Is Xtron and City Harvest Church Related?

The "City Harvest Church Trial" is now entering into the end of the 3rd tranche and court proceedings is getting draggy with an over-focus on the auditors and Xtron bonds and other minute details. It's looking like a tennis match!

Me thinks the contention should be on the relationship between CHC and Xtron, instead of whether the auditors were aware. After all, auditors only have after-the-fact info to audit the accounts prepared by the management board. This article looks at the relationship between CHC and Xtron.

Here's an article where a recording of a EGM was held on 28 March 2010. It's painful to listen to the entire recording of over 2 hours, so the transcription given by the person who posted on CHC Confessions page and summarize the key content is added below for reference:

Click Here to go to the post on CHC Confessions page 

1) How is Xtron's relationship with Sun?

According to Mr Choong Kar Weng (one of the Directors of Xtron) and an ex-Board Member of CHC (in 1:23:30 of the recording),

"Xtron is Sun's agent when she signed Linden's (can't hear clearly) Records, (some other record company) and Warner Music. Sun was no longer an artiste in Xtron since 31st July 2008 when she signed a comprehensive contract with the Americans. So let me say it again (Kar Weng emphasized), Xtron was only Sun's agent from 2003 to 2008. We are no longer Sun's agent since July 2008"

If Xtron is no longer Sun's agent with effect from 31st July 2008, how can the proceeds of Sun Ho's album sales after 1st August 2008 repay CHC's investment over 10 years, based on the restructured bonds with a 10-year redemption period as reported in CityNewsSG (source)?

2) Are the "Crossover" Personal Guarantees Suspicious?

Imagine this: Xena runs a CD shop but business was not doing well, and lost $6million over the past few years. Last year, Xena decided to start a business selling CDs online and goes to Charlie to obtain a loan for the business, promising 7% interest in return. Charlie agrees, since the returns of 7% is attractive, and lends Xena the money, in spite of Xena's failing business. Xena promises to return the money in 2 years but was unable to repay the debt fully because the police caught them selling pirated CDs and business was halted. Xena then negotiated with Charlie to restructure the debt and pay it off within 10 years, using proceeds from the CD sales. To convince Charlie that his investment is safe, Xena asked Charlie's best friend, Wilfred to help guarantee the loan - in case Xena fails to repay the debt, Wilfred will be responsible to repay Charlie. Now - does it make sense that Charlie now become a guarantor to Wilfred on it's own loan, such that in the event Xena and Wilfred fail to repay Charlie's loan, Charlie will come in to cover the loan for Wilfred's behalf?

The crossing over of personal guarantees is a major point of consideration in the validity of Xtron Bonds because in the event that Xtron cannot redeem it's bonds issued to CHC, then a personal guarantee that Wahyu Hanifi placed to indemnify Xtron against all loses it was to suffer for the Crossover Project will take effect (source). The interesting thing was that according to media reports, Pastor Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han and Koh Siow Ngea had also signed personal guarantee to indemnify Hanafi for any losses he might incur as a result of his indemnity.

Why are leaders of CHC placing a personal guarantee on matters relating to Xtron? Is CHC and Xtron separate legal entities, or are they actually closely related? What is their relationship?

3) Is Xtron a viable commercial business?

This part is a constant exchange of microphone to present Xtron and CHC sides by Pastor Aries Zulkernain and Choong Kar Weng respectively:

According to Mr Choong Kar Weng (one of the Directors of Xtron) and an ex-Board Member of CHC (in 1:07:56 of the recording) at the invitation of Pastor Kong,

"Xtron Productions was started in the year 2003 as a private business to engage the marketplace in the area of media and entertainment. It seeks to be a professional events management company that can be contracted for commercial professional concerts, conventions, and national events. The current directors of Xtron are me (Kar Weng) and Siow Ngea.... We have not taken any Directors fees or dividends and both of us do not intend to in the future".

Pastor Aries continues to explain the scope of Xtron - because the existing CHC staff are not skilled to run the events, hence CHC has to engage other parties like Chiap Seng Pte Ltd, Unusual Productions, etc to provide equipment and personnel support. Xtron also to provides CHC's full time AV staff who are dissatisfied with their career development prospects (i.e. doing the same thing week in and week out - plug in to equipment, plug out). Xtron provides an avenue for the full-time AV staff of CHC opportunities to expand their careers and gain more exposure to other productions etc .. and work with other industry professionals in Asia so they will not quit.

