So, what happened to the CAD's investigation on City Harvest?

[Haagen Diaz]

Kong Hee charged – updated* | Group Sects


Channel News Asia reports…

“The high-profile trial involving six City Harvest Church leaders is now slated to start on 15 May.

The first tranche of the trial is expected to go on till 23 May.

Speaking after a pre-trial conference on Friday afternoon, the prosecutors and lawyers involved in this case said one of the defendants,
Chew Eng Han, will be represented by Senior Counsel Michael Khoo.

This comes after Chew’s application to engage a Queen’s Counsel was dismissed by High Court Judge V K Rajah on Tuesday.

Chew, the church’s investment manager, had said then that he could not find a local senior counsel with the appropriate
expertise to assist him, and wanted to enlist the help of a Queen’s Counsel from the United Kingdom.

Chew, together with five other church leaders including founder Kong Hee, is accused of funnelling S$24 million into sham bond
investments to further the career of pop singer Sun Ho.

Ms Ho is the wife of the church’s senior pastor, Kong Hee.

The six are alleged to have misappropriated another S$26.6 million to cover up the first sum.”*From Trial involving City Harvest Church leaders to start on 15 May - Channel NewsAsia

 

[Haagen Diaz]

Commentary - Why I disagree with Kong Hee's "theology" | The Lycan Times


Commentary – Why I disagree with Kong Hee’s “theology”
2012-08-6 Grievous Featured, Others


First, let me make it clear that the opinion I expressed in the post below does not represent the opinion of any church. I write this knowing that I will earn the enmity of many, but failing to speak out would be the equivalent of a sin of omission – i.e. failing to do what is required to alert someone to the perils before him and allow harm to come to that person. Here goes…

When the matter of financial irregularities in CHC hit the news, I was two minded about what stand to take. After some consideration, I felt that there is no reason for me to be blackmailed by the opinion that good Christians should always stand together with other Christians and pray for them. Faith should not blind us, nor should it negate our ability to reason. What exactly is the point of praying in this case unless the irregularities found are planted evidence? Kong Hee and the other five have hired some of the best lawyers in this country and are fully capable of explaining to the Courts what has been done. Whether their explanation will be to the Courts’ satisfaction that no wrongdoing has been committed is another matter entirely. While CHC’ers may consider this entire matter to be the schemes of the Devil or some form of persecution, it is hard for me to accept that considering my objection and revulsion to Kong Hee’s teachings. It is even more repulsive when some said Kong Hee will have to suffer like Jesus. The image of the anti-Christ comes immediately to mind. Therefore, if I were to pray, it will be for God to open the eyes of CHC’ers to see things objectively, and also for wisdom upon the judge presiding over the case. It wouldn’t do for the innocent to be convicted, nor for the guilty to go scot free.

I admit I know very little about CHC as I have only been there twice. Nevertheless, how well I know CHC is not a prerequisite to what I have to say as I am only speaking out against what I do know. My first impression of CHC after my both of those visits was that it is very much like a pop concert. I decided I preferred the church I was still attending then as it was the place where Christ came looking for me again after seven years or so. I had visited CHC because two fellow believers who went over from their previous church invited me. One of them actually left CHC not long after in 2003 because of the blatant use of the church as a platform to promote Sun Ho’s music albums.

I wouldn’t have given more thought about those two visits or the sermons preached in those services. Suffice to say they were forgettable. Though I often hear about how supposedly anointed a speaker Kong Hee was and how the church numbers have increased, I did not feel edified by his messages and a church’s numbers really meant very little in my personal opinion. After all, people go to church for all sorts of reasons and not necessarily there to seek God. On top of which, how much of that “growth” came from members leaving other churches is another matter entirely. Even so, I thought at that time it was a good thing people are going to church. Since salvation belongs to God, having more people exposed to the Gospel cannot be bad. In any case, I would have completely forgotten about Kong Hee, since he is but one of the many preachers. God could anoint anyone with His Holy Spirit to speak and I have often felt attachment to a pastor (or even to pop stars and soccer players) to be akin to idolatry.

