-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
I love the closing statement of the DPP for City Harvest Church trial.
- Thread starter zeroo
- Start date
Father today I come before you and pray for my sister Mavis Chionh who is in need of strength. Although I do not know what she is going through I ask that you give him the strength that she needs.I ask that you bless her with all her necessities and that she may not hurt or hunger and that he may be so blessed that he may pass on the blessings to others.This I ask In Jesus Name
Amen
Mavis Chionh is also a keen marathon runner.
Is she married? Can intro to runifyouhaveto.
The whole trial is a waste of public money.
Religion is a rip off in the first place and every cent extracted from any member of any congregation is a criminal offense because churches sell snake oil.
Why should churches be exempt from prosecution for conducting a business based upon lies, fraud and deception?
Mavis is not Chionh.
Bro, no one is perfect. Honest mistakes take place. I am scroobal and I am also Holmes. No need to investigate further. That is the gospel truth. Do forgive us if errors are made. No easy task using multiple clones. I have 2 others. Can you guess?
Leongsam: Pl do not disturb
Why are you talking to yourself? Time to visit your brother for medication. In case you have forgotten, your bro is one Brian Yeo Kah Loke and clinic located at 3 Mt E, #09-02.
SINGAPORE: The 140-day trial of six City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders, including founder and senior pastor Kong Hee and his deputy Tan Ye Peng, came to a close on Tuesday (Sep 15), with lawyers for the accused making final submissions to the court to prove their clients' innocence.
The defence reiterated that the accused carried out their actions in order "to do God's work" and for "the right purposes".
ADVERTISING
The six are on trial for allegedly misusing S$24 million of church funds to finance the Crossover Project, the church's way of evangelising people through the secular music career of Sun Ho, who is Kong’s wife.
Another S$26.6 million was allegedly used to cover up the amount through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, which are owned by CHC supporters.
“NOTHING TO GAIN … EVERYTHING TO LOSE”
Sharon Tan’s lawyer Paul Seah told the court that it cannot find his client guilty unless it is satisfied that the prosecution has proved Tan’s “criminal motive”, otherwise, there should be “serious doubts about her culpability”, as she had “no reason to engage in illegal” activities.
“She had nothing to gain … She had everything to lose”, Mr Seah told the court. He also urged Judge See Kee Oon to recall his client’s demeanour on the stand. “This is not a smooth operator,” Mr Seah said.
He also noted that two of Tan’s co-accused, Tan Ye Peng and Chew Eng Han, both say that she “could not have come into” a criminal conspiracy. “They have no reason to protect Sharon”, Mr Seah told the court.
"HO'S ALBUM WAS AN INVESTMENT"
Chew, who conducted his own defence, said the “key issue” should be “whether we hid (the alleged sham investment bonds) because we knew they were a sham” or whether they were hidden for a “pure” motive. According to Chew, it was Kong’s preference not to publicly disclose the close relationship shared by the church and the two companies they invested in – Xtron and Firna.
“The prosecution has failed to show any evidence that I knew it was a sham”, Chew said. “It’s not rocket science”, he told the court, explaining that if sales of Ms Ho’s album exceed the amount invested, the “bonds are good”. Chew was referring to the prosecution’s claim that the projected sales of Ms Ho’s album would not be enough to repay the bond.
It had been agreed by all parties that the church’s Building Fund is a restricted fund, to be used solely for building-related matters or for investments, and not to bankroll Ms Ho’s music career.
However, Chew insisted that Ms Ho’s album “was an investment" in his mind. "The consequences for (criminal breach of trust) are severe, when I look at what we’ve done versus the charges, they’re out of balance," he said.
Chew also accused the prosecution of being “vicious” and “twisting” his evidence to prove his guilt. “It is not what the prosecution thinks, it’s what I think. It’s my state of mind”, Chew said in his defence. “What reason do I have to do this? How can I pen in my spiritual journal that God is using me to do this?”
“THE EVIDENCE CANNOT SUSTAIN A CONVICTION”
Mr N Sreenivasan, Tan Ye Peng’s lawyer, told the court that the accused “should be convicted on fact, not inference”.
Mr Sreenivasan said that just because Tan played a part in distancing the church from Xtron, the prosecution’s inference is that “you have something to hide, you must be guilty”.