The mic was handed back to Choong Kar Weng - he explains that Xtron took part in many commercial projects (a list of them)... then he follows: "today, I'm happy to say that Xtron is one of the leading production companies in Singapore. Our team consists of some of the most respected sought after professionals in the media industry"

Pastor Aries took over to explain why they chose Xtron - because they are Christians and share the same values and work ethics as CHC. He added, "their (Xtron) prices are competitive compared to other companies" and they are dependable and willing to serve CHC (in terms of supporting them with last minute work request on 24/7 basis, etc)

Choong Kar Weng then added, " Xtron is a for-profit business that charges commercial rates for its services provided. When we work with CHC, we deal with the church (CHC) at arms length just like any other clients. We are grateful that CHC is our major client and we do want to have a long-term relationship with that's mutually beneficial"

Pastor Aries added that in 2005 when CHC is looking for their building, they wanted a stadium arena or conventional hall (a commercial property that can be rented out whenever CHC is not using it). This requires a fully privatized company to acquire and manage the use of the CHC commercial property. So when we went to Expo, we have to commit to a certain number of days which is more than what we require for CHC's services or events usage.

Choong Kar Weng added - so in 2005 Xtron became the master lessee (we are the main tenant master tenant) of Singapore Expo Hall 8, and we sub-let the facility to CHC. Our role is also to actively seek other potential users of the expo hall when CHC is not using so they can earn more.

Pastor Aries addeded that they also adopt the same model for Suntec deal. Xtron signed the license agreement with Suntec, and sub-let to CHC. On those days CHC does not require space, Xtron will rent out the hall to third parties to bring in additional revenue to defray the rental cost of CHC. This was explained and documented in the 10 Aug 2008 EOGM. "Management board has evaluated the rates of various service providers and found Xtron's charges to be reasonable and competitive" (he cited some examples such as manpower expenses and reliable services) 

Who can reject such a "mutually beneficial partnership"? However, looking at what the auditors highlighted, Xtron actually recorded 4 consecutive year-on-year losses between Dec 2004 to Dec 2007 totaling $5,891,401. The accumulated losses up to Dec 2006 amounted to $3,444,908. Not quite the profile one who claims themselves to be one of the leading production companies in Singapore would have. Times are really bad me thinks!  "Mutually beneficial"?

Yet in spite of the horrible financials, CHC proceeded to invest in Xtron's bonds issues, and subsequently took a restructuring offer and cross guaranteeing the guarantor's personal guarantee - in spite of the consecutive muitiple period running losses, and that their cash cow (Sun Ho) is no longer under their management from 31st July 2008. How did Xtron even stay on in business, with such losses over 4 years?

Without considering the auditors opinion, me thinks that any level headed individual will see something wrong in this money-lending relationship? Considering the fact that CHC and Xtron claims to be unrelated parties, this will be even more intriguing to see.

4) Are the Executive Members aware that CHC's Building Funds are used to fund Sun's Crossover Project?

Now that the court proceedings and CHC finally revealed that Xtron bonds were used to support Sun Ho's career using money from the CHC's Building Funds, the question is when were the Executive Members made aware of this "fact"? Was in before the bonds were purchased in 2007/2008, or was it during the same straw poll EGM meeting on 28 March 2010?

According to Dr Victor Lim Fei, then an Executive Member of CHC in 2010 and currently one of it's Board Members (1:39:30), "Pastor I just want to say as you already mentioned just now, Sun's embodiment of the Cultural Mandate is the collective vision of CHC - everyone of us here in this place. As such, I would like to perhaps recommend the full support of the church be excapaded to include whatever financial and manpower resources we can muster for the work that she's doing"

Still, as at 2010 there's no mention of the funding of Sun's Crossover project using church building funds - or rather, at least at the date of this clip implies, that the EMs were not even aware that church funding was even used until Dr Victor Lim recommended the full financial and manpower support. How much more the other members who have no access to the meetings? In fact, from as early as 2002/2003, the church were time and time again reminded that her singing career was not funded with a single cent of church funds!

Legally, it did not really matter regarding the bond issue, since as reported in the media, the auditors only recorded relevant entries - and since bond investments were accurately recorded that CHC building fund was invested in Xtron Bonds, it is now up to Xtron to use the money in whatever way it deems fit - such as to continue to fund Sun Ho's singing career (even when she is no longer under Xtron's management??)

Backdated Documents and Emails

Throughout the second and third tranche of the trial, the deputy public prosecutors also produced many records of emails suggesting that CHC staff is directing the flow of funds, and that the directors of Xtron do not always have answers as to when and why they signed certain documents. This just adds to the cloud of confusion between the relationship of CHC and Xtron.

