Tag Archives: courts

Kong’s controversial email in court exposes Phil Pringle as a false prophet

26 Tuesday Aug 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What was a “big factor” for Kong Hee and Sun Ho to go to China?

“Finally, it was a word given by Phil Pringle to Sun privately in May 2005 that gave them clarity to their path. “He said, ‘Five more years, because God is going to open a big door for CHC in China to be a blessing to the people.’ That word gave us the courage, faith and confirmation to resume the Crossover Project,” said Kong.” – Yong Yung Shin, http://www.citynews.sg/2012/05/city-harvest-church-10-years-of-the-crossover-project/, City Harvest Church: 10 Years Of The Crossover Project, 09/05/2012. (Accessed 27/09/2012.)

Here is Kong Hee in 2010 telling people at C3 Presence Conference how prophetic Phil Pringle is and how successful Sun Ho was in China:

“Pastor Phil and Pastor Chris, they carry a spirit of prophecy. And five years ago when my little baby was born, Dayan, and my wife and I were thinking about taking a six month break. Go to Europe. Just backpack. Take little Dayan. We’ve been planting. I mean we’ve been running the church for so long.

And then Pastor Phil came to Singapore. And four months after little Dayan was born, in one of those meetings, the Holy Spirit HIT. And how many of you know that- talking about being dangerous, when the Holy Spirit comes upon Pastor Phil, he gets dangerous. Right?

And he starts prophesying, “Sun! It’s not time for you to stop. You got to go to China.”

And at that word, you know we let go of our nets. And then- so Sun’s been on the road right now. She’s living in the LA. And true enough, China opened up. She became the music ambassador for the Olympic games. Sang at the special olympics. Sang the anthem at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. And just last week, I mean – she’s a few months away from launching her début album in America. Just let you know, her first single, last month was number one in the US, number one in the UK on the secular charts. Lets praise God for that! Hallelujah! So we got Pastor Phil to thank for that.” – Kong hee, C3 Presence Conference, Session 4, Sydney, 2010. [Watch video here]

Is this why Kong Hee blamed Phil Pringle for all this mess?

The Straits Times reports,

Kong decided on ‘what money to spend, how much and where it would come from’

SINGAPORE – City Harvest founder Kong Hee was the key decision-maker behind plans to sink church funds into his wife’s Ho Yeow Sun’s music career in the United States, the prosecution said in court on Wednesday.

They also sought to show that Kong closely supervised the other co-defendants. Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong produced a 2007 e-mail in which Kong had berated Tan Ye Peng for failing to ensure that his wife’s China concerts were a success.

“The Beijing and Shanghai events cost us so much money… but at the end, who came? It was a joke!” said Kong in the e-mail. “Time wasted. Efforts wasted. Objectives not met. Money thrown away unnecessarily. I don’t get it. How have we become good stewards of money? We tried to save a few thousands on hotels and (threw) hundreds and thousands on result-less concerts.”

Kong added: “How I wish I can run the whole show the way I run our church (in) the last 18 years! But I can’t… (My wife and I) are putting our lives and destiny at the hands of our disciples, our spiritual children. We hope you guys don’t let us down.”

While Kong has maintained that he was involved only in the budgeting for the US foray and left the fundraising to others, the prosecution alleged that Kong made decisions about “what money to spend, how much and where it would come from”. The prosecution produced statements made by Kong’s co-defendants to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) to bolster the point.

Kong and five others face various charges for their part in the alleged misuse of some $50 million of church funds to boost Ms Ho’s music career, and then to cover up the deed. Several of them allegedly got the funds out of City Harvest coffers by investing the money in sham bonds issued by two companies, Xtron Productions and Firna, which were run by church members. Xtron was Ms Ho’s artist manager at one time.

While Kong maintained that Xtron directors had to give approval for company transactions to finance her career, statements made by Kong’s co-defendants Serina Wee, Chew Eng Han and Tan to the CAD contradicted this, said the prosecution.

According to the three defendants, Xtron directors were “updated” only after Tan, Wee and Kong had made the decisions. “Xtron directors were not actively involved,” said Chew in his statement. “Technically they can challenge (the decisions), but they would not because they are doing the right thing by giving their full support,” he said.

Kong disagreed. He said that Xtron directors being “updated” meant their approval for the transactions were sought, and in the end it was the directors who had final say over whether the deals were made.

Source: By Feng Zengkun, Kong decided on ‘what money to spend, how much and where it would come from’, The Straits Times, http://www.straitstimes.com/news/singapore/courts-crime/story/kong-decided-what-money-spend-how-much-and-where-it-would-come-201#sthash.ZMf2fMfG.dpuf, Published on Aug 20, 2014 2:08 PM. (Accessed 21/08/2014.)

The leaky ship reveals leaky trip

08 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Knowing that Phil Pringle reads our site, you have got to wonder how Phil Pringle is personal receiving this information on CHC.

Channel News Asia reports,

Five City Harvest Church leaders on trial met to discuss their defence

SINGAPORE: Five of the six City Harvest Church leaders had met at least once in 2013 to discuss their defence, according to an email chain highlighted by the prosecution in court on Thursday (Aug 7). The court heard that church founder Kong Hee was not present at the meeting. The leaders are accused of using monies from the church’s building fund to buy sham bonds in Xtron and Firna to fund the secular music career of Sun Ho – the wife of church founder Kong Hee.

In an email, the church’s former investment manager and co-accused Chew Eng Han says he is “convinced” that they are not on the same page regarding the substance of their defence and some of them had shifted their position on what the bonds were actually for.

He adds that he is “disturbed” by this, and that these differences should be discussed when they next meet. Chew was also the one who brought the email chain to the court’s attention. It was admitted after a closed-door hearing on Tuesday.