I certainly had my doubts about Sun Ho’s career even though I didn’t really care at that time. When the charges about financial irregularities came about, I was totally puzzled when her secular career is now said to be part of something called a “Crossover Project”. There are two things that I find chronologically mind-bogging. If I remembered correctly, Sun Ho resigned from CHC in 2003 to pursue her secular singing career, due to the criticisms about the church being used to promote her personal career. Yet, CHC’s current propaganda gives me the impression that her departure then was the beginning of the “Crossover Project”, which is said to have began back in 2002 or perhaps even earlier since she spoke about 10 years of Crossover recently. If that is the case, why the necessity to resign at that time? Why even discard the “pastor-singer” moniker at all?

Anyway, I started paying attention to CHC again about 4 years ago because Sun Ho’s “China Wine” MTV was posted on Facebook. That MTV was as uninspiring and completely forgettable as Kong Hee’s sermons. I couldn’t fathom how anyone would think of Jesus in that MTV, not to mention that it might actually stumble a new convert. What came on the heels of that was an article by the titled “The Power of Pop Culture” by Kong Hee published in the CHC’s quarterly newsletter. I felt it was nothing more than self justification for the lifestyle Sun Ho is pursuing in the United States. All my theological disagreement with the teachings of Kong Hee thus began after reading that piece.

Thereafter, I viewed a few of Kong Hee’s sermons which happened to be shared on Facebook. Sadly, just like his piece on “The Power of Pop Culture”, verses were often quoted out of context as long as they justify whatever message being preached at that time to exhort the congregation to open their wallets and give in return for spectacular amount of returns and blessing from God, who would otherwise hold it back like some kind of mafia Don. Without any doubt, if that is the theological basis of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel”, I found that it is not only questionable – it is outright heresy.

Let me layout my reasons for my objection to whatever that is preached in CHC. For all intentions and purposes, I don’t think any message that preaches personal gain through endless giving is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel is often offensive to people who heard it for the first time because it declares all men to be sinful and condemned. It is a message for all mankind to repent and turn from our evil ways, and to accept Jesus Christ as the only means of redemption and salvation (Romans 3:23 ~ 24). It would be irreconcilable for CHC or Kong Hee to preach the Gospel when their very own church leadership pursues a highfalutin lifestyle. As far as I am concerned, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been dead in CHC for some time.

I have a rather simplistic view of what conversion means. It means one hears the Gospel, believes in it by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, repents of his sins and be baptised by water in Jesus’ name. We often say we give our lives to Jesus, but we cannot give back to God what originally belonged to Him. In reality, when we believed, God gives us a new lease of life and then charge us with the task of the Great Commission – i.e. to bring the Gospel on to everyone who have yet believed and make disciples of them (Matthew 28:18~20). There is no fanciful way to bring Jesus to the masses. We seek to obey God by preaching the same message that all are sinful and condemned. In most cases, we earned nothing but the enmity of all whom we shared the message because very often we Christians have our own failings which invite criticisms, and in particular accusations of hypocrisy.

However, becoming a Christian does not and will not make someone the paragon of virtue or the ultimate arbiter in morality. The fact that we failed to live up to the standards set by God simply means we need them all the more to show how far we have fallen. To discard them simply means a further slide away from what God expects of us. It is exactly for this reason why a Savior is needed. God expects perfect righteousness which we cannot attain no matter how much “good” we do. Our good works are counted as filthy rags – or in the original Hebrew, used sanitary cloth – before God (Isaiah 64:6) and only Christ offers that perfect righteousness that He has imputed to us through faith in Him. Simply put, if a church isn’t preaching the Gospel, then its claims to be fulfilling the Great Commission is an utter sham. All the more so when it panders to the world by the means where it’s most acceptable and well received. This basically says a lot about what I think of the “Crossover Project”.

Other than preaching the Gospel, God also expects us to do good works. For faith without works is dead. Good works is not another way to earn us a way into heaven, or to obtain reconciliation with God. They are basically another outward manifestation of our faith in, and our obedience to God. It is part of our transformation into the image of Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. Charitable deeds are one of the ways we perform good works, and being charitable is not limited to money – for e.g giving up our seat on the MRT to those in need is one of them. Also, being charitable does not mean giving money foolishly away or using money for whatever purposes imagined to be for good. The Bible specifically talks about helping the poor, the widowed, and the fatherless. That brings me to the matter of tithing.

