Con man’s victim

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.

DPP re-examination on witness on 23 May 2013
DPP: Your Honour, just for the record, the person that they met was David Wong… subsequently clarified that it was Mr Tan Ye Peng who had gone with Chew Eng Han. Can you tell us why Tan Ye Peng went along with Chew Eng Han to Hong Kong to pursue this fundraising for Xtron?

Chew Eng Han self examination on 27 Jan 2015
Eng Han: Along the way, I was told of challenges, I was told of delays and I did my best to provide a solution. My only intention was to apply my mind to look for solutions and preferably for solutions beyond the church resources. And I’ll give examples

So when Tan Ye Peng said, “Is it possible to borrow money from a bank for the Crossover?”, and that was in May 2007, I believe, I said, “Let me try to help”. And that’s how we got a guy called David Wong who said he knew Citic Ka Wah bank in Hong Kong. [Tan Ye Peng introduced David Wong to Eng Han] I went down with Tan Ye Peng, flew down to Hong Kong to try to secure the loan. If possible, let’s do it outside of the church, because I already knew that Kong Hee prefers not for the church to fund it directly

….

Your Honour, I believe in the Crossover. I believe in the integrity of the project. I was ready to give my own money to Xtron so that the Crossover can come to pass. When I try to secure the loan from Citic Ka Wah Bank in Hong Kong, the man that brought us was David Wong [Wong Kok Keong]. ..and I thought David Wong was helping us to fulfill the vision. David Wong asked me whether I could help him personally with a loan for him to complete a property deal … I came up with $130,000. The man disappeared with the money. But the only reason why I agreed to help him, even though I didn’t know him that well, your Honour, is because I thought if this man is going to help us fulfill the Crossover and get a loan, a bank loan for us, then I think, at the very least, I risk my own money and lend it to David Wong.

….

If I’m a conspirator to siphon money out, I think I’m quite a foolish conspirator, because I got cheated myself.

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.

DPP cross-examined Kong Hee on 11 August 2014

Kong:… I began to transition from the role of a shepherd to that of a rancher. So basically and I’ve said this to my members many times instead of just becoming a shepherd, I became the chief feeder, the chief leader….. I’m still pretty much playing the role of a typical church pastor, although, because the church has grown, I got to take a more helicopter view of things.

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.