Another email also revealed that his co-accused – John Lam, Serina Wee, and Sharon Tan had also raised concerns about whether they were all on the same page about the round-tripping charges.

In an email to Chew dated Feb 3, 2013, John Lam wrote: “The 2 girls have a concern. If on the bond issue there seem to be a “different page”, how about the round trip? Are we having the different view as well. Obviously we rather not.” He then suggests a meet-up to discuss this. When initially questioned by the prosecution, he had denied talking to the other accused persons about what should be said at trial.

The prosecution then questioned Lam about why – if he was truly honest – would he be worried about his co-accused taking a different view of the charges.

Lead Prosecutor Mavis Chionh asked: “Do you agree that if you are an honest accused person who is going to go to court and tell the truth… you would not be trying to meet up with your co-accused persons and worrying about their taking a different view from yours on the charges?”

In wrapping up her cross-examination on Lam, Ms Chionh also said that Lam had placed the interests of the Crossover Project over and above his duty as a church board member to ensure proper stewardship of the church’s Building Fund. She also pointed out that Lam knew using the Building Fund monies to finance Ms Ho’s career was an unauthorised use of the funds, and that his keen awareness of this was why he had desperately tried to claim ignorance during the trial.

“It is also because of this guilty knowledge that you are now trying to disassociate yourself from the transactions and instead to push the blame to some of your co-accused, from blaming Sharon Tan, for example, for wrongly recording minutes, to blaming Chew Eng Han, whom you say was responsible for feeding you information,” she said.

Ms Chionh also gave a scathing assessment of Lam’s defence saying that it has essentially been one of “I don’t know, nobody told me, and if they did tell me, they didn’t ask me for advice”. She said given his status within the church, financial expertise, and documentary evidence, his defence is not only “untenable” but “deeply cynical”.

Source: By Kimberly Spykerman, Five City Harvest Church leaders on trial met to discuss their defence, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/five-city-harvest-church/1302222.html?cid=FBSG, Published 07/08/2014 22:25.  Updated: 07/08/2014 22:26. (Accessed 08/08/2014.)

(EDIT – 16/08/2014 – Insert of CityNews article.)

CityNews reports,

CHC Trial: Defense Objects To “Unfounded” Insinuation Of Fresh Exhibit

DPP Mavis Chionh throws curveball suggestions at defendant late into the day based on new evidence submitted by church’s former fund manager Chew Eng Han, prompting rigorous objections from the defense team.

Late this afternoon in court, senior counsel N Sreenivasan for Tan Ye Peng objected strongly when deputy public prosecutor Mavis Chionh made an attempt to “inject unknown suppositions” in her questioning of John Lam.

In a new email exhibit submitted by accused party Chew Eng Han, the court saw that a discussion had allegedly taken place among the defendants in Feb 2013, over half a year after criminal charges had been pressed against the six.

The email showed Lam informing Chew that co-defendants Sharon Tan and Serina Wee wanted to meet up to talk about the round-tripping charges, and that it was preferable for them not to have differing views from one another.

Wouldn’t an accused person who is honest just go to court and tell the truth instead of trying to meet up with his co-accused persons, worrying about their taking a different view from him on the charges? asked Chionh.

At that, Sreenivasan stood up and objected to Chionh’s question because it suggested that consulting one’s co-accused was a dishonest act. “Even an honest person in a joint trial will be concerned about all the evidence, including the evidence of the co-accused,” he reminded the court.

“I’m objecting to the fact that the entry of this document is being used to make insinuations that are unfounded,” he said.

The judge allowed the question, however, leading Lam to testify that he disagreed with the DPP’s suggestion.

In the last piece of evidence in the prosecution’s cross-examination, Chionh presented to the court a spreadsheet sent to Chew by Lam, which contained information about external loans that had been taken in order to provide funds to Xtron to fulfil its liability to City Harvest Church.

When asked why Wahju Hanafi was listed in the list of creditors who had extended the external loans, when he was the guarantor of the Crossover Project, Lam replied that he did not know.

Earlier, Chionh also sought to establish the depth of Lam’s involvement in the restructuring and redemption of the Xtron and Firna bonds, and questioned his lack of objection when a particular proposal, which seemed not protective of CHC’s interest, was made by Chew.

Lam explained that he could not see how the proposal could work, but did not offer his view because at that stage, plans and scenarios were at an exploratory stage.

Chionh labelled his explanations “absurd” and “unreasonable.” She asked Lam, hypothetically, if somebody had proposed to him a plan to steal his company’s money, would he also have kept silent? Lam replied that it was not the same—one was simply a plan he felt was unworkable, while the other was an outright crime.

In winding up the prosecution’s cross-examination today, Chionh put forward her case against Lam as follows.

“You knew that the Building Fund could not be used to fund the Crossover directly, and that was why this use of the Building Fund had to be disguised as a legitimate investment.

“You were a board member at the time, Mr Lam, is it not the case that you placed the interests of the Crossover over and above your duty as a CHC board member to ensure proper stewardship of the Building Fund?

“You may have had your own motives for why you chose to misuse the church funds in this way, but the bottom line, I’m putting to you, is that you were aware that using the Building Fund to finance Sun Ho’s music career in the Crossover was an unauthorised use of the Building Fund.”

Lam disagreed with all her points. His lawyer, Kenneth Tan, will be conducting re-examination tomorrow.

Court resumes at 10am tomorrow.

Source: The City News Team, CHC Trial: Defense Objects To “Unfounded” Insinuation Of Fresh Exhibit, CityNews, http://www.citynews.sg/2014/08/chc-trial-defense-objects-to-unfounded-insinuation-of-fresh-exhibit/,  Updated 11:36 pm 07/08/2014. (Accessed 15/08/2014.)

Related articles:

Kong in court: The Lord is my rancher?

CHC trial… to be Kong-tinued?

