Currently browsing

Page 3

Con man’s victim

The Straits Times published an article relating to a con man, Wong Kok Keong, on Mar 21, 2016. (Link:

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
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.


Five City Harvest Church members (Founder Kong Hee, Pastor Tan Ye Peng, John Lam, Serina Wee and Sharon Tan) and one ex-member (Chew Eng Han), a total of 6 appeal against the conviction and sentence.

Possible hearing dates on
18 July to 31 July 2016
19 September to 23 September 2016.
Judges: Chao Hin Tick, Woo Bih Li and Chan Seng Onn
Venue: High Court

As a Christian, what did you do to help the 6 of them?

City Harvest Church WAS my church. I have left the church and settled in a new church with great mentor now. During the crossover project days, the congregation was told how successful Sun Ho was. Some music charts and videos on salvation through the crossover concert were shown on the screens. Believe me, it was during many church services. The Crossover Project was a church project. I remembered worship songs such as “If You Can Use Anything, Lord You Can Use Me” were sung. I personally thought that God’s hands were in the Crossover project. If you have God in the your project, don’t you think that He is the best guarantor? Who else do you need? To me, it wasn’t about Sun Ho, it’s about God. I thought that the pastors were all godly people. But the success of Sun Ho turned out to be self bought as heard in the court.

To the people who were involved in this “marketing strategy”, you have cheated my faith! Though I have forgiven you, I believe you have to live in your consequences of sins. It’s yet to come. As for Chew Eng Han, I feel the need to stand up for him, as he is a victim and was not part of this marketing strategy team. For those who have been betrayed by your pastors, loved ones or best friends, you will know the groan and understand what I am saying.

As for this court appeal, I suggest that the people, who do not have the facts and cannot verify the truth, to please show mercy to Chew. How many people can truly grasp the case?

I know that Chew is currently also facing another court case; City Harvest Church is suing Eng Han for his personal guarantor’s obligation.
Does the church truly want to see Chew bankrupt? Does the church want to add pressure to his family?

Of course, such an act isn’t vicious at all! It’s totally righteous on their part! If I was not a Christian, I would choose the broad way too, sue City Harvest Church for lying and cheating my faith. Sue City Harvest Church for all my emotional turmoil. Phew!

To end this off on a positive note, I want to thank the following group of people,
1. My friends who have shown love and support to Eng Han and his family.
2. Readers who wrote words of encouragement to Chew.
3. Pastors who went to his office to pray for Chew.
4. All the angels who supported the Chew’s family financially. I know that you do not judge according to appearance. May God bless you.

Lastly, if the content of my blog has upset you, please forgive me. God gave me a brain to think, and I will continue to discern between the right and wrong. City Harvest is definitely a wrong church to go to.

Happy Chinese New Year
Mrs Light

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

No Choice or Deliberate Decision?

The seed of God’s Word, sown in the heart, produces after its own kind.

Proverbs 22:8Amplified Bible (AMP)
He who sows injustice will reap [a harvest of] trouble,
And the rod of his wrath [with which he oppresses others] will fail.

What kind of seed was sown in the Pastors and the Board members’ heart? I don’t have to say much, God’s Word is always right. Everything produces after its kind and the seed is in itself.

Taking legal action against Mr Chew Eng Han must be from one person suggesting this idea and the board embraced this plan.

I wonder what CHC gains out of this civil suit?

You can download the Civil procedure – judgments and order (City Harvest Church v AMAC Capital Partners and another) from Singapore Law Watch.

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 :