During the Old Testament days in the Theocracy of Israel, the Israelites are commanded to tithe (Leviticus 27:30). The very essence of tithing is for charity, with only the tithe of the third year given to the Levites – the priesthood class (ref. Deuteronomy 12:19; Deuteronomy 14:27 ~ 29; Deuteronomy 26:12 ~ 13). In essence, it is what would pass for a modern day social security and taxation plan in the Theocracy of Israel back then. God has given very specific command on how the tithes should be used as well, making sure no one prospers from it. When Israel failed to do so, God rebuked them, even accusing them of robbing Him (Malachi 3:7 ~ 8).

Now, there is no equivalent of the Levites in the New Testament context, since Jesus has become the High Priest and now intercedes on our behalf. The pastors are different from the Levites and thus we are not tithing “to pay them”. That does not mean we should not tithe, we simply need to understand why; when or if we are feel compelled or led to give. Once we understand the reasons, obeying and giving to church simply becomes a matter of joy. God does love a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:6 ~ 15), but in the context of that passage, the preceding paragraph talks about giving to those who were in need (e.g. the Macedonian Church at that time). It is not some kind of loophole in the Scriptures where we can use to strong-arm the Creator of the Universe into showering the believers with blessings.

In the New Testament church, believers are encouraged to give offerings as we are expected to help one another so there will be no lack among believers. All the more so for those who have given up their job to serve full time in church. Clearly, we cannot expect anyone to make sacrifices and eat all the way into their own savings to serve God full-time. But that money is not given for their prosperity. If they are getting so much money that they can afford to fly in private jets and to live in lodgings way above everyone else, while someone within the congregation is in dire need, then something is seriously wrong!

In any case, God has never failed to command us to look after the disadvantaged regardless of the Old Testament Temple period or the New Testament period. If a church has stored up huge amount of money, then my opinion is that should simply expand charitable services within the community where it got the money. If a church will not help the community in which it is founded and decided that it has other non-charitable priorities, then it should really just leave and stop being hypocritical.

It simply defies basic economic principles when one believes that giving beyond his capacity “will earn one many times more in return”. It also belittles the other Christians who gave time, and service to serve God in other capacities – turning them into nothing more but second-class citizens in God’s kingdom. It is simply common sense to ask Kong Hee how does God bless this other group many times in return. God certainly never intended the Holy Scriptures to become an excuse for leaders to make believers pour out their hard earn money into a bottomless pit. The Scriptures have examples on how God works when He truly intends something to be done. For example, when God commanded Moses to build the Tabernacle, Moses was told what to ask from the Israelites. But God’s servants do not take more than what is necessary because Moses immediately told the people to stop giving when he realised that there is more than enough (Exodus 36:6 ~ 7). In short, there wouldn’t be any issue asking the congregation to give as long as there is a target figure in the first place. (If one example is not enough, read up 1st and 2nd Chronicles on the first temple which King Solomon is instructed to built, and be truly amazed! Then read up on the second temple in the Book of Ezra chapters 1 ~ 3 as well. Pay special attention to where the material is coming from and see whether anyone actually gave until they wept.)

Kong Hee’s “theology” has really very little feet to stand on. If anyone justifies taking from the congregation by quoting Scriptures, then it is necessary for the congregation to evaluate whether it follows God’s modus operandi according to the Scriptures too. The Scriptures should be the very fail-safe to prevent anyone from asking fellow believers to sign them a blank cheque, and in specific to prevent someone from using Scriptures to their advantage and abuse certain parts to suit their own personal agenda. Believers are thus equipped to play the role of a watch dog over their own church leaders had they been reading their Bible. They can be sure to a certain extent when their leaders tell them to give, whether the instructions really came from the Almighty Himself or not.

 

[Haagen Diaz]

Commissioner of Charities vs Kong Hee & Co. | Breakfast Network | An Eye on the News Singapore


