When I was still attending City Harvest Church (CHC), Kong Hee and the CGLs emphasized so much on the spirit of excellence. However, it appears to be missing now.
See the “Quicklinks” tab on the left. “14 Apr 2016 Message to Congregation”
|The message to the congregation was dated on 14 Apr 2016. The content of the message is addressing the future events in July 2016.|
Let’s read the content of the message.
Executive Pastor Bobby Chaw states in point (d) that Mr. Chew’s indication that he was seeking to recover financial damage… via a civil suit…. Mr Chew had instead lodged a criminal report with Commercial Affairs Department against 8 individuals connected with CHC. No criminal complaint has been made against the church.
point (e) message says that, “On 13 July 2016, JLC and CHC were contacted by a reporter from one of the mainstream media agencies for their comments on Mr. Chew’s CAD complaint. However, we were unable to do so, given that neither CHC nor JLC have actually seen the complaint…”
point (f) message says that, “Given that the CAD complaint seems to arise from the same facts as Mr Chew’s allegations, it appears that the matters raised in his latest complaint have already been raised in the ongoing criminal and civil proceedings. The appeals in relation to the criminal proceedings and part of the civil suit are to be heard over the next two months.”
I pause here NOTE my highlighted portions.
point (d) – No criminal complaint has been made against the church.
point (e) – Neither CHC nor JLC have actually seen the content of the complaint.
point (f) – ‘seems to’ and ‘it appears that’
After reading the message to the CHC congregation, the message seems that and appears to me that it’s a confusing statement. Firstly, the message alleged that Mr. Chew was seeking to recover financial damages via a civil suit, but instead he complained to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). In point (e) the church and the lawyer have not seen the contents of the complaint, so what they have written seemed to contradict the points.
Truth -> There is another anonymous person that recorded a statement.
What did Eng Han and the anonymous person report?
It should remain as confidential. I have friends asking me some questions such as
1. Who is the anonymous person?
2. Is the content of any relation to the criminal proceedings and part of the civil suit?
I want to be truthful. I can’t tell you the details of the content but I can tell you this is a FRESH complaints against FRESH individuals for FRESH dishonest acts!
As police investigations are confidential, I am sure CAD will protect the identity and content of what was being reported.
Lastly I want to say civil suit means civil suit. Criminal means criminal. Confidential means confidential, under investigation means under investigation.
There is no spirit of confusion in my house.