Currently browsing category

From Mr. Chew Eng Han

Personal Statement From Mr. Chew Eng Han

Note of Gratitude from Mr. Chew Eng Han

Christmas is here, and yet another eventful year is coming to an end.
Before the new year arrives. I’d like to send a note of gratitude and blessing to everyone who has stood as a friend with me and my family. And that includes my brothers and sisters in Christ in our weekly fellowship group BBG, Pastor Yang and Daphne, Pastor Tim O Connell and Joanne, and many other friends and supporters from other churches and walks of life.

Thank you for standing for righteousness and truth. Thank you for extending help and prayers when the going got rough for me and my family. Your sincere love and earnest prayers for us have become a sweet aroma that’s pleasing unto our Father in heaven, and I pray that just as you have blessed us, you too will be abundantly blessed this Christmas and in the coming new year.

Give Thanks – Mr Chew

The year is drawing to an end, and more importantly we are approaching the most significant event of the year, Christmas. I give thanks first and foremost to the Lord for His unfailing mercies and faithfulness throughout this tumultuous year. Without Him my family would not have survived even half the journey.

I give thanks also to all my friends who stood unwavering and boldly with me. It is times of adversity that draws out the spirit of courage and the best in man. I give thanks to even strangers whom I have never met but yet pray for me and message me on Facebook to give moral and spiritual support. I give thanks to people in the public who greet me with encouraging words or even a kind smile, at malls, car parks, petrol kiosks, escalators, lifts etc. And not forgetting the kind stranger who secretly paid for our dinner one night at a Japanese restaurant and then left me two bible verses scribbled on a piece of paper.

Thank you Mrs Light for your diligence and courage in writing and printing the truth. And to those who wrote to me via Mrs Light, thank you for your encouragement.

Finally, thank you to all the Pastors and spiritual leaders from various ministries who stood with me in prayer. And special mention to Pastor Yang of Cornerstone for standing with me and accepting my Business Breakthrough Group into Cornerstone Church and standing in full support of the ministry.

To all of you, as Christmas approaches, may the light of Jesus shine ever brighter on each of you. And in 2016 may God bring you blessings and spiritual encounters beyond comprehension and imagination.

Jn1: 4-5 “In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

From Eng Han

Truth or Sensationalised – CHC lawsuit against Eng Han

Dear readers,

I gotten a reply from Mr Chew Eng Han with regards to the lawsuit made by City Harvest Church (CHC) to him. The following is his reply:

The press has reported on the court progress on CHC’s lawsuit against AMAC and myself for the SOF investments, and a CHC board member went on stage during last weekend’s church services to give their account of the events that have been happening. This suit started last November and soon after the press reported the story, CHC made an open statement to its members relating their side of the story and their ‘spiritual’ justification for taking me to court. One of their reasons was that I had refused to engage in negotiations with them and that they now considered me a heathen and no longer a brother-in-Christ.

I have kept silent from the start of the suit till today. It is time the half-truths and lies be opened up for all to see.

I am posting a repayment plan that was sent by me to the then Investment Committee on 20 Dec 2013. This plan was sent in the midst of negotiations with CHC and explains the whole history of the SOF and notes in particular that the board had knowledge of what the investments entailed and that they approved them. Unfortunately I found out from the Investment Committee at that time that the board had been representing to them their ignorance of what the SOF was all about. The impression given by the board was that I had somehow put these sums of money into the SOF without explaining to them the underlying application of the funds. This of course is not true and the recent court findings have in fact rejected their claims of ignorance.

It was because of this discovery of the board members’ feigned ignorance in late 2013 that I incorporated the history of the SOF into the repayment plan that was sent and reviewed by them in consultation with their lawyer.

In early 2014, their lawyer came up to me and said the board was reluctant to sign my repayment proposal plan because it contained the additional section on the history of the board’s knowledge and approval and also the‎ developments that led to the inability to repay the underlying loans that made up the SOF tranches. Their lawyer asked if I could remove that section and that we just sign the section which dealt with the repayment schedule and plan. I declined and said the documented history was important in view of the fact that the board had been misrepresenting their lack of knowledge and involvement in the SOF approval process, and by doing so tainting my name and credibility by portraying me as some untamed fund manager who had put monies into the SOF without explaining to the board about the underlying nature and risks. That was a twisted distortion of what actually happened and the present court has found that the board had full knowledge from the beginning of the SOF in March 2009.