23 Wednesday Apr 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The defense says that there is “no case against CHC leaders” while the prosecution claims that the “accused fed auditors a pack of lies”.

Yonggi Cho Kong Hee Phil Pringle

Channel News Asia reports,

No case against City Harvest Church leaders, say lawyers

The defence lawyers representing the six leaders of City Harvest Church have attacked the prosecution’s case, saying that no evidence has been produced to show that the accused misused church funds.

SINGAPORE: The defence lawyers representing the six leaders of City Harvest Church have attacked the prosecution’s case, saying that no evidence has been produced to show that the accused misused church funds.

This comes after 42 days of trial and evidence from 14 prosecution witnesses.

Chief District Judge See Kee Oon has to decide after the submissions, if the defence has a case to answer.

Church founder Kong Hee and five of his deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church’s building fund monies to boost the career of Kong’s wife, singer Sun Ho.

They are accused of doing so through “sham bond investments” and by round-tripping the funds.

A key argument was with regard to how the charges were framed.

The prosecution’s case is that the accused were entrusted with the church funds and had full control over them.

But the defence said this was not true.

It pointed out that there was no resolution passed by the church board, indicating who were the people who were decision makers and could control the church funds.

As such, the defence’s point was that the church board decided on the use of church funds as a whole.

Another point made by the defence was that the church’s building fund could be invested and in this case, it was invested in Xtron, which was a firm the church supported and knew about.

The money invested in Xtron was then used to fund the Crossover Project, which was used for evangelism and the church members all knew about it.

So there was no concealment and there was no dishonesty about it.

Source: By Claire Huang, No case against City Harvest Church leaders, say lawyers, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/no-case-against-city/1063544.html, Posted on 11 Apr 2014 11:13. (Accessed 11/24/2014.)

The Courtroom reports,

City Harvest Trial: Accused fed auditors a pack of lies, say Prosecution

The prosecution in the City Harvest Church case mounted a stinging rebuttal yesterday as it sought to prove it had presented enough evidence for the trial to continue.

Tearing into arguments by the defence, Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh strived to show again that the six accused had varyingly cooked deals to misuse church funds, “fed a pack of lies” to auditors and “created false appearances in City Harvest’s books”, reports The Straits Times.

“There is clearly enough evidence for the defence to be called,” she said, after taking the court through a summary of the prosecution’s case.

She was responding to defence lawyers who had argued that, despite 42 days of trial since last May and 14 prosecution witnesses, the prosecution had failed to show enough evidence for the charges against their clients.

The defence wants the case thrown out. The judge will rule on that on May 5.

Church founder Kong Hee and five others are accused of misusing about $50 million in church funds in total. While their lawyers had consistently said auditors vetted and approved allegedly suspicious transactions, Ms Chionh said relying on this defence was “misconceived at best and disingenuous at worst” as the prosecution believes the accused hid information from the auditors.

She pointed to church auditor Sim Guan Seng, who had said earlier in the trial that he would have “raised some red flags” about certain transactions had he been privy to more information.

The defence said some of the information had existed in his audit firm Baker Tilly TFW’s archives.

By relying on the auditors’ approval as a defence now, the accused were “like the fraudster who manages to hide his own crimes, then tries to rely on his success in hiding that crime to exonerate himself”, Ms Chionh said.

She also disagreed with lawyer Andre Maniam’s assertion that his client, former finance manager Serina Wee, had not been dishonest and could not be guilty of criminal breach of trust since the “church money was used for church purposes”.

While part of the allegedly misused funds was spent to advance the pop music career of Kong’s wife Ho Yeow Sun, defence lawyers said the church had accepted her music as a form of evangelism.

Ms Chionh said the evidence showed the money had been illegally taken from the church’s building fund.

While the defence lawyers said the prosecution had taken e-mails and messages among the accused out of context and misinterpreted them, Ms Chionh disagreed, adding that “the totality of the evidence was sufficient” to call for the defence.

Source: City Harvest Trial: Accused fed auditors a pack of lies, say Prosecution, http://thecourtroom.stomp.com.sg/courtroom/cases/city-harvest-case/city-harvest-trial-accused-fed-auditors-a-pack-of-lies-say-prosecution, The Courtroom, Posted on 10 April 2014. (Accessed 14/04/2014.)

 

 

A C3 Church Update & A CHC Court Wrap Up

18 Tuesday Feb 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 14 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

C3 Church Update

Phil Pringle must be speaking furiously (by faith) over this court case for Kong Hee to obtain the victory. If Kong Hee loses, Pringle’s congregation will see him as a spiritual fraud. (That is unless his leadership keep leaking information to the congregation which in turn makes them leave before the trial finishes.)

To all C3 leaders and members reading this website: Thank you for providing us with information from the C3 leadership meetings and updating us on the state of affairs within C3 Church Oxford Falls.

We encourage you to keep spreading our articles and news reports that expose the scheming nature of Phil Pringle and Kong Hee to other C3 members.

Where There’s A Phil There’s A Way

Phil Pringle Misleading His Church Over Kong Hee’s Case

Prophet Pringle Plundering People’s Pockets For Kong Hee’s Cause

And God Told Pringle That Kong Would Not Be “Behind Bars”

Pringle Using His Prophecy Of Kong Hee To Elevate His ‘Prophetic Message’

Beyond Words… Pringle Sinks To New Depths At Global Presence Conference 2013

Kong Hee To Phil Pringle: “You created this mess! You’ve Got To Come And Help Us Fix It”

Kong Hee Again Blames Phil Pringle For SunTec Mess: “… it’s all your fault, Pastor!”

“You Can Inform Your Readers That Phil Is A Father In The Faith To Kong.” – Pastor & Executive Regional C3 Americas Overseer

Do Pastors Really Want To Endorse The Ministry Of Kong Hee & Sun Ho?