“Can you invest in a mission of the church?”, Mr Sreenivasan put to the court, saying that the Crossover Project was a legitimate investment, as it was synonymous with Ms Ho’s career, a fact agreed upon by both the prosecution and defence.
“When facts are looked at, the evidence cannot sustain a conviction”, Mr Sreenivasan told the court.
WEE USED "CHURCH FUNDS FOR CHURCH PURPOSES"
Serina Wee, who described working for the church she loved as a "dream come true” said that it was never her intention to cause the church to “suffer loss”. Her lawyer Andre Maniam told the court that “the use of church funds per se is not wrong”. CHC funds were used, Mr Maniam stated, but he urged the court to consider whether it was used “for the right purposes”.
Mr Maniam explained that even if the funds were not used for the “right purposes”, it mattered whether Wee knew this was so. And if Wee did, the next question to consider is whether she thought she was “acting in CHC’s interests”.
“This was really a case of well-intentioned accused who used church funds for church purposes, and that should not and cannot be criminalised”, Mr Maniam said.
This prompted Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh to remind the court that “stealing to further a greater social good, in no way makes this theft any less (of) a crime”.
INVESTMENTS WERE MADE “TO DO GOD’S WORK”
The aim of the investments is “a laudable one”, John Lam’s lawyer Kenneth Tan, told the court. The investments were made “not to support the pastor’s wife in her career”, but to “do God’s work” and evangelise, Mr Tan said.
However, “there is a big leap from saying that all the parties who support the Crossover (Project) supported a lack of transparency of Xtron’s support of the Crossover (Project), Mr Tan said, adding that it was not fair to “tar everyone with the same brush”, citing Lam’s alleged knowledge that the investment bonds were a sham.
His client had “an honest belief … (that) this is an investment which helps the Crossover (Project)”, Mr Tan said.
“NO PERSONAL GAIN BY PASTOR KONG”
“There has been no personal gain by Pastor Kong here,” Kong’s lawyer Edwin Tong said. “It is not disputed that all of the (investment bonds) … went into the Crossover Project”, Mr Tong said, adding that the idea of the bonds was conceived by Chew, Kong’s co-accused.
When Chew brought the idea up to Kong, the latter “instructed (Chew) and (Tan Ye Peng) to check with CHC’s advisers”. In addressing the prosecution’s allegation that Kong “insulate(d) himself” by attributing his approval for the sham transactions to information given to him by “professionals”, Mr Tong said that as Kong was overseas for much of the time, he was “relying on an organizational structure which … has reliance on professional advisers.”
“What is wrong with that?” Mr Tong asked the court.
At the close of the trial, Judge See indicated that he would be ready to deliver his judgement on Oct 21, 2015.
- CNA/vc/wl
The defence reiterated that the accused carried out their actions in order "to do God's work" and for "the right purposes".
ADVERTISING
The six are on trial for allegedly misusing S$24 million of church funds to finance the Crossover Project, the church's way of evangelising people through the secular music career of Sun Ho, who is Kong’s wife.
Another S$26.6 million was allegedly used to cover up the amount through sham bond investments in music production firm Xtron and glass manufacturer Firna, which are owned by CHC supporters.
“NOTHING TO GAIN … EVERYTHING TO LOSE”
Sharon Tan’s lawyer Paul Seah told the court that it cannot find his client guilty unless it is satisfied that the prosecution has proved Tan’s “criminal motive”, otherwise, there should be “serious doubts about her culpability”, as she had “no reason to engage in illegal” activities.
“She had nothing to gain … She had everything to lose”, Mr Seah told the court. He also urged Judge See Kee Oon to recall his client’s demeanour on the stand. “This is not a smooth operator,” Mr Seah said.
He also noted that two of Tan’s co-accused, Tan Ye Peng and Chew Eng Han, both say that she “could not have come into” a criminal conspiracy. “They have no reason to protect Sharon”, Mr Seah told the court.
"HO'S ALBUM WAS AN INVESTMENT"
Chew, who conducted his own defence, said the “key issue” should be “whether we hid (the alleged sham investment bonds) because we knew they were a sham” or whether they were hidden for a “pure” motive. According to Chew, it was Kong’s preference not to publicly disclose the close relationship shared by the church and the two companies they invested in – Xtron and Firna.