Does CHC control Xtron? Let's leave it to the judge to decide, but me thinks the relationship between them is obviously clear. Next up, we will look at another company involved in the alleged sham bonds transaction - PT Firna Glass.

The "City Harvest Church Trial" - A Conspiracy Theory?

In a post discussion on the Facebook page "CHC Confessions", a lady (probably pseudo-figure) by the name of Emiko Teraz claimed that she had a dinner with the personal assistant of one of the 6 accused. The objective of the meeting was to tell their side of the story, and at the same time solicit money for the legal funds. An extract of her comments were included below:

"Of course we know Insurance companies will never become their sucker! My guess was right then (before so many truths revealed in court),there and then I put a stop on my spouse to channel 5 figures sum to fund their legal fees. God gives us good wisdom to discern what went seriously wrong. If insurance companies said NO, there must be something very very wrong. Simple logic and God is indeed wonderful, HE revealed via the mouth of the person who is very close to KH!!! Long term friendship and "sincere talk" means NOTHING if the foundation is wrong."

"Terry, the meeting was meant- for him to tell the truth (as a friend whom we knew for more than 10 years , we gave chance),but it turned out as a session for him to tell his side of story with many conspiracy theory applied. We did not prepare the recorder, but we paid the bill for the dinner . It happened in overseas."

"When the leader's PA explain to us to beg for donation(few thousands KM away,13 months ago), he thought we are complete idiot who choose to ignore the cold hard facts and hopefully we are on their side to believe insurance companies are unfair, authorities are unfair....blah blah blah! Sounds like elite talk.....no repent."

Is There Even a Conspiracy Theory at All?

If it is not already absurd enough that the leadership of CHC subliminally implanted suggestions of demonic attacks and persecutions for their current predicament to their members, telling people that the government has a conspiracy theory to destroy the 6 leaders is definitely THE moment to be!

Let us consider the following possibilities:

1) "The 6 are in the current predicament because the government is afraid of the growing numbers of CHC membership, and need to find an excuse to bring it down."

Is the government really hatching a plot to destroy the lives of the 6 and to bring down City Harvest Church, or is it actually a case of some misconduct by the leaders that was exposed and in order to save their own skin, they had to hide behind the people power of their membership? This was first suggested by the writer (a CHC-member) of an article titled "This is Where I Draw the Line". Citing part of the article:

"If "balance is the key to life", what the right balance is stays elusively subjective. To keep that "ideal balance", the general observation is that the local politic stance is to keep small whatever is not controlled from within. And it naturally applies to religious organizations, among others. If gathering 40,000 people in a football stadium to support the national team is not much to worry about (though it is difficult to achieve in Singapore of late!), it is thought otherwise for associations, churches, clans, unions etc. which can deal with affairs closer to the government sphere of influence.

So the question is: What size must an organization reach to start being on the Authorities’ radar and be considered as a subject to watch with more or less scrutiny?

It is naturally difficult to generalize. In the case of City Harvest Church, Singapore’s largest independent charismatic Protestant church, it probably starting garnering non-official attention from the authorities once it reached 5,000 members. At 30,000 (or 1.5% of the overall Singapore population) the alert zone was by then being reached. " (Source: This is Where I Draw The Line, Truth Disclosed Facebook Page, currently taken offline)

I need to point out that this argument is extremely fallible and seditious - in terms of the Christian community in Singapore, CHC is NOT the largest church. There are the various denominations each definitely have over 30,000 members, the Catholics, and the independent churches such as New Creation, FCBC, Lighthouse and Cornerstone. Should the government then be concerned that they will cause "social unrest"? I don't think so, but misguided CHC members have time and time again proven they can be quite a menace, especially when it comes to challenging the authorities!

Secondly, I need to point out that if the government is in indeed afraid or "threatened" by a big church, then CHC will hardly make it into the top 3 list of threats simply because there are much larger denominations in Singapore and CHC DOES NOT HAVE A MEMBERSHIP of 33,000 in 2010 as claimed! The figure comprises of "database names", as stated in their report. The audited attendance, conducted by Global Church Solutions and "Stanfield & O’Dell puts their attendance at below 23,000. Citing CityNews:

"as of 28 February 2011, CHC’s congregation size is 22,049. The congregation size comprises attendees who attend our weekend services regularly in the past one year" (source: http://www.citynews.sg/2011/04/new-day-new-way/)

With a regular membership of that figure, and comparing independent denomination churches, New Creation Church alone outnumbers them with around 25,000 members in the same period.