Encourage C3 members to think for themselves and engage them in intellectual discussion. Let them know when they are engaging with you on an irrational or emotional level and patiently lead them to the truth of their ways.

More importantly, keep using your connect group time to ignore the Connect Group notes and keep testing what we are teaching you to the Word of God. Make sure you read the bible in context. Read large portions of scripture. Keep discussing with an open bible what Phil Pringle, Kong Hee and Sun Ho are doing.

You are in our prayers. Pray that repentance comes to these institutions.

We apologise for the delay of this article. Channel NewsAsia reports,

Prosecution wraps up case against City Harvest Church leaders

The prosecution on Monday wrapped up its case against the six leaders of the City Harvest Church after completing questioning of its last witness, Mdm Foong Ai Fang, an audit manager at Baker Tilly.

SINGAPORE: The prosecution on Monday wrapped up its case against the six leaders of the City Harvest Church after completing questioning of its last witness, Mdm Foong Ai Fang, an audit manager at Baker Tilly.

Church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church’s building fund monies to boost the career of singer Sun Ho.

After 42 days in court, the defence lawyers have indicated that they will submit to the judge that the defendants have no case to answer.

Both the prosecution and defence will exchange written submissions on this in March.

In April, District Judge See Kee Oon will decide if the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to support its claims of criminal breach of trust, among other things.

The prosecution argued that this was done through “sham bond investments” in Xtron and Firna.

Last month, the lead auditor in-charge of the church’s accounts testified that the bond investments made by the church did not make sense.

Mr Sim Guan Seng of Baker Tilly said that the bond transactions between the church, Xtron and Firna looked as though they were set up for specific purposes, which would “raise a lot of red flags”.

But the defence countered that the investments were not “sham” just because Mr Sim said they were not sound.

A key point of contention was the secrecy that shrouded the discussions among the accused.

Referring to various emails, the prosecution tried to make the point that the defendants were hiding information from the auditors as well as church members.

But the defence pointed out that there was no breach in the church’s constitution when the Building Fund was used for the investments.

Its case is that it was always clear the church’s building fund monies were used to produce Ms Ho’s music albums and that the auditors signed off on the various audits.

It also stressed that no church money was lost.

But the court also heard that the information which the auditors based their work on came from the accused.

If the judge decides that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence, the defence will present its case in July.

Source: By Claire Huang, Prosecution wraps up case against City Harvest Church leaders, Channel NewsAsia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/prosecution-wraps-up-case/991282.html, Posted, 10/02/2014 19:02. (Accessed 12/02/2014.)

And God Told Pringle That Kong Would Not Be “Behind Bars”

26 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

proof_FaceBook-Foong_27-01-2014

We hope that Senior District Judge See Kee Oon takes note of Mr Foong claiming God spoke to him saying, “Son, speak to the judge”.

Foong later claimed, “initially I was quite upset, but then I know where they are coming from… They are definitely very troubled”. The “troubled” that Foong mentioned were “two defendants” that “came to [his] office seeking prayer”. So God wanted Foong Daw Ching to say to the judge that those two defendants are “are definitely very troubled”?

Who does Foong Daw Ching think he is?

Isn’t this cult-like behaviour to use God to speak like this to a judge? In Foong’s mind, who is this judge to now think he has the right to have an opinion on these “two defendants” contrary to what God said to him?

And since God is speaking to Foong Daw Ching, why doesn’t he ask God to fix his faulty memory so he can help the court?

We bring this to our readers attention for this reason: CHC’s Advisory Pastor, CHC ‘Apostle’ and ‘Prophet’ gave this “Apostolic proclamation and blessing” over Kong Hee and Sun Ho back in his 2011 Presence Conference.

“In Jesus name, Father we pronounce victory. [Crowd cheers]. We pronounce conquering. We pronounce deliverance in JESUS NAME. NOT ONE NIGHT WILL THIS FAIR HEAD SPEND BEHIND BARS. LORD GOD YOUR NAME IS EXALTED. YOU WILL GLORIFY THE NAME OF JESUS to this great man and his wife and that awesome church that they have built by the power of God and in the name of Jesus…” [Read/Listen to more here]

We’ve revealed that Phil Pringle of the C3 Church movement has mislead the general Singaporean public about his past, which has led many in CHC to believe he is an “Apostle”. We have continually revealed that Pringle has uttered false prophecies proving he is a false prophet. We have continually exposed how he uses his platform, prophecies and pouts to discredit anyone who has issues with his leadership. In fact, we know that he has huge issues with people (especially his leaders) visiting our site. In his eyes (or God’s) we are “very troubled”. And Pringle’s henchmen and members continually defend what “God is doing” at C3 and dismiss those that oppose them as “troubled”. This attitude is also evident as we have now seen in CHC leadership.

Is this not the height of arrogance? Should we be surprised the world mocks the church for this ludicrousy? Should we be shocked that Jesus calls those who “prophesy”, those who claim to “hear God” and “speak on his behalf” “lawless ones”? (Matt 7:15-23.)

We hope that the court comes to realise they are not dealing with a biblical ‘elder’.  They are not dealing with ‘pastors’ of a ‘church’. They are dealing with leaders of a cult. This means Foong Daw Ching fails the biblical requirements laid out in Titus 1:5-9. Specifically, he is disqualified as an elder (see bold),

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

A true biblical elder would NOT remain in a church like CHC that continually desecrates the name of Jesus, His gospel and His Word. As we’ve seen, the CHC leadership is not even faithful with the basic handling of God Himself and His Holy scriptures. If a cult like this can get away with mishandling the basics of the Christian faith (either deliberately or unintentionally), it is only a matter of time before they are back in the courts over another issue that is badly mishandled. The Singaporean churches and the government need to approach issues within CHC with much wisdom.