“The prosecution has failed to show any evidence that I knew it was a sham”, Chew said. “It’s not rocket science”, he told the court, explaining that if sales of Ms Ho’s album exceed the amount invested, the “bonds are good”. Chew was referring to the prosecution’s claim that the projected sales of Ms Ho’s album would not be enough to repay the bond.
It had been agreed by all parties that the church’s Building Fund is a restricted fund, to be used solely for building-related matters or for investments, and not to bankroll Ms Ho’s music career.
However, Chew insisted that Ms Ho’s album “was an investment" in his mind. "The consequences for (criminal breach of trust) are severe, when I look at what we’ve done versus the charges, they’re out of balance," he said.
Chew also accused the prosecution of being “vicious” and “twisting” his evidence to prove his guilt. “It is not what the prosecution thinks, it’s what I think. It’s my state of mind”, Chew said in his defence. “What reason do I have to do this? How can I pen in my spiritual journal that God is using me to do this?”
“THE EVIDENCE CANNOT SUSTAIN A CONVICTION”
Mr N Sreenivasan, Tan Ye Peng’s lawyer, told the court that the accused “should be convicted on fact, not inference”.
Mr Sreenivasan said that just because Tan played a part in distancing the church from Xtron, the prosecution’s inference is that “you have something to hide, you must be guilty”.
“Can you invest in a mission of the church?”, Mr Sreenivasan put to the court, saying that the Crossover Project was a legitimate investment, as it was synonymous with Ms Ho’s career, a fact agreed upon by both the prosecution and defence.
“When facts are looked at, the evidence cannot sustain a conviction”, Mr Sreenivasan told the court.
WEE USED "CHURCH FUNDS FOR CHURCH PURPOSES"
Serina Wee, who described working for the church she loved as a "dream come true” said that it was never her intention to cause the church to “suffer loss”. Her lawyer Andre Maniam told the court that “the use of church funds per se is not wrong”. CHC funds were used, Mr Maniam stated, but he urged the court to consider whether it was used “for the right purposes”.
Mr Maniam explained that even if the funds were not used for the “right purposes”, it mattered whether Wee knew this was so. And if Wee did, the next question to consider is whether she thought she was “acting in CHC’s interests”.
“This was really a case of well-intentioned accused who used church funds for church purposes, and that should not and cannot be criminalised”, Mr Maniam said.
This prompted Deputy Public Prosecutor Mavis Chionh to remind the court that “stealing to further a greater social good, in no way makes this theft any less (of) a crime”.
INVESTMENTS WERE MADE “TO DO GOD’S WORK”
The aim of the investments is “a laudable one”, John Lam’s lawyer Kenneth Tan, told the court. The investments were made “not to support the pastor’s wife in her career”, but to “do God’s work” and evangelise, Mr Tan said.
However, “there is a big leap from saying that all the parties who support the Crossover (Project) supported a lack of transparency of Xtron’s support of the Crossover (Project), Mr Tan said, adding that it was not fair to “tar everyone with the same brush”, citing Lam’s alleged knowledge that the investment bonds were a sham.
His client had “an honest belief … (that) this is an investment which helps the Crossover (Project)”, Mr Tan said.
“NO PERSONAL GAIN BY PASTOR KONG”
“There has been no personal gain by Pastor Kong here,” Kong’s lawyer Edwin Tong said. “It is not disputed that all of the (investment bonds) … went into the Crossover Project”, Mr Tong said, adding that the idea of the bonds was conceived by Chew, Kong’s co-accused.
When Chew brought the idea up to Kong, the latter “instructed (Chew) and (Tan Ye Peng) to check with CHC’s advisers”. In addressing the prosecution’s allegation that Kong “insulate(d) himself” by attributing his approval for the sham transactions to information given to him by “professionals”, Mr Tong said that as Kong was overseas for much of the time, he was “relying on an organizational structure which … has reliance on professional advisers.”
“What is wrong with that?” Mr Tong asked the court.
At the close of the trial, Judge See indicated that he would be ready to deliver his judgement on Oct 21, 2015.
- CNA/vc/wl
If Kong Hee gets jailed, his followers at CHC will defect to Joseph Prince's New Creation or Lawrence Khong's FCBC.
Higher attendance = more $$$.
Also, you get more useful idiots to volunteer their time and work for free ('serving in ministry').
That's how the church business goes.
this NCC is expanding bigger and faster than CHC as some from CHC have already defected to NCC.
My question is simple.
