City Harvest and the CBT gap.

There is something surely unprecedented about the news two weeks ago. 

It is like the society of ours has been pried open and every nook and cranny of it is being examined and defended. 

It comes in three, and they shall form my lessons here. 

First, it was reported that our law minister "stressed he was aware that many have expressed their dissatisfaction with the outcome of the (City Harvest) case. Netizens have said that the judges let off the rich, or that some judges were lenient because they were Christians." 

That's front page news. That's something you don't read everyday in Singapore. 

Ironically, this statement comes on the heels of the suspended sentence of the scion of Samsung and heir, Lee Jae Yong, 49. 

He was walking as a free man in the street after leaving Seoul Detention Centre. 

Lee was convicted for bribery and embezzlement and upon appeal, had his sentence halved to 2.5 years. 

The judges then shocked the nation by suspending it for 4 years. This means that if he commits any offence during the 4 years, he will be hauled back to Court to be reassessed and serve time. In the meantime, he is freed.

Standing in the frigid February air, he apologised for (as he said) "not showing my best side." 

Well, he may not have shown his best side, but the judiciary had definitely extended him their best side (or deal).

A National Assembly member Park Yong Jin from Mr Moon's party said: "It's truly disappointing. We confirmed once again that Samsung is above the law and the court."

Of course, let me set the record straight that what happened to Lee will not happen here with our judiciary. 

I do not see any parallel here because it took 150 pages of in-depth judgment written to great judicial flourish and exactitude to explain to all and sundry why the law shortfell, why no one took notice, why the gap has to be filled, and why injustice had and will continue if this is not done very soon. 

40 years of misapprehension and more than 16 cases (not counting many other unreported cases) being wrongly interpreted to the detriment of prison time served and potentially discriminate common employees and letting off to some extent the key-decision makers in companies and charities are just too much of a gap or lacuna for the society of right-thinking populace to bear. 

Second, Insight Editor Elgin Toh was reporting from Parliament and he observed that "the Government believes that the sentences are too low (for the City Harvest accused)."

It was nevertheless a quiet and calm "tai-Chi" session whereby the CA "agreed that there was no good policy reason to ignore the "heightened culpability" of directors (as compared to clerks and employees)."" 

Yet, the justices were "obliged to apply the law as they understood it." 

Bottom line: It is Parliament's problem, and it is just too bad that after 40 years, the case that woke the Courts to this peculiar oversight of Section 409 fell on no other cases (of much less ostentatiousness) than the City Harvest leaders. 

If it had been a lesser known case, not involving religion or any hint of religion, and not concerning millions of dollars where one of the accused happens to be living in a million-dollar mansion, the public outcry would have been so much less intense. 

Even Parliament added their voices of discontent when Elgin noted that "as the debate drew to a close, it was clear what was most curious about the case: Almost everyone thought the church leaders should be judged under heavier sentence limits - but they were not."

Finally, and my third lesson is an extract of a Q&A session in Parliament between MP Yee Chia Hsing and Mr Shanmugam. Here is what transpired as reported.

"MR YEE CHIA HSING (Chua Chu Kang GRC) noted that CHC founder Kong Hee's wife Ho Yeow Sun was a "key beneficiary" but had not been charged. He asked if penalties will be introduced such that the beneficiary of proceeds from a CBT case can also be charged.

Mr Shanmugam noted that a beneficiary who receives proceeds without the appropriate knowledge does not automatically become a criminal. "Supposing the person took the money and donated it to a charity, another charity. Does the recipient commit a criminal offence? I think we need to be careful," he said.""

I am a little nonplussed by the analogy that Shanmugam gave in Parliament. I know ultimately it is about a provable criminal intent with knowledge of the coverup activity. 

As such, it has little to do with that a person taking money from one charity and hands it over to another charity per se. But it has everything to do with a criminal intent and knowledge. Shanmugam was at least right on the first part. 

But the analogy misses the point of Sun Ho's central role in the entire legal fiasco that lasted for nearly a decade. 

Her husband was not just diverting building funds from CHC to give to another charity. He was practically handing millions over to fund the music career of his wife, allegedly chosen for a sacred evangelistic purpose. The conflict of interests is jarring to say the least. 

And Sun Ho was no charity, she was the brainchild of the entire misappropriation exercise that dragged the name of Christianity not only through unbeaten dark tracks involving a stretch of interpretation of what counts for evangelism and what doesn't, but she was, in the words of Justice Chan, literally synonymous with the Crossover project.

