The Straits Times published an article relating to a con man, Wong Kok Keong, on Mar 21, 2016. (Link: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/undischarged-bankrupt-conned-victims-of-470000-by-lying-that-he-was-wong-kan)
I think that not many people are aware that this man, Wong Kok Keong, is actually the same person named ‘David Wong’ that has been mentioned in the CHC trial. In case you do not know, Kong Hee is the one who introduced David Wong, aka Wong Kok Keong, to Pastor Tan and Pastor Tan introduced this con man to Eng Han.
Let me refresh your memory on what has been said in court.
The con man, David Wong, visited CHC many times. After disappearing with Eng Han’s money, he came back to the church again 3 years later. Despite his history on cheating, Pastor Tan still introduced him to a CHC member for a property deal. I know that we should learn to forgive and let bygones be bygones, but shouldn’t the role of the pastor be to protect his/her sheep? This reminded me of what Kong said in court, that he transited from a shepherd to a rancher.
In my opinion, Eng Han is a victim of the Crossover sham. The church board should take the responsibility. And a person by the name of Tony Tan who wrote to me will not agree with me. He gave me his views about Eng Han. In his email, he mentioned that Eng Han is not the victim and Kong Hee should be the victim, because Kong had listened to the so-called professional advice and the main culprit is Eng Han. This person’s reasoning is that the person who mooted the idea of bonds should be the culprit.
In his first email, he blamed Eng Han for mentioning things that were not related to the case. He alleged that Eng Han for wanting to dig a hole for Kong but instead dug a hole for himself. He mentioned in his second email that I had a personal vendetta on Kong for the article “God is love do you take him for granted” that I posted. My reply to you is, just because the article goes against your belief in Kong Hee, doesn’t mean that this was intended to be personal against anyone.
I also wrote another article about Kong’s preaching http://mrslightnfriends.com/kong-hee-asks-church-to-fulfil-building-fund
I am finding it hard to believe his testimony about driving the church’s van for many years. Does his ‘many years’ equate to 2 years? He mentioned that he managed to buy a Mitsubishi Lancer 2 years later. Just because I highlighted my doubts and expressed my views on this, means I have a personal vendetta against Kong?
Back to my point on the Crossover sham, you may think that the things that he had mentioned were not related to the case. Eng Han, who is not legally trained, was trying to tell the judge that the Bond is not a sham but the Crossover is. He is a victim not a conspirator. He was not aware of the worldly activities. (Read my old articles on self-purchase of albums, First Day Cover, Shanghai 2007 Special Olympics, MPA and Kong’s Refund of royalties.)
Eng Han was cheated to believe that Sun was very successful. If Sun is not successful, do you think Eng Han will believe in this Crossover project?
In my conclusion, I believe in the Holy Spirit and the existence of the evil spirit. Eng Han was really blinded by the evil spirit. “Vodou”, “Gong Tao” or 降头 (拼音：jiàng tóu) whatever you want to call it. I thank God that he has escaped from the fowler’s snare.