If Kong Hee & Gang are convicted, would the lawyer who advised Kong Hee that it was okay to proceed with the transaction which, by virtue of the conviction is now deemed not just illegal but also criminal, be dealt with by the court or by the Law Society ?
After all, Kong Hee has been insisting throughout that the transaction was approved by his lawyer. And apparently, he picked a top law firm in Singapore.
If Kong Hee & Gang are convicted, would the lawyer who advised Kong Hee that it was okay to proceed with the transaction which, by virtue of the conviction is now deemed not just illegal but also criminal, be dealt with by the court or by the Law Society ?
After all, Kong Hee has been insisting throughout that the transaction was approved by his lawyer. And apparently, he picked a top law firm in Singapore.
by Yen Feng
THE first time I met Kong Hee was in 2009. I was brought to him backstage after a Christmas concert put up by the church and introduced to him as a reporter. We exchanged the usual pleasantries. After he heard I had studied in New York on a scholarship, he offered me a job. I declined. He was shuffled away by a bodyguard in a suit into his dressing room.
Our encounter was over in less than a minute. That was my first impression of him. Not the God-fearing pastor, nor the doting husband and father, but a man who took chances, and quickly moved on when told no.
Today is the last day of closing arguments for the trial. As Kong Hee’s lawyers gave their final oral submissions, the case against him that has lasted almost three years since his arrest in 2012 will renew speculation of his fate. Will he walk free, or go to jail? If convicted, he faces a lifetime behind bars. As a free man, he will face the rest of his life in infamy. Innocent or guilty, life for him will never quite be the same.
Judging by the final submissions from both the defence and prosecution, the case seems to hang on Kong Hee the man, and whether people have been able to say no to him.
Five other church leaders besides him have been accused of misusing some $50 million in church funds to finance his wife Sun Ho’s music career in the United States. But Kong Hee stands at the epicentre of the case not just because he is the church’s founder.
It is because as the founder, he is also its congregation’s spiritual father.
At the height of the church’s popularity in 2010, it had an average weekly attendance of more than 33,000 members who gave generously in time and money. When the church wanted to erect a bigger building, some members contemplated selling their homes to donate to the church’s Building Fund. This may be an extreme example but it was not unusual. Such was the devotion the man commanded.
I had spoken to Kong Hee for less than a minute, but I would go on to spend countless hours reading about him and hearing stories from church members and others in the Christian community who knew him personally. I often wondered if they were talking about the same person.
The judge must be wondering the same thing.
At the heart of Kong’s legal defence is that he did not know that his actions could be criminal. He had acted “in good faith”, with God in one ear and the advice of lawyers and auditors in the other. He was just following instructions.
The prosecution doesn’t buy it. Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh in her final submissions on Monday described Kong as a “well-practised liar” who knew exactly what he was doing. Even though it was Xtron Productions that managed Ms Ho’s career, its directors had acted only in accordance to Kong’s wishes, so the prosecution’s case goes.
Who’s right? The people I spoke with over the two years I reported on this story would probably say the charismatic leader was neither persona exclusively.
Former church leaders and members who have been disenchanted by his management style have used words like “puppeteer” and “God” to describe him. Although his was one of the largest congregations in Singapore, he preferred to keep close to him a handful of loyalists whom he calls his “inner circle”, which include some of the five people who sit at his table in court. If you are disloyal, you are “expunged” or “ex-communicated”. You lose access. Your funds are cut off. You’re no longer “family” – no matter what message is put through the official channels to the rest of the church.
Whether this is true or just talk from disgruntled members who have fallen out of his favour is anyone’s guess. Others I’ve spoken with say he is an able and involved leader. A visionary. Someone who cares about the big picture but also pays attention to details. A person who remembers the names of your children. Someone who takes time to pray with you and for you, even if he’s met you only once.
No matter which side of the fence you’re on, there are facts not in question. Kong Hee, 51, was a student at Raffles Institution and Raffles Junior College. He has a degree from NUS in Computer and Information Sciences. He also has several theological degrees, including a Master of Divinity and Doctorate in Theology from an American seminary. But to the layperson, his fame has more often been linked to his pop-star wife and the spectacle of his rock-concert style services, rather than for the substance of his sermons.
He is also known for his devotion to his wife of 23 years, who suffered two miscarriages before their first and only son Dayan was born in 2005. Dayan was named after Moshe Dayan, an Israeli military general and politician, whom Kong admired greatly.