Not just a direct beneficiary, not just a founding pastor, not just his matrimonial partner, not just the original recipient of the Crossover vision, not just Crossover's frontman, not just the main and sole protagonist of those my-kids-will-turn-away-saying-shame-shame music videos, and not just the joint decider of how the funds were to be used to promote her career around the world (as her husband once paid her the highest tribute by addressing her as the "sun" in his life), Sun Ho appears to have also been kept in the loop of things as it progressed along the way before the law caught up with the accused persons. 

And this immediately reminded me of a Blackberry discussion between the leaders of CHC about a special audit in April 2010:- 

"Sun, (as in Sun Ho) one of the main reasons why I proposed the Special Audit is to buy us time to fill up the hole. We don't want all the issue to grow to the extend (sic) that the authorities step in BEFORE we fill up the hole. By appointing our auditors, it will be easier to talk and get things done. If the report turns out to be lacking in some areas, we will improve and change. They can help us. That's why to me, it is important to let the relevant authorities know that we initiate a special audit. They will at least not do anything till the report comes out. By then, the hole is filled."

So, if you separate and isolate all those factors I've listed for consideration, then one can safely say that Sun Ho was clearly keeping an arm's-length distance from the hole the accused persons were trying desperately to fill. 

But if you piece all those factors together, and scrutinise them in its proper context over the long period of criminal coverup, it boggles my mind for Sun Ho to stand unadulterated before the ordination crowd of thousands to lead CHC 2.0 in Nov 2015, and conveniently disclaim all responsibility and accountability with the resounding tagline: "It wasn't me". 

Let's set the record straight here. 

Sun Ho was not charged, and that was the Prosecutorial discretion enshrined in the legislature and I fully respect, submit and understand that.

Sun Ho was not charged, and by writing this, I am not advocating for that, at least not in this lifetime. That "Changi" ship has sailed. 

Nevertheless, the saga has costs too much, and the die has been cast last Thursday at the Apex Court. So, let's move on. 

But what I would expect at the very minimum from a leader is to take responsibility by taking up the leadership mantle, giving an account to the church (whether they want it or not), and apologising (if not for her direct part in it) for her "indirect" role because you can't spell Crossover without Sun Ho. 

Alas, maybe there is no use flogging a dead horse (pun unintended). 

I guess the hole will never be filled because not one leader at the current CHC 2.0 leadership has the moral courage to face the people, tell them what really went wrong, and then together, in one body of Christ, admit to their shortcomings, their failure, their oversight. 

Paradoxically, it is a church that is so eager to capture the market of lost souls, amass them in by the truckloads, hype them up with good music and bedazzling sermons from the most awe-inducing stage, and do charity by giving tirelessly.

However, when it comes to confronting oneself, allowing God's spirit to search their hearts for what had transpired in the Crossover, surrendering one's leadership flaws at the altar of true repentance, and holding oneself as the leader whom the people trust to the highest of accountability, there is a hole that many rather sheepishly walk on by - blissfully pretending that if you see, hear or speak no evil, the hole will fill itself up...eventually. Cheerz.

The City Harvest Trial - the Final Chapter.

After 142 days of trial, 9 presiding judges, more than 700 pages of judgment (not including the judgment in Chew's two appeals), 3 years of investigation, 3 apologies, several senior counsels and DPPs, millions in legal fees, and not forgetting, a corporate anointing in end 2015 with the passing of a personal bible from one to another, the CHC saga is finally over. 

Like it or not, I can't say that I disagree with Sun Ho when she said: "I'm very thankful for everyone that has journeyed with us and prayed for us and loved us in spite of everything." 

The journey that she is talking about is one that had started with an unusual vision in 1999 and had ended up with six lives held behind bars in 2017. 

And I hope that when Sun Ho talked about "in spite of everything", she was referring to not just what I had written in my first paragraph above, but also the faith lost, lives broken and hope crashed in the wake of the ironclad refusal to accept responsibility and to be held accountable for one's actions until all legal defences and appeals are thoroughly exhausted (or maybe not?).

Mind you, this is the second longest trial in Singapore history, and it is definitely the most sensational and heartbreaking one. The longest trial goes to a drug trafficking case in the 1990s which lasted for 168 days. 

But I guess both trials share something in common, that is, there is an element that is psychedelic in nature; where one is about a certain heightened vision, and the other, a certain hallucinogen. 

But say what you want, it has taken its heavy and at times, unbearable toll. 

Families of the accused have to go through great anxieties and disruption in their normal routine to stake out at home worrying over their loved ones. Tears were quietly shed and the uncertainty over the seven years was not only emotionally tormenting but financially draining. 

Somewhere, and somehow, it has just got to end and end it did with a twist that even the most enlightened of the spiritual oracle would not have predicted. 

