So tell them: "Do yourself a favor and be real and honest to yourself. The bottom line is really between you and God to do the right thing. No man no woman no leader no follower should come in the way."

They never thought about how they have stumbled us - people who have been in that church since anyone knows them, people who gave really their everything to build the house, and people they deliberately lied to. They never thought about what they have done to Christianity and the impression they give non-Christians by what was revealed in this trial.

Thank God we picked ourselves up and experienced Jesus in another place"

And Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods that are among you, purify yourselves, and change your garments. Then let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress and has been with me in the way which I have gone.” (Genesis 35:2, 3 NKJV)

Saturday, 18 January 2014

Why It Is NOT Unacceptable That the CHC Trial is Taking So Long...

Recently read about a blog article ranting about why the CHC trial is taking so long. I would like to offer my personal opinion why it is reasonable the trial is taking so long.

The author wrote:

"This whole trial that is already well known as the CHC saga, is amazingly soon entering into its 4th year of prosecutorial indictment, yet up to this point there is no clear sight of where this is going."

I disagree - so far the DPP's flow has been rather consistent - first to establish the conflicting relationship between Xtron and CHC in the first 2 tranches, and then to establish if the auditors were dealt with a sleight of hand to pass the audit without awareness of the underlying issues. Maybe we can consider that majority of the prosecution witnesses are loyal supporters of Kong Hee and CHC which they attend, and be surprised at their apparent amnesia. The DPP is indeed having a difficult task ahead.

It has so far been established in the first 2 tranches that:

1) church funds were used without member's consent/knowledge to fund Sun Ho's Hollywood project - it was a well established fact even before Asia Conference 2008 that Sun Ho's singing career is funded out of "her own success" in album sale, not from the church. The leadership of CHC have reiterated this point many times, until the u-turn when they were charged. 

2) church parties such as the senior pastor and the then management board have lied about the use of church funds via the media (papers/Roland Poon apology/numerous AGM/EOGM/etc)

The author wrote:

"For a nation known for its efficiency in civil service administration, it is unbelievable that this trial has taken unreasonably long to conclude. As it is today from the news we read, it is nowhere near a conclusive verdict, as it is reported that this famous church trial would stretch to as far as September 2014 at least. Friends and colleagues of mine interested in the case and with whom I chatted over the usual coffee or lunch, commented that no one knows for sure if this trial that is known to almost all of Singapore would even conclude by September 2014. Now this is of even greater concern for me."

Again, if we understand what is happening, the delay is understandable, and here's why:

1) The nation is indeed known for its efficiency in civil service administration. But we need to consider that there are 6 individuals under trial now (more may possibly be included as the trial progresses). Aligning the PTC dates to the schedule of the Judge, DPP and the defense lawyers is already a major challenge - the trail only started almost ONE YEAR after they were charged, with no less than 3 PTCs passing by. Do not be surprised this trial goes into 2015 (if we factor in the date for verdict and possible sentencing), and 2016 (for appeals and others)

2) As a reminder, refer to the details of the offenses given in the joint statement (

The document outlines deeds that were not even heard in court yet, such as:

a) Misrepresentation on the Use of the Charity’s Funds
b) Use of the Charity’s Funds to Fund the Project
c) Schemes to Avoid Disclosure on Related Party Transactions
d) Governance and Control Issues

The court is still scratching on the surface of the charges to lay a foundation to the saga with issues relating to Xtron Pte Ltd. 

The author wrote:

"As a Christian & a keen observer of this trial that has great implications to the religious society of Singapore, I am worried that this long protracted trial that is apparently going to go on for even longer, has now given rise to more questions than the initial outrage over the news of the alleged fraud of these City Harvests Church leaders. I am pretty sure I would not be the only one with these questions in mind, as people from the professional marketplace have resonated with my observations as well. " 

It has indeed given rise to more questions, as more things get revealed in court, just to name a few:

1) why did the senior pastor and its management board lie to its own members who contributed the funds if they had agreed to the strategy to be "covert" in their evangelistic outreach?

2) why did the senior pastor kong hee write a letter to the American producers to bad-mouth his good friend and a well-known Pnw leader Darlene Zschech, claiming that the gospel singer to be a threat to Sun Ho who sang songs like "China Wine" and "You Stupid" 

3) Why does the leadership have to hide from it's EMs the identity of the American record company that managed Sun Ho? (Tonos Entertainment which was defunct in 2003) 

4) As revealed in the second tranche, why did 2 of the accused (John Lam and Tan Ye Peng) "take advantage" of auditor Foong Daw Chin by asking him to "pray together" with them but used the meeting to discuss matters related to the case and then recording his conversation? I mean, what do they have to fear if God is with them 
and they have done no wrong?