It was not an easy birth. Ms Ho was bedridden for months, threw up everything she ate, and bled often. Friends close to the couple said Kong became especially protective of Ms Ho after the miscarriages plunged her into a deep depression, something she has spoken to the press about. He wanted to do everything he could to make her happy, and he was not alone in this. Ms Ho was a much-loved personality herself who sang in church often. Church members and employees idolised her. Many frequented her concerts and bought her albums several times over as a show of love and solidarity.
In 2003, this support came under intense media scrutiny when a church member Roland Poon charged that the church was essentially paying for Ms Ho’s music career, which was also part of an evangelical initiative called the Crossover Project to convert non-believers.
Mr Poon’s accusation was viewed widely by the church as an act of disloyalty, and even though he later retracted his statement, it did lead to some fundamental changes concerning the relationship between the church and Ms Ho’s career. Xtron was set up. A new, private “Multi-Purpose Account” was set up.
Members trusted by the inner circle were now invited to redirect their cash tithes discreetly to this account rather than through regular donor envelopes typically handed out during services. Others gave their donations as “love gifts” to church leaders, who then deposited the money into the private account. A source close to the couple told me Kong would fly to Los Angeles, where Ms Ho was based, with cash withdrawn from this private account to pay for their sprawling estate in Hollywood Hills, which had a monthly rental of $28,000, and staff including a nutritionist, fitness instructor, singing coach, and live-in nanny. This was later reported in several local newspapers.
Word spread of the couple’s lavish lifestyle and it seemed the pact between the church’s members and its support for the Crossover Project was starting to come loose.
Shortly after I met Kong Hee in 2009, I was sitting with one of my contacts when the name Roland Poon came up. In another meeting with a different contact a few months later, I was given an envelope that contained an email receipt of a donation to the Multi-Purpose Account. I was persuaded to look into this. Apparently, I was not the only person being tipped off because in May 2010, officers from the Commercial Affairs Department showed up unannounced at the church’s Suntec office at dawn and seized all of its computers and company records.
The six people including Kong were arrested two years later, in 2012, and here we are.
I haven’t met Kong Hee again since our fleeting introduction, and I doubt I ever will. But if I did, I would wish him well. And I pray he will live up to my initial, uninformed impression of him. Not the God-fearing pastor, nor the doting husband and father, but a man who took chances, and quickly moved on – whether the court says yes, or no, to his innocence.
THE first time I met Kong Hee was in 2009. I was brought to him backstage after a Christmas concert put up by the church and introduced to him as a reporter. We exchanged the usual pleasantries. After he heard I had studied in New York on a scholarship, he offered me a job. I declined. He was shuffled away by a bodyguard in a suit into his dressing room.
Our encounter was over in less than a minute. That was my first impression of him. Not the God-fearing pastor, nor the doting husband and father, but a man who took chances, and quickly moved on when told no.
Today is the last day of closing arguments for the trial. As Kong Hee’s lawyers gave their final oral submissions, the case against him that has lasted almost three years since his arrest in 2012 will renew speculation of his fate. Will he walk free, or go to jail? If convicted, he faces a lifetime behind bars. As a free man, he will face the rest of his life in infamy. Innocent or guilty, life for him will never quite be the same.
Judging by the final submissions from both the defence and prosecution, the case seems to hang on Kong Hee the man, and whether people have been able to say no to him.
Five other church leaders besides him have been accused of misusing some $50 million in church funds to finance his wife Sun Ho’s music career in the United States. But Kong Hee stands at the epicentre of the case not just because he is the church’s founder.
It is because as the founder, he is also its congregation’s spiritual father.
At the height of the church’s popularity in 2010, it had an average weekly attendance of more than 33,000 members who gave generously in time and money. When the church wanted to erect a bigger building, some members contemplated selling their homes to donate to the church’s Building Fund. This may be an extreme example but it was not unusual. Such was the devotion the man commanded.
I had spoken to Kong Hee for less than a minute, but I would go on to spend countless hours reading about him and hearing stories from church members and others in the Christian community who knew him personally. I often wondered if they were talking about the same person.
The judge must be wondering the same thing.
At the heart of Kong’s legal defence is that he did not know that his actions could be criminal. He had acted “in good faith”, with God in one ear and the advice of lawyers and auditors in the other. He was just following instructions.