Things aren’t looking so good for Kong Hee and his inner circle of City Harvest leaders. After they were suspended from their offices last year, the Commissioner of Charities yesterday moved to make their removal permanent.
If successful, the key office holders will be barred from holding any office in any charity forever. The only person spared this fate is Sun Ho, Kong Hee’s wife; the COC said this was because it did not have sufficient evidence that she contributed to the mismanagement of the church.
The whole thing just looks bad for the eight executive members. Six of them still have to go to court next month to defend themselves against criminal charges related to the same case.
By letting Sun Ho off the hook because of “insufficient evidence”, the COC is plainly saying they’ve got enough on Kong Hee and his crew to justify its decision.
To bar someone from office for life is no joke – the media did not say how many times this has been done, but Zaobao reported that the last time such action was taken was two years ago – against the chairman of a Hindu temple in Marsiling.
In that case, the chairman was also accused of mismanaging the temple’s donations – though, it seems no criminal charges were filed against him.
Supporters of Kong Hee and the other members have until May 13 to persuade the COC not to proceed.
Their instinct may be to flood the charities watchdog with testimonials of how wonderful or indispensible their leaders are, but that would be a waste of time probably.
The eight members’ guilt – from the COC’s perspective – seems a foregone conclusion. Even though technically the COC still has to get the Attorney-General’s permission to proceed, the AG is not likely to undercut its own case – which is what the church leaders’ defence lawyers may argue if it denies the COC’s request.
In any case, it’s still not clear exactly what real impact the removal will mean for the church.
Kong will still be allowed to preach, and he is still widely loved by City Harvest members as the founder and spiritual father of the church. Just because he’s not in office doesn’t mean he can’t – or won’t – wield considerable influence over the church’s daily operations.
That power may diminish if he’s convicted in criminal court and jailed – but that’s not a given either. Remember Ming Yi, the disgraced monk who was jailed for misuse of temple funds in 2009? A big celebration dinner was held in his honour when he was released six months later and he’s still running a temple in Geylang. Word is he’s now got temples in Malaysia and Hong Kong too.
The big question today is how the COC’s decision will impact the criminal proceedings next month.
Assuming the COC, police, and AGC all used the same facts to determine their cases, it’s a bit puzzling for the COC to say that its decision was “independent and separate” from the criminal trial.
It also seems too much of coincidence that the deadline for the church leaders’ supporters to submit their appeals to the COC is – in Kong Hee’s words – “a mere two days” from the trial. Are we really suppose to think one has nothing to do with the other?
The COC said there is “due process” in its determination – but what exactly is this process besides consultation with the AGC?
Is the burden of proof on the church leaders and their supporters, or is it on the COC to make its case to the AGC? Are the standards the same as what the AGC has to prove in the criminal courts?
This ambiguity is present also in the COC’s decision to remove all eight executive members after only five agreed to voluntarily extend their suspensions. “Since there was no collective agreement and with the suspension period due to run out in June, the COC had to proceed to the next stage of the process, which was to remove them,” reported ST. Why are the eight being dealt with as a collective in the first place?
Will the criminal trial shed some light on these questions? Maybe they won’t matter much by the time the trial comes around.
But the COC should answer them anyway – if not to show the public it is transparent about its processes, then to quell any upset or grievances City Harvest’s church members may have if their leaders are permanently removed next month.

 

[Haagen Diaz]

Kong Hee 'surprised' at COC bid to remove him


SINGAPORE - City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee said on Tuesday night he was surprised at the Commissioner of Charities' (COC) decision to try to remove him and his colleagues from office.

The COC had originally suspended him and eight other church leaders last year after an inquiry showed that funds had been mismanaged. At the same time, six of them, including Kong, were charged with embezzling more than $50 million from their parish.

All nine were given the option to voluntarily extend their suspension till six months after the criminal trial, which will start on May 15.

Both Kong, his wife Ho Yeow Sun, and three others accepted by last month. But since not all of them did, the COC could not proceed with the extension. So the commissioner on Tuesday acted to remove eight of them, except for Ms Ho, from office.

Kong argued in his statement on Tuesday that whether the other leaders agreed to the extension was not within his control. "I also did not see how this would alter the fact that Sun and I had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on their terms, and I informed COC accordingly."

He added that when the COC made the offer of the extension, it had agreed that "this would be entirely without admission to liability and without prejudice to my rights".

As to the suspension, he said the COC has "never explained how the church's property is allegedly at risk, such that it was necessary to issue suspension orders in 2012 and removal orders in 2013".

Despite this, he agreed to the voluntary extension as it was "expedient and practical" given the criminal proceedings that have been brought against him and five others.

Those whom COC is seeking to remove have until May 13 to make representations. Four of the key officers - Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Lam Leng Hung and Mr Kelvin Teo Meng How - are also allowed representations from members of the public.

But parishioners are not rushing to do that. They want to wait and see what comes out of the criminal trial. "The trial should run first, then we can decide based on whether they are guilty or not," said project manager Wilfred Tan, 37.

The current proposal to remove the eight leaders is separate from the trial. Even if they are not found guilty by the law, they will still be barred from management positions in the church. This was unfair, said manager Gavin Gan, 39.