So when the board told its members that negotiations broke down, it was a half-truth. They consciously chose not to inform the members that it broke down because the board didn’t want to sign on a proposal which contained historical documentation of the SOF history which may implicate them with similar liability as AMAC. Last weekend in the church services, they continued to tell a story that makes me look like the “heathen” who refused to bear responsibility and refused to engage in reasonable discussions with them. It is clear to me and many observers today that the deceptive ways in CHC that started with the top leaders like Kong and Sun has seeped deep into the board and its top leadership as well.

The court has been shown the emails where the board was told about the SOF investment by the church accountant and which shows some of the board members stating their approval. The board was very happy when the first round of SOF raked in at least $3m of interest for 2009. It was the second round of SOF starting from late 2009 running into 2010 that got into trouble as the share collateral for the loans sank in value as the share price fell. When trouble came, the board started to distance itself and eventually feigned ignorance. That does remind me a lot of their leader Kong as was seen in the recently concluded trial. When will these proclaimed spiritual leaders learn to accept responsibility when things go wrong along with the credit they so crave for when things go well?

As for the personal guarantee which I gave for the SOF, the real story is that I was duped by them to sign a PG on the basis that it would apparently provide a reason for them to hold off COC’s pressure. I never felt pressured whether COC or the members would get tough on AMAC or myself, since investments do run into trouble and there is nothing to fear as long as there was no dishonesty. You will see from my repayment proposal that in fact I wanted the information on the history of the SOF to be made known to the members for their understanding. I had also made several requests (up to as recent as early 2014) for the church to arrange for me to meet COC, to explain the reasons for the troubled investments, but none of them took up my offer. The PG was signed by me eventually when Bobby Chaw (one of their key pastors) met me and asked me to sign the PG with the assurance that they did not intend to enforce it. The same reason about COC was given. I signed it trusting that a pastor would not lie.

In Nov 2014 when the church decided to launch a suit against AMAC and myself under the PG, it happened whilst the trial was on and I was shocked because from the time I sent them the repayment proposal in Dec 2013 till the filing of the suit, I heard nothing from them or the lawyer as to their intention regarding the repayment plan that I had submitted and was ready to sign. Keeping silent did not occur to me as a breakdown of negotiations until the church announced that they had to sue me because of my refusal to negotiate and they justified suing me since I had become a heathen. The fact that the board was so frightened to sign the proposal because of the historical documentation of the SOF speaks volumes of their sincerity in resolving this matter in a gentlemanly and responsible manner, not to mention in a spiritual way befitting of Christian leaders.

The document also points to the fact that AMAC had, prior to this troubled investment, made more than $11m in profits for the church. No one wanted to even acknowledge this or speak up for me on this, and so I had to include it in the document, that’s necessary when dealing with a breed of people who have no gratitude but are quick to assassinate for any failure or error.

In recent times the church has also boasted how the Suntec property has appreciated in value. Have any of the board members or pastors ever paused to think who was instrumental in getting the deal done for them? No. In CHC, the good that’s done doesn’t count for much, especially once you take a stand and leave the church. That brings reproach to the name of Christianity.

I am no heathen who has backslidden, or as some (including AR Bernard) have labelled me, a bitter man who cannot forgive. I am someone who still loves God and people but who has awakened to the truth that there can be more liars in a church than in the world. And that as real Christians we do need to take a stand to speak up when morals have deteriorated so much in the church that any whitewashing will only make the eventual downfall a much harder one. Unity in the body of Christ can only be based on repentance and truth. Otherwise, a clear line needs to be drawn.



[Mrs Light's comment: cut from the msg source file]

The repayment plan

Sent: Friday, 20 December 2013 3:15 PM To: Chc John Lim; CHC Francis Tay Subject: Fw: Payment Plan
Attachments: SOF payment plan.doc

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.

Sent: Friday, 20 December, 2013 3:04 PM
Subject: Payment Plan

Proposal For Special Opportunity Fund (SOF) Redemption
Background facts

AMAC’s role in City Harvest Church’s (CHC) investment:
AMAC Capital Partners Pte Ltd (AMAC), investment manager for CHC since July 2007, has been
advising on the church’s investments in the area of stocks, fixed income bonds and funds, and property acquisitions. From 2007 to date, excluding the outstanding current SOF investment, it has accumulated $11,267,550 in profits. These gains come largely from gains in stock trading, interest paid on past and current SOF investment, and interest on quoted and unquoted bonds. The size of the total portfolio of stocks and fixed income fluctuated around $20 million, and surged to as high as $50 million when Xtron and Firna bonds were purchased.