I have already written about the no-nonsense approach the Singapore government adopts against corruption and white collar crime - whether is it within the high ranks of their departments or a commercial organisation. Is this not a demonstration of non-bias on the part of the government? 

Anyone believing the "conspiracy theory" against the 6 accused on the basis of the government's worry over the size of CHC ought to really do deeper investigation to the person saying it.

2) "The public is jealous of Sun Ho's success"
This was not a new theory. In fact, as early as early 2000's during the Roland Poon saga, this possibility was being echoed citing the bible verse in Mark 6:4, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home."

Being a Singaporean, I cannot imagine why I would be jealous of a fellow Singaporean who does Singapore proud by putting us on the world map. We have no problem with people such as Kit Chan, Stephanie Sun, Tania Phua, Corrine May, Tan Han Jin, etc doing well in Asia's mandopop scene! Why should we be ashamed of her when she won so many accolades and awards in Asian Music scene as well as Hollywood Billboard Charts - no Singaporean has ever even done it!

Fact of the matter is - the public are not jealous of her success. Rather, the public are ashamed of her (synthetic)-success because it did not birth out of talent, but out of funds taken from the church and used without their knowledge until recently! That explains why we rejoice when we see Stephanie Sun winning the music awards and Tania Phua finally sees her talent recognized - but sorry, not an award Chinawine.

Sorry to disappoint all the die-hard fans out there.

3) "The 6 and CHC are under the attack of the devil; that's why we are in this state"

This is even more interesting because all throughout church history, demonic persecution do not happen to individuals - it strikes the entire population. Furthermore, demonic oppression should always lead to growth, revival and breakthrough - but the attendance of CHC is dwindling. To put the blame on the devil for personal misdeed is... a really nice try! After all, who else can the devil blame????

4) The 6 and CHC is being persecuted by the government, the public, the devil and the rats!

What the 6 is going through now is prosecution, not persecution - and it was made very clear by the DPM, Mr Teo Chee Hean - so let's settle this once and for all, and not get confused between prosecution and persecution! Unfortunately, it is often painted to CHC members that they are being persecuted, resulting in much emotions against the authorities.

5) The COC is out to destroy the lives and livelihood of CHC staff

The COC is vested with legislative powers to enforce the Charities Act and provide guidance to all charity organisations (IPCs or otherwise). The COC is merely enforcing their duties to protect donors of the charity by exercising the legislative powers vested upon them. At present, they have reason to believe that church funds are misused, resulting in the suspension of the 9 individuals related to the case.

I think it's good news than the COC cleared Sun Ho and that she's free to resume her duties in Church. See? No persecution!

If It's Not Conspiracy Theory, What Else Could It Be?

So... after looking at the above 5 points... can we truly ask ourselves if there's any conspiracy at all, or is the government merely exercising it's responsibilities in order to protect the well-being of its citizens and the reputation of the country? I am deeply concerned for the youth membership who take in everything they are told - hook, line and sinker!

I hope readers will consider these and carry out their own research - especially those overseas who have been painted with all sorts of funny idea about our government and media, and (mis)led to only rely on certain information source.

3 Musketeers vs Wonder Woman

Disclaimer: This article was written on a without prejudice basis. Just trying to understand why the trial is taking so long for Mr/Miss UnderTheCarpet's consideration.

The unfortunately-termed “City Harvest Trial” involving the 6 individuals from the CHC leadership charged with CBT, Falsification of Accounts and Misappropriation of church funds took an intense twist when the defense bombarded the lead investigation officer (Lead IO) from the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) over 2 key documents – the First Information Report (FIR) and the Suspicious Transaction Report (STR), and accusation that CAD did not seize all relevant audit  working papers from the auditor.  

What is the FIR and STR?

According to the Law Society, “A First Information Report is the first report received by the police about an offence, it may be a Police Report or the transcript of a "999" call.” The person requesting for this report (be it the accused, the accused’s lawyer, etc) will have to pay for the report. The defense counsel for Tan Ye Peng has paid $14.20 for a copy and cheekily (in the spirit of light-heartedness in the midst of an intense exchange) asked for a refund – the price of Chicken Chop at Astons – when he claimed that he was “misled” by the lead IO who gave him a 2010 copy but the first instances of the FIR was filed in 2005 and 2008 respectively.  