The Straits Times reports,

Auditor: God told me to speak to the judge

SINGAPORE – Court proceedings for the City Harvest trial kicked off on Thurday with a surprise request by prosecution witness Foong Daw Ching to tell the judge “something from my heart”.

Senior District Judge See Kee Oon allowed it.

Mr Foong said that while he was sleeping the night before, “this voice kept coming to me, and as a Christian, I believe this voice must be from God. He said, ‘Son, speak to the judge.'”

The 63-year-old auditor said he was “hurt” that in the past few days, the defence accused him of distancing himself from City Harvest Church. He then pointed out that two of the accused had, in fact, taken advantage of him during a recent meeting.

Mr Foong had met John Lam and Tan Ye Peng last December to discuss the case. It was revealed this week that the two church leaders filed their own notes on what Mr Foong said in case he changed his tune.

Mr Foong said they did not tell him they were taking notes. They had asked to meet him to pray together, and he agreed as he is “an elder and a Christian counsellor”.

“Two of the defendants came to my office seeking prayer, yet they took the opportunity to record, thinking that I may say something otherwise.. for some safety,” he said.

When he found out about this during the trial, “initially I was quite upset, but then I know where they are coming from… They are definitely very troubled”, he said.

Mr Foong also wanted to restate what he knew about the six accused and City Harvest, but the judge disallowed it as the defence is still cross-examining him.

Defence lawyers have sought to show that church leaders looked up to Mr Foong and trusted his advice, and that his consistent denial that he gave them detailed guidance on various transactions was “breaking their hearts”.

Tessa Wong, Auditor: God told me to speak to the judge, The Straits Times, http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/auditor-god-told-me-speak-judge, Sep 22, 2013. (Accessed 27/01/2014.)

CHC Revelations: Poor Explanations Resulted In Resignations

25 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

The “rats” continue to “jump”.

Channel News Asia reports,

CHC trial: Bond investments “do not make sense”, says auditor

The lead auditor going through the City Harvest Church’s books testified on Tuesday that the bond investments made by the church and some related firms “do not make sense” and had “gone one round”.

SINGAPORE: The lead auditor going through the City Harvest Church’s books testified on Tuesday that the bond investments made by the church and some related firms “do not make sense” and had “gone one round”.

On the stand for the third day, Sim Guan Seng of Baker Tilly was taken through the church’s investments, which were subsequently invested in or loaned to other firms.

These related firms were AMAC Capital Partners, Xtron, Firna and Ultimate Assets.

The church had invested in a “special opportunity fund” (SOF) in AMAC, which was owned by accused Chew Eng Han.

AMAC was the fund manager of the church at that time.

Through documents raised in court, Mr Sim said AMAC then loaned the church’s money to Ultimate Assets, which in turn used the same sum of money and loaned it to Firna, also known as PT The First National Glassware.

Ultimate Assets and Firna are owned by businessman and long-time church member Wahju Hanafi, who testified in the trial previously.

Mr Sim added that Firna then used the same sum to redeem the Firna bond.

He described this as “round one”.

The witness said “the same thing happened” for “round two”, where a similar cycle took place.

In all, the church invested S$11.4 million in AMAC’s SOF in different tranches.

Mr Sim noted the initial sum of S$11.4 million made “one round”.

Mr Sim said adding to the “confusing” transactions was the advanced rental agreement between the church and events company Xtron, which also made “one round”.

Mr Sim told the court that the advanced rental from the church paid to Xtron was used by Xtron to invest in Firna bonds.

Firna would then repay the loan it took from Ultimate Assets and then Ultimate Assets would repay the loan to AMAC.

This made it possible for AMAC to redeem the S$11.4 million bonds bought by the church.

When asked about the significance of these transactions, Mr Sim said it meant that the church started off with an investment in Firna and ended up with advanced rental paid to Xtron in their books.

“Looking at the Excel sheet would lead me to question whether the investments by CHC in SOF… are really investments in the first place or if they are done to facilitate or to help Firna repay the Firna bonds that City Harvest had invested in,” said Mr Sim.

“The amount transferred seems to facilitate that.

“Just looking at this spreadsheet, it seems to be a plan to enable Firna to repay the bond before the end of the financial year. So, that means the SOF investment itself would be a very questionable investment.”

Mr Sim added that this would then raise the doubt that the church and Xtron entered into the advance rental agreement for purposes other than what was represented to him.

The prosecution’s case is that church founder Kong Hee and his five deputies misused millions of the church’s building fund to boost singer Sun Ho’s career.

They alleged that the accused did so through “sham bond investments” in Xtron and Firna.

It is also the prosecution’s case that some of the accused tried to cover up the misuse through what it calls “round-tripping”.

The court heard that the church had previously declared that no money was lost from its kitty.

This is also part of the accused persons’ line of defence.

During the hearing, Mr Sim also said Baker Tilly had resigned as auditors of the church last October.

He said they had conducted their audit for 2010 mid-way and had raised several issues to the management and board but were unable to obtain satisfactory answers, so they decided to step down.

The firm has resigned from Xtron as well.

Mr Sim will be cross-examined by the defence on Wednesday.

Source: By Claire Huang, CHC trial: Bond investments “do not make sense”, says auditor, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/chc-trial-bond/961734.html, Posted: 21/01/2014 14:29, Updated: 21/01/2014 23:35. (Accessed 26/01/2014.)

To C3 Church Readers: A Summary Of The CHC Saga

20 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It is concerning that Phil Pringle is keeping his C3 Oxford Falls leaders and congregation and his entire network of C3 churches in his movement in the dark.

This article from the blog ‘Not Under The Table’ gives a great overview and catch up for those not yet up to date with the whole Kong Hee saga. If you are involved in a C3 Church, feel free to pass this article onto other C3 members so they can understand CHC’s situation.