CHC’s investment – documentary summary 2007 t0 2013
CHC’s Board had taken the approach of accepting a higher risk tolerance in exchange for the
objective of producing higher returns for the surplus building fund, in order to hedge against inflation over the years pending the procurement of the church building premise. This approach is documented in the Investment Committee and Board minutes. The approach had resulted in cumulative investment gains of more than $11 million, which had more than covered any inflation over the relevant years.

CHC started investing in SOF from March 2009 (Tranches 1 to 9). After being presented information that the underlying nature of the investment was in the form of loans which were collateralised by shares in Transcu Group Ltd, a company listed on the Singapore Exchange, and being given details on the value of the collateral relative to the loan amount, the Board approved each tranche and AMAC then acted upon that approval. The SOF was unlike the portfolio of quoted stocks and bonds where AMAC was given full discretion to select the securities without requiring Board approval. Herein is an extract Board minute which documents one of the approval:

21 March 2009 Board minutes 8.2: “The Board has noted that it has approved through email that CHC will invest first $5 million in AMAC’s Special Opportunity Fund.”

The SOF was a fixed return investment which provided yields way above market yields, and went as high as 24% per annum. These initial tranches were all redeemed in Oct 2009 with gains of around $3 million or so. The total investment amount in these tranches approximated $20 million.

Starting from November 2009, the CHC Board again approved a second phase of investing into SOF, which resulted in funds being invested into Tranche 12 ($1.2m), Tranche 13 ($2.92m), Tranche 14 ($3m), Tranche 16 ($3.3m), Tranche 17 ($3m), and Tranche 18 ($9m), in all totalling $22.42m. The tranches were originally to mature in August 2010 but due to market liquidity conditions, AMAC was facing difficulty in liquidating the shares within a short time frame. After meeting the Board and Investment Committee, AMAC wrote on 16 September 2010 to request for a 6-month extension so as to enable orderly liquidation without impairing the share price against the interest of CHC.
Meanwhile, on 28 September 2010, AMAC redeemed Tranche 12 by repaying principal plus interest totalling $1,327,035. On 25 October 2010, AMAC paid $454,972.61 for interest which had accrued on the various tranches.

On 30 October 2010, the Board responded to AMAC that it understood the need for a spaced out orderly liquidation and extended the redemption date to 28 February 2011. However, in the months following, from November 2010 to February 2011, the shares came under selling pressure and lost 50% in value, making it challenging to liquidate the shares in a manner that would enable full recovery of the outstanding loans.

On 10 March 2011, AMAC liquidated some shares to redeem $500,000 of Tranche 17 and to pay $881,194 of interest for the various tranches. On 13 April, AMAC redeemed another $402,740 of Tranche 17. On 27 April, AMAC wrote to request an extension for repayment of Tranches 13, 14, 16 and 18, till 30 August 2011. On 5 May 2011 AMAC paid $990,000 to redeem Tranche 17, and on 13 May 2011, it paid $1,600,346 to redeem the balance of Tranche 17 ($1,107,260), some of Tranche 16 ($285,000) plus interest on the various tranches ($208,086).

Before the Board could respond to AMAC’s request for extension, the shares of Transcu went into voluntary suspension due to working capital crunch. Due to uncertainty as to when the share trading would resume, AMAC wrote to the Board on 17 August 2011 to request for an extension till 30 June 2012. By this time, the remaining SOF investments consisted of Tranche 13 ($2.92m), Tranche 14 ($3m), Tranche 16 ($3.015m) and Tranche 18 ($9m), totalling $17.935m. Tranche 17 had been fully redeemed.

From August 2011 to October 2012, AMAC had been working with the management of Transcu to source for funding so as to enable the shares to resume trading. Two of the CHC Board members (Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng) recommended a Malaysian contact who supposedly had access to China funds, and AMAC worked on this China party for more than six months. The source turned out to be not genuine and AMAC incurred substantial costs besides losing time. Finally in October 2012, AMAC secured some investors to put up the initial $3m+4m of working capital which was needed before SGX would allow the suspension to be lifted. However, to attract those investors, AMAC had to allow the shares it had been holding to be moved to the investors.