5) why the u-turn about the funding of Sun Ho's Hollywood career? All along she was portrayed as the mascot and role model of the cultural mandate - being a "successful" pop star and funding her own businesses (e.g skin) and pop career out of her own successful earnings, not taking a single cent from the church. Now the entire story changed and suddenly her personal pop career became a project funded by the church.

The author wrote:

"First, the obvious, why is this trial taking so long? The uneasy part about this is that this first question actually leads to more questions following. For a start, I mean, if the criminal offences and charges against the CHC accused leaders were clear and well substantiated, why does it take so long to prove? Surely it does not take more than 3 years to prove if someone has stolen or pocketed money?

One of the longest court trials in the history of Singapore was the well-known insider trading criminal case trial of ex-Deputy Chairman of UOB Mr Allan Ng back in 1989 that was handled by then Deputy Prosecutor Glenn Knight. That trial took a total of 77 days and it was then a record and still is."

So I say, why do you think the trial will be quick? The content of the charges and the trial relates to to events which took place up to 2010 and not beyond.  Based on that summarized annex alone, it should be up to the leaders to prove their innocent and have been above reproach in the things they do as religious leaders of the largest church in Singapore. Surely their claims of innocence contradicts the lies they openly told with the lack of accountability? Duh!

Mr Allan Ng's case involves only ONE person - not 6 individuals each with the representation of a SC (with the exception of Kong Hee). If you look at it, 77 x 6 = ??

Don't even try to imply that the wrongful prosecution of Alan Ng by then DPP Glen Knight is comparable to this case -  they are miles apart to draw a parallel.

The author wrote:

City Harvest Church leaders’ trial is already seen today as one of the longest running trials in Singapore history, and it might just be the record breaker of all time.  

Isn't that what the leadership would wish for? To be top of everything? They have certainly took the world by storm and outdone their initial goals to take Asia by storm!

The author wrote:

The average Singaporean would question – why are we taking so much time with this and using up far more of our taxpayers’ money to administer and solve a case that is supposed to be solved maybe even a year or two ago? Honestly, if every criminal case that warrants judicial prosecution and court trial takes 4-5 years to close, would we be showing any efficiency in our civil service administration? Would it not reflect an inefficient (- a variant of wasted) use of taxpayers’ money by taking excessively long to solve a legal case?

Honestly, if they were innocent, and they were doing something good and honorable to their God, and have never misused a single cent, why bother to even engage SCs, and have to burden the members to provide for legal fund out of their pocket? IS not their financial burden heavy enough? 

On the contrary, the government has the responsibility to ensure justice and order is maintained for the good of Singapore and her citizens, AT ALL COST. And it is precisely the government's goal to provide a fair trial that they are now given their time and chance to defend - let's hope the defense make it snappy by providing some substantial evidence to explain their deeds and innocence, rather than resort to theatrics and off-the-note recording of prosecution witness conversations as a means of defense. To that note, no taxpayer's monies will be wasted in providing every Singaporean a fair trial. So please encourage them to save taxpayer's money.

The author wrote:

Now all these beg even more questions for an average news reader.  Observers now are asking a little more seriously, does the Prosecution now even have a case or not? Based on media reports, it is starting to show that the Prosecution witnesses were not providing any strong evidences against the accused, with the witnesses often ended up contradicting themselves and some of the Prosecution’s own witnesses in fact turned out to be witnesses to testify that there could be no legal wrong or criminal breach of trust in the way the church’s funds were used.

I think this is subjective - many observers not from CHC knows that the 6 have no case based on common sense - a religious leader and his management board had to lie to fund his wife's singing career in the pretext of evangelism, using the monies on extravagance. Again, if we look into who these prosecution witnesses are, we may understand their contradiction and selective amnesia. But anyway, like I have opined earlier, the DPP is still building their case, which looks strong compared to the defense who could only prove that the auditors were aware about the Xtron bonds. The defense at best are arguing on technicalities - honestly - does a work of God really need that?

The author wrote:

Then there is this huge unanswered question that stood out starkly – why are freewill church goers of CHC not allowed to raise their own freewill family church money to support their own pastors? With the hefty legal fees needed to engage such experienced Senior Counsels, it was told that many church members are willing to support their spiritual leaders financially because their church pastors and leaders are still dear to them, but even members of the public are asking why is there even such an arbitrary restriction by the Government (through the Commissioner of Charities) on a Church’s own members’ personal freedom to raise their own money and give out of their own pocket? As a Christian believer & Singapore citizen, I see in two angles, through the eyes of my Christian faith and the eyes of my citizenship rights under the Constitution of Singapore. And I must say I am deeply concerned and worried about this particular restriction on a Christian Church whose members are as much a human and a citizen as would any other Singaporean. To me it is already unconstitutional to put such an unlawful restriction on personal freedom to raise and donate money.