The blog ‘Not Under The Table’ writes,

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 (https://www.charities.gov.sg/Documents/COC_Press_Statement_on_CHC__26_June_2012.pdf)

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 somesubstantial 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.

Source: By notunderthetable, Not Under The Table, Why It Is NOT Unacceptable That the CHC Trial is Taking So Long…, http://notunderthetable.blogspot.sg/2014/01/why-it-is-unacceptable-that-chc-trial.html, 19/01/2014. (Accessed 20/01/2014.)

CityNews Recalls Pringle’s Prophecy: “The Church Would Double Its Size, But Only After A Trying Time”

14 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Only CityNews could have exposed another false prophecy of Phil Pringle. They write,

“Building on the previous week’s message of believing and confessing, the theme of spiritual warfare sought to rouse the congregation to consecrate themselves through prayer, fasting and reading the Word as the church enters one of the most challenging periods of its history, bringing to mind a prophesy that Phil Pringle, CHC’s advisory pastor, had uttered four years ago.

On March 16, 2008, Pringle had declared that the church would double its size, but only after a trying time; its people would have emerged from the wilderness, from a trial, a fight with the devil, and opposition from all sides. Indeed, the trial came five years later in June 2012 as charges were brought against the church’s leaders.”

This raises a few concerns.

1. We alerted readers to the fact that that Kong Hee and Phil Pringle aren’t even honest with church attendance figures.[Read Here] If Pringle is unafraid to often exaggerate church figures, why should we trust this prophecy?

2. By the way it is reported, Pringle speaks on behalf of God, demonising  “opposition from all sides” that come against CHC. (Typical Phil.) The fact that Kong alerts this audience to the Pringle’s ‘prophecy’ allows him to again demonise Kong and CHC whether their opposition’s criticisms are valid or not.

However this next point is the most concerning aspect of the so-called ‘prophecy’.

3. We have exposed again and again that Phil Pringle is a false prophet and as  a result can not be used by God to speak honestly on the Holy Spirit’s behalf. His false prophecies over a church often conclude that church will either experience revival, grow prosperously or increase greatly in attendance. [Read Here]

Knowing that it is impossible for God to speak through false prophets such as Pringle, our question is this:

What did Phil Pringle know about Kong Hee and CHC in 2008 that made him ‘prophesy’ CHC would face “opposition from all sides” but come out of “a trial” (or “emerge from the wilderness”) that would result in their church growing?

CHCs propaganda rag reports,

Arise & Build: A House Of Consecration

…

Consecrating oneself through prayer, praise, profession and prophecy is the weapon the believer uses to bring revival to the nations.

By Michelle Heng

Mark 4 is not a passage usually quoted in the context of spiritual warfare, but in his sermon over the weekend of Oct. 6 and 7, the second of seven weeks before City Harvest Church begins its Arise & Build season, senior pastor Kong Hee shared that Jesus was not rebuking the natural elements of wind and water when He silenced the storm.

Instead, He was silencing a demonic entity in the storm that had wanted to stop Jesus and His disciples from reaching Gadara, a part of the Decapolis, a group of 10 cities that eventually played a vital role in early church history.

Demonic principalities rule over geographical territories, and these forces have to be resisted and dethroned before the kingdom of God can be established and revival can come to a nation.

The significance of the figure “10” is not lost on CHC—the church’s outreach efforts during its Crossover Project impacted 10 nations in Asia; additionally, Singapore is part of ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), which comprises 10 nations: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore.

Building on the previous week’s message of believing and confessing, the theme of spiritual warfare sought to rouse the congregation to consecrate themselves through prayer, fasting and reading the Word as the church enters one of the most challenging periods of its history, bringing to mind a prophesy that Phil Pringle, CHC’s advisory pastor, had uttered four years ago.

On March 16, 2008, Pringle had declared that the church would double its size, but only after a trying time; its people would have emerged from the wilderness, from a trial, a fight with the devil, and opposition from all sides. Indeed, the trial came five years later in June 2012 as charges were brought against the church’s leaders.

Kong also shared a documented account of a missionary who ministered at the Brazil-Uruguay border. When this minister approached people to give out tracts at the Uruguayan side of the border, people immediately rejected him and refused to hear him speak. On the other side, however, the Brazilians were extremely open to hear the gospel.

One day, this missionary approached a woman with a tract on the Uruguayan side; twice he was rejected by her. When she crossed over to Brazil, he was prompted to approach her one more time. To his surprise, she had a total change of attitude and opened up her heart to hear him. Later, he learned that a group of intercessors had been praying years for an open heaven over Brazil.

“Revival begins and ends with geographical boundaries, and we need to pull down strongholds over each country.” Kong said.

THE DUTY OF RESISTING IS OURS TO CARRY OUT

Kong cited a 1952 incident that happened to American preacher Kenneth E. Hagin, in which he had a vision of Jesus, and He was giving him important instructions. A demon then appeared, attempting to distract him by making noise and throwing dark smoke up such that it blocked his vision of Jesus.

Wondering why Jesus was not doing anything about the demonic nuisance in front of him, Hagin, finally exasperated, commanded the demon to stop talking and leave. Immediately, it did. Jesus said to him, “Kenny, if you hadn’t done anything about that, I couldn’t have.”

It was a revelation to Hagin, who learned that the duty to resist the devil (James 4:7) was the believer’s and not God’s.

ANGELS RIDE ON THE WINGS OF PRAYERS

Underscoring the importance of persisting in prayer in spiritual warfare, Kong shared that angels ride on the wings of the prayers of believers, just as an archangel responded to Daniel’s fasting and praying in Daniel 10:12-13—but not before he overcame the “king of Persia”—the demonic strongman of the region. “Imagine if Daniel had stopped praying and fasting because nothing happened during these 21 days; his breakthrough would not have come!”