Meanwhile, AMAC was to be allotted 375 million new shares in Transcu after trading resumed, in exchange for selling Forest Pine Group shares to Transcu. SGX however set a moratorium of 6 months on these shares, which AMAC had planned to set aside for CHC’s interest. The Board wrote on 31 October 2012 to acknowledge that it recognized the impact of the moratorium on the redemption process and was agreeable to further extension of time, provided it was given a first charge over the 375 million shares. In April 2013 the shares were formally charged to CHC and subsequently, 106,600,000 shares were sold to raise $1.3m for payment to CHC. The outstanding SOF hence currently stands at $16.6m.

Proposed Redemption of outstanding SOF ($16.6m)

AMAC currently holds 268,400,000 shares which are charged to CHC. At current price of 0.3c, the collateral is worth only $805,200. This is insufficient to meet the outstanding SOF of $16.6m. The only realistic way going forward is through a medium term plan to secure more collateral.

AMAC is working with the major shareholder of Transcu to secure more collateral shares through a restructuring exercise within the company, whereby certain businesses will be injected into Transcu in a share swap deal. This will put more shares in the hands of AMAC which will then be able to liquidate the shares over time to raise cash for payment to CHC. The restructuring exercise is estimated to take place between April and August 2014. Based on this assumed timeline, AMAC would be able to secure and start selling shares from around September 2014. Presumably, if the shares trade with good liquidity, it should take about 16 months to liquidate enough shares to redeem the SOF.

The majority of this payment will come from the restructuring exercise, which AMAC is reasonably confident will succeed and pass through the SGX and EGM approval process. However, it is vital that AMAC controls enough shares to vote in the restructuring plan at the EGM. Hence, AMAC suggests that it will not be in the interest of CHC to sell off all 268,400,000 shares before the EGM.

Based on this line of reasoning, AMAC is proposing to sell off only 50 million shares from now till the EGM date. Additionally, it proposes that shares should be sold only when the share price recovers to 0.7 cents. The proposed projected timeline is as follows:

Date Amount 
Dec 2013-Feb2014 $350,000(50million shares@ 0.7c) 
Apr2014-Aug2014 Restructuring exercise,s hare swap deal,EGM
Sep 2014 $500,000
Dec 2014 $3,000,000
Mar2015 $3,000,000
Jun 2015 $3,000,000
Sep 2015 $3,000,000
Dec 2015 $4,100,000
TOTAL $16,600,000

AMAC is committed to do its utmost best to to minimise the loss of the outstanding amount due to CHC. It understands that the church will have to pass the proposal through the Board and the EGM process. In view of this, AMAC requests that details of the SOF investment history and process (as set out in this proposal) be explained to the voting members. This is so as to enable proper understanding of the sequence of events that had led to the current challenging situation, as well as the persistent and unrelenting efforts that AMAC has been and is still making to bring recovery to this investment.

Please append the relevant authorised signature at the bottom in acceptance of this restructuring proposal.

Chew Eng Han, Director AMAC

On behalf of CHC
Name :

Address by CEH to CHC’s claims and statements

I have read the statement from CHC’s board sent out on 11 December 2014 and the subsequent FAQ dated 13 December 2014. Both documents contain CHC’s own version of what happened in the settlement process relating to CHC’s outstanding investments with AMAC. The FAQ is also obviously a desperate attempt to justify to their members why the board has no choice but to use the legal route, in order to deal with a non-repentant heathen, as implied in their FAQ using Matthew 18:7 as their reference.

I do not intend to be reactive with an answer to every of their false accusations, at least not at this juncture. Suffice to say that once again the board and leadership of CHC has resorted to using either utter lies, half-truths or distortions to slander and malign the names of persons who have departed from the church because they can no longer accept their practices and principles. For one, to say that “These negotiations came to a halt earlier this year when AMAC Capital and Chew refused to further engage CHC” is an utter lie which will be addressed and exposed in due time with the right evidence and witnesses.

CHC has indeed sunk to a low state as far as spiritual and moral principles are concerned. To turn around and use the Word of God against CEH and AMAC is nothing more than religious pretension and manipulation. As in the current trial that has been ongoing, I trust that God will bring every truth and every lie to the surface and see to it that justice prevails.

To those CHC members who are reading this, I plead with you to pray to God to open up your eyes of understanding. It is not too late.

Open Letter to Dr Bernard (From Eng Han)

Dear Dr Bernard,

I, a servant of God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, am writing an open letter to you to inform you that you have failed in your spiritual duties as the Advisory Chairman over the Board of City Harvest Church and as an Apostle over the church.