The prosecution doesn’t buy it. Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh in her final submissions on Monday described Kong as a “well-practised liar” who knew exactly what he was doing. Even though it was Xtron Productions that managed Ms Ho’s career, its directors had acted only in accordance to Kong’s wishes, so the prosecution’s case goes.
Who’s right? The people I spoke with over the two years I reported on this story would probably say the charismatic leader was neither persona exclusively.
Former church leaders and members who have been disenchanted by his management style have used words like “puppeteer” and “God” to describe him. Although his was one of the largest congregations in Singapore, he preferred to keep close to him a handful of loyalists whom he calls his “inner circle”, which include some of the five people who sit at his table in court. If you are disloyal, you are “expunged” or “ex-communicated”. You lose access. Your funds are cut off. You’re no longer “family” – no matter what message is put through the official channels to the rest of the church.
Whether this is true or just talk from disgruntled members who have fallen out of his favour is anyone’s guess. Others I’ve spoken with say he is an able and involved leader. A visionary. Someone who cares about the big picture but also pays attention to details. A person who remembers the names of your children. Someone who takes time to pray with you and for you, even if he’s met you only once.
No matter which side of the fence you’re on, there are facts not in question. Kong Hee, 51, was a student at Raffles Institution and Raffles Junior College. He has a degree from NUS in Computer and Information Sciences. He also has several theological degrees, including a Master of Divinity and Doctorate in Theology from an American seminary. But to the layperson, his fame has more often been linked to his pop-star wife and the spectacle of his rock-concert style services, rather than for the substance of his sermons.
He is also known for his devotion to his wife of 23 years, who suffered two miscarriages before their first and only son Dayan was born in 2005. Dayan was named after Moshe Dayan, an Israeli military general and politician, whom Kong admired greatly.
It was not an easy birth. Ms Ho was bedridden for months, threw up everything she ate, and bled often. Friends close to the couple said Kong became especially protective of Ms Ho after the miscarriages plunged her into a deep depression, something she has spoken to the press about. He wanted to do everything he could to make her happy, and he was not alone in this. Ms Ho was a much-loved personality herself who sang in church often. Church members and employees idolised her. Many frequented her concerts and bought her albums several times over as a show of love and solidarity.
In 2003, this support came under intense media scrutiny when a church member Roland Poon charged that the church was essentially paying for Ms Ho’s music career, which was also part of an evangelical initiative called the Crossover Project to convert non-believers.
Mr Poon’s accusation was viewed widely by the church as an act of disloyalty, and even though he later retracted his statement, it did lead to some fundamental changes concerning the relationship between the church and Ms Ho’s career. Xtron was set up. A new, private “Multi-Purpose Account” was set up.
Members trusted by the inner circle were now invited to redirect their cash tithes discreetly to this account rather than through regular donor envelopes typically handed out during services. Others gave their donations as “love gifts” to church leaders, who then deposited the money into the private account. A source close to the couple told me Kong would fly to Los Angeles, where Ms Ho was based, with cash withdrawn from this private account to pay for their sprawling estate in Hollywood Hills, which had a monthly rental of $28,000, and staff including a nutritionist, fitness instructor, singing coach, and live-in nanny. This was later reported in several local newspapers.
Word spread of the couple’s lavish lifestyle and it seemed the pact between the church’s members and its support for the Crossover Project was starting to come loose.
Shortly after I met Kong Hee in 2009, I was sitting with one of my contacts when the name Roland Poon came up. In another meeting with a different contact a few months later, I was given an envelope that contained an email receipt of a donation to the Multi-Purpose Account. I was persuaded to look into this. Apparently, I was not the only person being tipped off because in May 2010, officers from the Commercial Affairs Department showed up unannounced at the church’s Suntec office at dawn and seized all of its computers and company records.
The six people including Kong were arrested two years later, in 2012, and here we are.
I haven’t met Kong Hee again since our fleeting introduction, and I doubt I ever will. But if I did, I would wish him well. And I pray he will live up to my initial, uninformed impression of him. Not the God-fearing pastor, nor the doting husband and father, but a man who took chances, and quickly moved on – whether the court says yes, or no, to his innocence.
The only winners are the lawyers.
Never trust lawyers, politians and mata mata.
I am hoping that the case gets thrown out. I hate to see Serina Wee in jail. It is so .... unfashionable.
Similar threads