Satan is a deceiver, tempter and accuser, but Christians have three powerful weapons against him.

1)     The Word Of God
Jesus is the living Word, and the Bible, as the written Word are equally powerful, but only when it is being used.

2)     The Name Of Jesus
Believers have the legal authority (power of attorney) to use the name of Jesus to defeat the devices of satan. The name of Jesus is akin to a spiritual “blank check” that believers cash in when they wage spiritual warfare.

3)     The Blood Of Jesus
Satan’s favorite role is to be an accuser of the brethren, but as Revelation 12:10-11 states, the blood of Jesus is a reminder of what happened at the cross—the defeat of satan. Through the blood, Christians are now forgiven, righteous, sanctified and made the temple of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, believers need to “apply” the blood of Jesus through their testimonies.

Kong then shared a powerful account of how revival came to the Philippines through an American minister, Lester Sumrall. Back in 1953, a 17-year-old street prostitute named Clarita Villanueva was caught soliciting business from a plainclothes policeman.

Thrown into prison, Villanueva, whose mother was a fortune-teller involved in the occult, began to experience demonic attacks at night. When morning came, she would be found with puzzling, horrifying bruises and vicious bite marks all over her body.

Many doctors and psychiatrists were brought in to help her, but to no avail. As this point, God spoke to Sumrall to minister to her. Twice he resisted but on the third time, the instruction came with the warning that no revival would come to the Philippines if he did not do so.

Sumrall finally visited Villanueva in prison and performed a spectacular deliverance in front of national and international media by pleading the blood of Jesus over her. The result of this public display of God’s power was not just a free building permit for Sumrall’s future meetings—a total of 150,000 salvation decisions were made within six weeks at these meetings, and revival came to the nation.

Just as Jesus rebuked Satan in the wilderness by quoting Scripture, “It is written…”. Believers activate their weapons by speaking them. “Never get impressed by demons and their ‘powers’. Be impressed by God!” Kong proclaimed.

Quoting 1 Timothy 6:12, he also stated that spiritual warfare is a fight of faith, fought with the spiritual weapons of prayer, praise, profession and prophecy. Kong talked about Moshe Dayan, the famed Israeli military leader who demonstrated the power of profession when he proclaimed that Israel’s biggest weapon was Scripture from Psalms 121:1-2—“I lift up my eyes to the mountains—where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth,” and subsequently led his greatly out-numbered troops to victory during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Human resource executive Jenna Ching, 32, said, “This year’s Arise & Build definitely feels different—during such a trying time, we are actually strengthening our resolve to keeping on building God’s house, to keep believing and speaking out our faith!”

Echoed 27-year-old consultant Edwin Ong, “Unlike the previous Arise & Build sessions I experienced since Hollywood days, this year’s different. I feel we are at the junction of something bigger to come. I’m looking forward to what God is going to do in City Harvest Church; history is in the making!” Andy Chia, 22, an undergraduate, added, “I am inspired to rise up to intercede and stand in the gap for the church. Money will come, revival will come!”

Do join City Harvest Church in its churchwide day of fasting on Oct. 10, from 6 a.m to 6 p.m.

Source: Michelle Heng, Arise & Build: A House Of Consecration, City News, http://www.citynews.sg/2012/10/arise-build-house-of-consecration/, (Accessed 15/01/2014.)

From Kong To Foong: “Sun & I Are Even Willing To Resign From The Management Board of CHC”

13 Monday Jan 2014

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

We somehow missed publishing this curious article from the ST. What is striking in this article is Kong Hee’s comment to “resign from the Management Board of CHC if that would help diffuse the semblance of any conflict of interest on her part”.

Was he only trying to legally cover himself back then in case things got out of control further down the track? You’d think that when he was under investigation and while the court proceedings are taking place he could have willingly stepped down to diffuse “the semblance of any conflict of interest”. So when Kong was asked to step down, why didn’t he? Conflict of interest maybe?

If you’re not sure what we are talking about you will understand what we are on about in an upcoming article.

The Straits Times reports,

City Harvest trial: Kong Hee offered to step down to minimise conflict of interest

City Harvest founder Kong Hee was once so concerned about possibly bringing harm to the church that he offered to step down from its management board, said defence lawyers on Tuesday during an ongoing criminal trial into him and five of his deputies.

Kong Hee expressed his concerns about a year before a series of investments were made, which the State believes were shams meant to funnel church funds illegally to wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun’s career. He asked auditor Foong Daw Ching in an email in 2006, whether Ms Ho receiving a salary from church-linked firm Xtron Productions would pose a problem. Xtron was managing Ms Ho’s music career at the time.

“Sun is paid totally from non-CHC (City Harvest Church) sources… (but) I’m personally very troubled as I don’t wish to bring any potential reproach to the church or its various ministry. If there is simply no way out… Sun and I are even willing to resign from the Management Board of CHC, if that would help diffuse the semblance of any conflict of interest on her part,” he wrote.

Mr Edwin Tong, defence lawyer for Kong, also tried to show that Mr Foong the auditor knew more about the investments than he let on. Several of the six accused had written e-mails saying Mr Foong had endorsed or given advice about the investments, although Mr Foong insisted that these were inaccurate.

Mr Tong said it was “incredible” that the auditor did not seem to recall reading any of the emails he had been sent regarding the transactions, given that the church was a “major” client of the firm.

Mr Foong replied that City Harvest’s audit team was led by another person at his firm whom he would have deferred to, and he had his own “heavy” portfolio of clients at the time.

Source: Feng Zengkun, City Harvest trial: Kong Hee offered to step down to minimise conflict of interest, Straits Times, http://www.straitstimes.com/the-big-story/chc-funds-case/story/city-harvest-trial-kong-hee-offered-step-down-minimise-conflict-i, Published on Sep 17, 2013. (Accessed 14/01/2014.)