You will recall that on 1 Aug 2013,  I along with a CHC elder and a board member, had a conference call with you to arrange a meeting with you. On 16 Sept, we met at a hotel in Singapore, joined by that elder and board member.

I asked if I could tape our conversation for future reference but you declined, and so I didn’t. I am now describing from my handwritten notes what happened.

You first asked what was my objective in meeting you, and I said my hope was that through you, Kong and Sun and some of his leaders would come to repentance, and that you would help awaken the church to the truth as to what was really happening in the church leadership.

I subsequently described to you some of Kong’s wrongdoings, from a moral and spiritual perspective. I related how I had a four and a half hour meeting with Kong and Sun which produced no fruits. You listened patiently and at the end of the meeting assured me that you believed I came to you without malice and in truth.

You said that I had placed a heavy responsibility upon you and you would ensure that you would discharge that responsibility by having a “good talk” with them, including the board,  and that they would have to be “honest at the table.” You also said if they did not heed discipline, you may have to reconsider your relationship with them. I left the meeting assured that you would carry out your duties.

On the 21 Sept Saturday service at the church, you spoke from the pulpit against me instead. You alleged that I had used you for my personal agenda and had committed gossip and slander against and dishonored Kong and Sun.

You then got Kong on stage and made a show of ‘repentance’ by asking if he had committed silly mistakes before, and had he repented to God, to which he said “all the time.” To that, you got the congregation to endorse him with a roaring applause. There is a huge difference between “silly mistakes” and “conscious deception” and you allowed the people to believe it was the former. It would have been far better for that staged show never to have taken place.

Dr Bernard I am taking you to task in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ for acting in a manner that’s unbecoming of an apostle, and for doing the very opposite of what His Word requires of a man of God that’s placed in a position of spiritual authority.

You abused the pulpit and instead of helping to wake up the people, you turned Kong into a brave and humble hero in their eyes, and with your open endorsement on stage, the people believed even more in Kong and Sun thereafter.

You also accused me of not complying with Matthew 18 because I did not confront the sinner but committed gossip and slander instead. You obviously had forgotten that I had told you about the four and a half hour meeting and how it failed to bear fruits of repentance. And how I had to try multiple times before that to speak to them and how protracted were the circumstances leading to that meeting with them.

It seems to me that subsequent to my meeting with you on 16 Sept, Kong and Sun had probably told you certain things about me which shifted your mind about my true intentions. The right thing you should have done then, according to Matthew 18,  was for you to meet me again to clarify. Instead you misused the pulpit to tear me down for not complying with the very verses that you have failed to obey. The result of your actions on stage was that evil became good and good became evil.

In our meeting you said you believed in unity based on truth, humility and repentance, and emphasis on the flock and not on the man. You claimed also that you believed in a structure that forces the man of God into accountability to avert compromise and sin. None of your words translated into the right actions and today the church is in confusion as the truth unfolds and the man whom you are responsible for correcting continues in his ways uncorrected and unrestrained.

I warned you of the consequences if the matters of Kong and Sun are not properly dealt with in the House of God first. There was no biblical discipline and instead the wrongdoer got off with a resounding applause of endorsement.

One of my specific concerns which I brought to you was the falsified attendance figures, which was claimed to be 33,000 instead of the actual twelve to thirteen thousand. After what I revealed to you, you yourself went on to TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) and told a story of how the “church in Singapore” which you had been ministering to with your Cultural Mandate message had grown from 3,000 in 1998 to 38,000 today. You further exaggerated that that particular church has influence over 1,000 churches worldwide.

Not only have you failed to correct Kong but you yourself have perpetuated the lie about CHC’s size and influence. You owe an explanation to the body of Christ. I am publishing this open letter on Mrs Light n Friends blog and Facebook so that we can have an open discussion before the whole body of Christ internationally. Whatever reply you send to me will be published on the same platform so we both have an EQUAL opportunity to be scrutinised for our words and action. This is right because Matthew 18 says :

“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, TELL IT TO THE CHURCH. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

The church is in a state of drastic and violent shakeup and confusion. As a man of God who had been given what in your own words you termed “heavy responsibilities”, I am asking you now to account for your past words and actions which are totally unfit and unbecoming of a person who claims apostleship over the church.


In the Lord’s name

Chew Eng Han