The significance of the FIR is that it allows for the accused to explain his conduct with respect to the complaint filed in the FIR. In the case of the City Harvest 6, there were a number of FIR filed, the earliest in 2005, 2008 and 2010, but CAD only launched an investigation in May 2010 and the FIR provided only recorded complaint relating to falsification of accounts. The defense argument is that the accused were not aware of CBT related investigations, and hence cannot explain their actions.

Paraphrasing information from the Commercial Affairs Department website, the Suspicious Transaction Reporting (STR) framework is a reporting channel under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act, commonly known as the CDSA, legislated to combat money laundering in Singapore. Section 39(1) of the CDSA makes it mandatory for a person, who in the course of his business or employment, to lodge a Suspicious Transaction Report (STR) if he knows or has reason to suspect that any property may be connected to a criminal activity. The failure to do so may constitute a criminal offence.

So What’s The Big Deal?

According to the media (ST, CN and others), in the case of the “CHC Trial”, the first FIR (which is also a STR) was filed as early as 2005, and again in 2008 and 2010. In between these periods, there were also other FIRs and STRs being filed as well as information received from various sources. It is thus not surprising that the dates of the report can be confusing. From CN’s report dated 29 Jan 2014, the defense counsel for Tan Ye Peng had requested for the FIR on Jun 27, 2012 and was given a document marked NP299 for $14.20 inclusive for photography (GST was not mentioned). The counsel's issue was that the lead IO had “misled” him by not giving him the FIR dated earlier, hence depriving the accused of their chance to explain their action before the charges. This is in spite of the prosecution’s clarification with the defense counsel shortly after the FIR was sent to him. (Source: http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/36568-investigator-defence-tussle-over-first-city-harvest-report.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss)

Many CN followers have latched on to the recent CN reports (of 28th to 30th Jan 2014) and claimed bias against the accused, adding to the intense view against the State’s prosecution, especially from CHC membership.

What It Could Have Been

Me thinks that the FIR indeed was based on a complaint about falsification of accounts, but as investigations progressed and more things uncovered between 2010 to 2012, the investigation led to other things, such as the much contended CBT charge. I dunno, but when I watched TVB dramas with scenes depicting ICAC and CIB investigations, the IO would always verbally give warning to the accused when doing interrogation about what he is being investigated for, and then offered coffee and a chance to work with the authorities. Well reel-life is always a reflection of real-life, I guess.

Looking at the angry status on social media, it seems that many on the side of the accused is implying that the prosecution is denying the accused a fair trial, and mocked the prosecution’s (DPP Mavis Chionh) vehement objections to the defense counsel’s grilling of the lead IO. Taken objectively, the DPP is merely trying to protect the identity of the informant under Section 36 of the PCA. Protection of the informant(s) is important and necessary, in order to encourage forthcoming information of criminal activities by "insiders" (a.k.a. whistleblowing) which is not easily detected by outsiders. Not easy for a woman to come against 3 highly educated men (the "Tong-NS-Maniam" trio) to protect the identity of some law-abiding citizens!

I especially like her counter argument to counsel Edwin Tong in an earlier cross-fire exchange about his charge that “CAD did not seize all relevant working papers from Baker Tilly” – (I paraphrase) that if he has got any evidence that would support the defense case to show it. She’s a Wonder Woman indeed! 

Me also think that it is not right to put the informant on the table – he should be kept “under the table” and even better, be swept "under the carpet”, safely covered by the provision of S36 – to avoid being stoned by the angry mob. My personal opinion is that the defense is really just trying to pick on small technical details in finding fault with the FIR dates, in a bid to throw off the CBT charges (Ref: The Law On Corruption In Singapore: Cases and Materials” by Tan Boon Gin, Chapter 8). The FIR has already been given and with clarification from the prosecution to the defense counsel shortly after the delivery of the report, this should not be an issue – otherwise the counsel could have raised it during PTC held much earlier between 2012 and 2013 before the trial.

Me thinks… CHC members should also refer to other media outlets besides CityNews SG for more complete reporting - no newspaper can cover every angle, so it would be good to triangulate from different sources, to avoid being made subjects of propaganda. Also, can Mr/Miss “Not-Under-The-Carpet” write to the defense counsel to stop wasting time bickering on the minors and technicalities and get to work on the trial and start shoving evidence to the prosecution that the 6 accused had been above and beyond reproach in their dealings (if any), please? At the end of the day, legal fees of around $1 million per tranche each can buy many FIRs and Chicken Chops from Aston’s… enough for a lifetime…

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: http://notunderthetable.blogspot.sg/2014/01/are-members-of-chc-unconsciously.html)

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?

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:

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/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. 

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.

THINK!

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