"I can understand that the authorities want to protect other churches in this manner," the parishioner said. "But if they are not guilty, they should be allowed to resume what they were doing before."

Even if the removals succeed, members are confident the church will stay strong. Said product consultant Rosalind Yip, 38: "Of course it will be sad. But the church is not built on one man."

A church spokesman said the church has had to function without its leaders' inputs administratively since they were suspended last year, "and will continue to do so".

Members of the public who either object to the COC's proposal for removal, or have evidence to support it, can refer to Redirecting to main page ... on how to make submissions.

 

[Haagen Diaz]

1 month left to go.

 

[mgsten]

wait cad kena pwn like cpib. nowadays not everything is ironclad case. the smart crooks know how to play the system.

 

[TUV2008]

wait cad kena pwn like cpib. nowadays not everything is ironclad case. the smart crooks know how to play the system.

U r right , this case is very unique, it can be argued in many angles depending on who you represent. It seems difficult to draw a line clearly who's right or wrong when thing touches religion.

The ruling on this case will be a reference for future such cases.

 

[SMB75U]

Is there any chance they will walk away 'faultless' ?

 

[mgsten]

U r right , this case is very unique, it can be argued in many angles depending on who you represent. It seems difficult to draw a line clearly who's right or wrong when thing touches religion.

The ruling on this case will be a reference for future such cases.

actually, a lot of things nowadays very hard to say wat's or who's right or wrong. ya, can be anything. when certain things r setup this way, even

 

[mgsten]

Is there any chance they will walk away 'faultless' ?

possible.

 

[SMB75U]

possible.

I just wished what my CGL say won't come true though, not that I am against her but what she said was 'the prosecutors will forget their starting statements' and she 'compared bible to reality'.

If what the bible says can be compared to reality won't the world be in a mess

 

[mgsten]

I just wished what my CGL say won't come true though

wat's cgl?

 

[SMB75U]

wat's cgl?

CGL = Cell group leader

 

[mgsten]

CGL = Cell group leader

thanks.



anyhow, anything's possible nowadays.

 

[SMB75U]

thanks.



anyhow, anything's possible nowadays.

If they were let off the hook, It would be an indirect threat to the public and society.

It is a mixed feeling for me because I have friends in there and me as a public member don't really 'see fit with the way they do their stuff'.

 

[mgsten]

me don't wanna use the term 'let off the hook' here. maybe yes 4 woffles.

it's the burden of cad and the public prosecutors to prove any wrong doings. if they can't, in the eyes of the law - the six commit no crime.

there ppl who avoid paying tax legally instead of evading tax illegally. so how?

 

[Haagen Diaz]

17 days left to go.....

 

[Haagen Diaz]

City Harvest Church Trial Dates Set! | Hype.my


Judgment day of a different kind approaches for the leaders of Singapore’s City Harvest Church. Quite literally, a judge has been appointed for the trial. District Judge See Kee Oon will preside over the trial that is set for 15th to 23rd May, which was decided during a closed-door pre-trial conference last Friday.

Six City Harvest Church leaders:

Senior Pastor Kong Hee
Serina Wee Gek Yin
Chew Eng Han
Sharon Tan
Tan Ye Peng
John La
..are charged with misusing church funds. All six leaders are accused of conspiring to cheat the church of millions of dollars.

They allegedly channeled some SGD24 million into sham bond investments and misappropriated some USD26 million to cover up the first sum.

The millions and millions of church funds were allegedly used to boost the music career of Senior Pastor Kong Hee’s wife, Sun Ho:

Initially, the defence lawyers tried to postpone the trial dates, which was strongly objected by the prosecution. After which, it was decided that the trial dates should remain unchanged as the case has been going on for almost a year and it’s in the public’s interest that it isn’t postponed.

UPDATE:

Singapore’s Commissioner of Charities (COC) is considering removing eight individuals from their positions in City Harvest Church, including church founder Kong Hee. The management board of City Harvest Church says it has been informed of the COC’s intention to remove eight individuals from their office.

In a statement, the chairman of the management board Aries Zulkarnain says it is a very challenging time for the church leaders and members, their families and the church. He adds the church will stay united to continue serving its members and community to the best of its ability.

Also, pastors Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng will continue to perform their pastoral duties.

A final closed-door session will be held on 23rd April before the trial begins.