EDIT 15/01/2014: Today Online provides deeper coverage,

Kong Hee offered to step down from church board in 2006 email

SINGAPORE — City Harvest Church (CHC) co-founders Kong Hee and his wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, were open to resigning from its management board to avoid potential reproach to the church arising from her singing career, the court heard yesterday.

Kong had told auditors this in a July 23, 2006, email about a year before the church made investments that prosecutors are alleging were sham deals to channel church funds to Ms Ho’s pop career. He wrote that he was “personally very troubled” about whether there were issues with his wife receiving a salary from her then-managers and CHC-linked firm Xtron Productions.

Xtron derived the bulk of its operating income from the church but, in his email, Kong wrote that her S$500,000 annual salary — S$16,000 a month for her singing and S$16,000 for each live concert — was paid “totally from non-CHC sources”.

He asked Mr Foong Daw Ching and Mr Joseph Toh of Baker Tilly if this constituted a “related party transaction”.

“If there is simply no way out of this related party dilemma, Sun and I are even willing to resign from the management board of CHC, if that would help diffuse the semblance of any conflict of interest on her part,” wrote Kong, who is on trial with five other church leaders for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts.

Mr Foong, who was on the stand for the fifth day, came under fire from defence lawyers yesterday. Asked by Kong’s lawyer, Mr Edwin Tong, about this email, he said he could not recall what he did in reaction.

Questions on two subsequent documents sent to him by Tan Ye Peng and Serina Wee Gek Yin — who are among the accused — seeking his advice on the Xtron bonds the church bought also drew a blank.

It prompted Mr Tong to accuse him of giving untruthful testimony to distance himself from advice he had given to several of the accused, while Tan’s lawyer, Mr N Sreenivasan, said he gave “vague, imprecise” answers.

Since he was a Christian elder and an experienced auditor with long ties with CHC, was Tan not entitled to act on his advice in good faith, Mr Sreenivasan asked.

But Mr Foong insisted that he could only advise them based on the information they provided and that they knew it was ad hoc advice.

He said he did not probe for more information in order to not encroach into audit areas and cited an instance where he forwarded an email he received to the audit partners in charge of the church’s accounts. The accused are “intelligent people” with a team behind them, he added.

The court also heard that several staff members of Baker Tilly — including Mr Foong, Managing Partner Sim Guan Seng, Ms Foong Ai Fang and Ms Tiang Yii — conducted a post-mortem after probes on CHC began.

Asked if any blame was attributed to him, Mr Foong said he did not remember this to be the case and questioned if Mr Sreenivasan was trying to “insinuate anything”.

The lawyer replied that he was not.

His cross-examination continues today.

Source: By Neo Chai Chin, Today Online, Kong Hee offered to step down from church board in 2006 email, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/kong-hee-offered-step-down-church-board-2006-email?singlepage=true, Published 18 September, 4:02 AM. (Accessed 15/01/2014.)

ds

Kong To Herz: “Plan As If ‘The Sky Is The Limit’ And Then Work Out How We Are Going To Get The Funds”

29 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

TodayOnline reports,

Chew the ‘key person’ behind financing for Crossover Project

SINGAPORE — Taking the stand for the eighth and final day yesterday, prosecution witness and City Harvest Church supporter Wahju Hanafi singled out former church leader Chew Eng Han as the “key person” involved in the financing of the Crossover Project to develop singer Ho Yeow Sun’s career.

Wrapping up his re-examination of Mr Hanafi, Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng took the Indonesian businessman through the list of the five church leaders — Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee Gek Yin, John Lam Leng Hung and Sharon Tan Shao Yuen — who, together with Chew, are accused of making allegedly sham bond investments and misappropriating S$24 million from the church’s building fund for Ms Ho’s career. 

Earlier during the re-examination, he had tried to show church co-founder Kong’s involvement in the financing of the project by pointing to an email from Kong to American music producer Justin Herz in February 2005.

DPP Tan had also pointed out that, in the email, Kong had instructed Mr Herz to “plan as if ‘the sky is the limit’ and then work out how we are going to get the funds” — although Kong’s lawyer had a day earlier sought to show that Kong had given careful thought to the budget for Ms Ho’s career.

Mr Hanafi denied the five church leaders’ involvement in the financing of the Crossover Project, but identified Chew, who was formerly the church’s investment manager, as “the key person” involved. Chew left the church suddenly in June, citing “issues of spiritual and moral significance”.

DPP Tan also questioned Mr Hanafi on apparent discrepancies in his testimony. For instance, while Mr Hanafi had said in the examination-in-chief that he was not involved in the decision-making of Xtron Productions — which managed Ms Ho’s career — between January 2007 and August 2008, he told the court yesterday that “I didn’t say I was not involved in the decision-making”. Mr Hanafi was Xtron Director from June 2003 to July 2008, when the company provided management services to Ms Ho.

Asked to clarify this, Mr Hanafi said: “I can’t remember this that I have mentioned that I was not completely on decision-making.” Pressed by the prosecution, he added: “Some of these questions, you know, I might be cornered and then I answered it.”

Also taking the stand yesterday was prosecution witness Foong Daw Ching, an auditor from Baker Tilly, who was asked about his relationship with the six accused. The court heard that Mr Foong has known Kong since around 1993, but hardly meets him outside of church. City Harvest and Xtron are clients of the firm, and Kong’s personal tax is also handled by Baker Tilly. The court had heard in the previous tranche of the trial that the firm’s managing partner Sim Guan Seng had raised concerns about the money that was channelled to Xtron. Amir Hussain

Source: Amir Hussain, Chew the ‘key person’ behind financing for Crossover Project, TodayOnline, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/chew-key-person-behind-financing-crossover-project, 12/09/2013. (Accessed 27/09/2013.)