You may wish to refer to the Comissioner of Charity's role to answer this question. They have a duty to protect the members of the public (church goers included). The DPM is very clear that this case do not involve City Harvest Church but only individuals who were charged for various offenses. I believe that the prohibition has to do with protecting the member's money - refer to how the MPA were collected, thereby reducing the monies given to the church general and building fund for operations and building related purposes. Personal opinion to CHC members - do not give anything to the funds first - save it and give it as a lump sum until the verdict is given. Your stewardship of your money will find better use. 

The author wrote:

As this CHC trial protracts further, I am especially worried about Singapore’s legal efficiencies and credibility of its legal applications.

It is understandable for someone involved with the 6 individuals and the church to be emotionally charged, but Singapore remains one of the legally efficient and credible countries in the world. 

The author wrote:

I seriously hope to see an immediate change to the length at which this CHC trial takes to end, as it has become unacceptable to have the case taking that long to conclude, for reasons I have covered earlier. I also wish to see a clear demonstration that natural justice and moral justice are not put in jeopardy as the case unfolds in court. If the Prosecution truly does not have a case convincing enough to prove criminal wrongdoing, the judiciary should just not delay further the already protracted case but render a just verdict as it becomes due. Members of the City Harvest Church should also be allowed to raise money of their own as a sign of their own love and affection for their friends and leaders in need. For the Christians, the Church is a family. You don’t put a law to stop a family from loving each other and giving alms to support those in need. And that is just basic human right. And more than that, a family right.

The undergoing trial now is a demonstration of natural justice in place. As for moral justice, a good place to start will be for the leaders to address the lies and contradicting statements made to the members - every single one of it.

The country do not put a law to stop a family from loving each other and giving alms to support those in need; instead, the country legislates to protect a family loving each other and generous in their giving to those in need from individuals seeking to exploit their trust and generosity, wolves dressed up in sheep clothing. 

Perhaps the witnesses called upon can help shorten the trial by remembering key information than transpired.

An overview about "Crossover Project"

For many CHC members who joined the church from 2004 onward, they may not be aware of some developments. Much of the corporate communication found in the internet today regarding "Crossover Project" were backdated or new info designed to provide consistency with the "stories" today. New info taken from past records will be released to address them as the trial progresses.

Generally, the Crossover comprises of two phases - Phase one began in 2002 and is primarily targeting Asian countries (Taiwan/HK/Malaysia/Singapore) with Sun With Love (2002) up to 2005. It was largely a success with many souls saved in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and resulted in a shift in the overall Christian population in those countries. Xtron at that point acts as Sun Ho's agent, as well as master to the Expo lease (2005-2011). It was maintained that the funding for the project/humanitarian works came from the proceeds of Sun Ho's mandarin album sales as well as sponsorship by Wahyu Hanafi. But now we know the sponsorship involves Xtron and Firna Glassware bonds. 

Crossover phaase 2 comprises the foray into Hollywood and projects to the above-mentioned countries halted when Sun Ho changed her objective to penetrate the Hollywood market, supposedly "talent spotted" by an American Production company for USD5m contract (we know who the company is now, and who funded the shell company). Results of this come in the form of singles like China Wine, Fancy Free, You Stupid, etc. The ultimate objective is to penetrate China through her success in USA, which was deemed to be the strategic key China would open its door. Interestingly, many Taiwanese and Hong Kong artistes need not take that route to become big names in China. It is in this second phase that the much talked about Xtron bonds and relationship with CHC were the subject. Again, it was maintained that no church funds were ever used - that pop culture is strictly Sun's personal project - you may cross reference to Kong Hee's blog post titled "whole shallowness" as well as various public announcements he made.

Collectively, Crossover phase one and two were known as a part of the "Cultural Mandate" period which started in 2001/early 2002 by Pastor Kong Hee under the influence of Dr AR Bernard's teaching on "Kristos Kai Kosmos", and other notable preachers such as Phil Pringle and Ulf Ekman. The key thrust of Cultural Mandate is to influence society through being culturally relevant Christians in 7 key pillars of society: Religion, Family, Business, Education, Government, Arts and Entertainment and Media.

It is rather disappointing to learn that Cultural Mandate overlooked core basic Christian foundations such as honesty, faithfulness and accountability, choosing to use deception, misrepresentation, bullying (e.g. Roland Poon) and legalites as its key thrusts.

Group-Think at Work?

I'm trying to understand why people can act in such a way in the face of clearly established key facts, and I could only suspect group-think. It could also be the hold on religion - the fear of testifying against "God's anointed". But the bible clearly instructs all men to be a truthful and to judge those in the house. My opinion is that the judge and DPP will certainly need to understand the hold of the dynamics of religion and the culture within CHC to cut right through the cloud of fluff.