 

[Haagen Diaz]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/04/16/kong-one-more-year-and-it-will-be-all-over/


During yesterday’s (14 Apr) City Harvest Church (CHC) service, pastor Kong Hee rallied his congregation telling them that by next year, “everything should be all over”.

He said, “You’ve been holding on for three years. One more year. One more year and it will be all over.”

The Commissioner of Charities (COC) has initiated a process to remove 8 church leaders, including Kong Hee, from CHC, after it found gross financial mismanagement inside CHC (‘COC proceeds to remove 8 CHC leaders from office‘). COC found, among other things, that millions of dollars of church funds were allegedly used to finance the music career of Kong’s wife Sun Ho:

Kong said he is preparing representations to defend himself before the COC. He said, “And yes, I do maintain my integrity.” The CHC crowd cheered and roared in approval.

When he went on stage to deliver a sermon, he received a standing ovation from the crowd. Many young CHC members were seen holding banners declaring their trust in Kong and their church leaders.

Referring to his wife whom COC did not proceed to remove for lack of evidence, Kong told the crowd that the lawyers believed the fact that her suspension will lapse could be “a sign of greater things to come”. Again, this was followed by huge applause and cheers from the crowd with the banners waving.

Kong seemed confident that he would be exonerated. He continued, “While I don’t know what is going to happen one year from now, I don’t know will I still be standing here, but (from) the way you clap, I better be standing here.”

Later, a video was shown to the crowd. It was a compilation of pastors from churches in the United States, Australia and South Korea, addressing Kong and his wife and encouraging the church members and its leadership.

Two couples even went on stage to pledge their faith in Kong and the church leaders. They also said that they will be making representations on the COC’s proposal to remove the CHC leaders.

Meanwhile, the criminal proceedings for 6 of the CHC leaders, including Kong, will start next month.

 

[Haagen Diaz]

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/04/2...-to-pressurise-coc-not-to-remove-kong-others/


Why I started this FB Page – COC must not remove the 8 leaders of CHC?

I am a Compliance Officer & I specialize in Anti-Money Laundering. This job of mine also requires us to catch crooks and prevent them from using Singapore as a conduit to launder money. Due to my job profession, I always view myself holding an important role to uphold my company’s reputation and Singapore’s reputation as a clean and safe country. Our role is to report suspicious activities to CAD and they will hold the role to charge the criminals; and the final decision is left to the Judge to convict them. It is not supposedly our role to pre-judge our customers as Singapore adheres to the principle that “every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

But is this really the case? Do we wait till the Court to give what’s due to the accused or we will take things into our own hand? Back to my job role, other than reporting suspicious activities to CAD, what else do we do? Do we wait till the customer is convicted in Court before we decide to terminate the customer relationship? Does “every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty” really applies?

Unfortunately, the answer is possibly NO because we need to protect our company’s reputation too, JUST IN CASE, the customer turns out to be a crook.

Then does the customer have every right to appeal on the account closure? Yes & No. Yes, if you are rich or tenacious enough to contest the unfair treatment in Court. No, when you are only one voice against the institution and the institution always has its T&C to fall back on to justify its actions. Am I agreeable to this approach? I am not, but I have little choice because it is the “Mgt’s decision” and we must have the bigger picture in mind after weighing all the pros and cons…

NOW, relating my job experience to the current situation – the intention of COC to remove the 8 leaders of CHC before the trial starts is equivalent to “exiting the customer relationship” even before hearing the verdict from Court. And it is not just about exiting the relationship with one institution. It is to prevent the customer from opening accounts with OTHER financial institutions as well because this permanent removal means that they cannot set up another charity in Singapore even if they want to, for minimum 2 years. So, is this really fair?

From the institution’s perspective, perhaps this action is “needed”… to protect the company’s reputation … to protect the church’s assets JUST IN CASE the accused is really guilty. But what happens if the accused are not guilty? What happens if they can explain exactly what is going on?

In my job role, unfortunately, it is not in our process to call ALL customers to verify what is going on in their accounts before we file a suspicious transaction report to CAD. We file and exit based on what we see, which may differ from the reason and intent. Many times we choose to believe what we see, but if we stick to this principle all the time, we won’t be even acknowledging Jesus as our Savior today because we haven’t see Him. So is seeing really believing?

This is why I started this FB page to appeal to you to write in to COC personally if you believe & support what our leaders are doing for the past 24 years. If you do not believe & support, it’s perfectly fine. I appreciate it if you do not post your negative comments here. You can don’t LIKE my page and leave the page too.

But if you truly stand together with CHC, please pen down your thoughts to COC to appeal for our leaders against this removal.

Otherwise, 8 people versus 1 institution… it seems to be a losing battle. But if we have 8,000; 80,000 versus 1 institution, perhaps they will seriously think about the impact on this action.

Yes, we have our Almighty God. God is always in control. Even if we don’t have 8,000 or 80,000 to write in letters, God can still deliver them right? The answer is of course YES. But do remember that God works through people. God used Moses to bring the Children of Israel out of Egypt. God used Noah to build an Ark to save mankind. God used the 12 disciples to spread the gospel throughout the world. God used Jesus to die for all mankind so that we can live.

So what can you do to help?

1) Please start to write to COC if you believe and support our leaders before 13 May 13. Even if it is just 1 liner “I disagree with the removal of my 8 leaders in CHC” – it is good enough as you are making your voice count, (but do remember to write in your full name; NRIC number; contact number; address & signature in your letter!) Hand-delivery of letter is the best!

2) Please invite your church friends/members whom you know who also believe in our church leadership, to LIKE this page & encourage them to write in to COC. If you know of overseas bible school students / our overseas affiliate churches who are blessed by our church before, invite them to write in too!

Again, I like to stress that this is my personal opinion and you may have differing views. I may not cover all grounds too. But because I started this FB page, I have the right to decide what’s good & what’s not good to achieve my objective. I may remove your comments if I find it not helpful. Thank you for your understanding.

Once again, let’s arise & do our part. One man can make a difference.

Blessings,
Madeline

CHC practises the controversial doctrine of “prosperity gospel”.

Prosperity theology or prosperity gospel is a doctrine which claims the Bible teaches financial blessing is the will of God for Christians. The doctrine teaches that faith, positive speech, and donations to Christian ministries will always increase one’s material wealth.

Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, as well as other Christian denominations. These leaders maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is theologically unsound. Some critics have proposed that prosperity theology cultivates authoritarian organizations, with the leaders controlling the lives of the adherents [Link] [Link].

Some indignant Christians, quoting the Bible, say that the prosperity gospel is “another gospel” which is not “the gospel of Christ” (Galatians 1:6-7) and refer to their practitioners as “false teachers” whose fate is described in 2 Peter chapter 2.

According to a Yahoo! report, CHC’s funds grew with its rise in membership. Net assets in 2009 amounted to an estimated $103 million.

Members who listened to Kong Hee would open their pockets wide to contribute to the church. In a video of his sermon uploaded on YouTube (since removed), Kong stressed that the proclamation of one’s faith “must be backed up by our giving” and, if not, it was essentially empty.

“What we give every week is the measure of the value that you place on your Lord and your saviour Jesus Christ,” he said. “We can lift up our hands to worship god, but if the tithes are still in our pockets, then due tribute has not been given. Then our praises are empty. Our words are empty. There is no value to back it up.”

Some members, however, have questioned the prosperity gospel of CHC and have left the church.

Terence Lee, who joined CHC when he was in his teens, was with the church for seven years until 2010. He said, “I joined the church initially because he (Kong) preached very well and knows how to create a program that appealed to youths.”

Citing “a lack of transparency” in the running of the church as his reason for leaving, Lee shared that he no longer agreed with the doctrine. In fact, he now feels it is based on a “shaky Bible interpretation concocted by self-styled Bible gurus”.

Another member, a former cell group leader who declined to be named, also let on that “there was definitely pressure to donate”, especially among younger church members. “Those who consistently gave more would be applauded; those who didn’t give so much would be ’strongly encouraged’ every week to ‘give as much as you can’,” he told Yahoo!. “We were always told that God would make rich those who donated more.”

Marketing executive Mary Lim, felt the pressure too. The 29-year-old eventually chose to leave Kong’s church three years ago when she became depressed that she couldn’t give enough. “When we signed up, they would give us forms, GIRO forms, encouraging us to donate to CHC via GIRO to make sure our tithes were regular,” she recalled. Her friends who continue to attend CHC still donate via GIRO, she added.

Meanwhile, Kong and five other CHC leaders will face criminal proceedings on 15 May 2013 for allegedly embezzling more than $50 million from CHC.