As it turned out, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with the much touted "theological legitimacy". But it has everything to do with the legislation, the highest law-making body of the land, which takes precedence even over the highest Court in the land. 

As the CA wrote in its conclusion, "...the shaping of a remedy should be left to Parliament."

Well, it took seven years (or 40) to unravel that, that is, more specifically, section 409 is not applicable to directors, the governing board members, key officials of charity, and in this case, pastors of the church. And the CA has eschewed the broad interpretation of the section by past judges on the ground that "a tough case shouldn't be allowed to make bad law".

As such, directors, leaders of charity and pastors of churches face only a max of 7 years imprisonment if they should commit CBT as they would be charge under section 406 (and not the more serious section 409).

However, clerks, storemen and employees of the company (and presumably church salaried support staff) are not that fortunate. 

If they should commit CBT, they face a max of 15 years imprisonment under the more serious charge of section 408. 

So, you can say that Kong Hee and the rest escaped on a godsend technicality, premised on the reservation of justice to close a gap that justice had quite presumptuously, but wrongly, bridged for the last 40 years (until yesterday) when a high court judgment in 1976 misinterpreted "agent" in section 409 to include key decision-makers and high-salary-earners like directors, charity leaders and church pastors, which it shouldn't have. 

With this newly minted COA decision of five justices on the 1st of February 2018, we now know beyond reasonable doubt that they do not come under section 409. They are clearly off the sharper hooks of the law into its relatively more gentle edges.

Ironically, what unfolded in this CHC saga after such an exhaustingly long time was not so much justice pursued and meted out, but on the contrary, the highlight was how injustice was uncovered for all those who had once held high positions in the company and were erroneously charged under section 409 (before yesterday's legal "rude" awakening) when they ought to have been charged under section 406 instead. 

And there is another side to this so called "unjust" outcome, at least potentially, if it is not already obvious by now. 

And that is, henceforth and until such time when parliament convenes to remedy the lacuna, directors and pastors are liable for shorter maximum sentence (section 406) as compared to their salaried employees at the bottom rung of the organization (section 408); while section 409 is only reserved for external agents like bankers, merchants, broker and an attorney (who are in the business or profession of providing agency services). That much is clear. 

FYI, Malaysia has long taken the initiative to amend its equivalent section 409 to tailor fit it to modern commercial realities to cover trustees, directors, managers of company, partnership and association. 

On this, we are lagging behind, and as the Court said, "is long overdue".

Alas, the law was finally clarified yesterday. The prosecution will just have to accept it and move on. 

The defence have done their job and they can send their robe to the cleaners to fight another day. Kong Hee is at last at peace with himself and is "getting on with his life." 

Sharon Tan can safely migrate to Canada to be reunited with her beloved family. Eng Han is granted a reprieve to celebrate a solemn CNY with loved ones before he surrenders himself on 22 Feb. 

The other accused with proper remission may just be out very soon. Pastor Sun Ho is, as she had said, very thankful for the prayers and love in the journey. 

And in the words of Serina Wee's husband: "Now I can tell the kids a date that mummy is coming home."

Now, what has CHC to say about all that?

Well, her pastors Aries and Bobby made this public statement:-

"We thank God for His mercy and kindness for sustaining us through these seven years and bringing this to an end. We thank you, Church, for continuing in prayers all these years and for your faithfulness and support."

Lesson? One.

In the end, my personal view, if it is worth its two cents, is that God has really nothing to do with all that. 

If anything, Galatians 3:3 comes to mind: "How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort?"

And if it is not obvious by now, then let me spell it out. 

The only person clearly not involved in all the legal saga, spiritual wayanging and leadership drama (in particular the crossover project) for the past seven years (or my god, for the past 18 years since that vision first started) is God himself. 

Somewhere along that "own-human-effort" journey was someone in the high places of the church leadership using His name in vain, for self-gain, and as the appalling legal trail shows, it's simply insane. 

It bears repeating that God cannot be in any part of it or at all, or else, someone up there will have to fill in another lacuna of a wholly spiritual kind, and that is, how on earth (or in heaven) is it ever possible that God could have personally and directly masterminded and engineered this whole unfathomable legal and spiritual mess that has clearly divided believers, broken hearts, ruined faith, destroyed innocent lives, tormented families, caused millions of dollars (wasted), and ended up in six lives imprisoned, 7 justices washing their hands over a 40-year-long misapprehension (since the case in 1976), and a certain anointed passing of the leadership mantle that leaves more questions hanging than answered?

If at such time, we as believers are still checking our brains at the door before we enter the church, and blindfolding our eyes because we refuse to face reality, then we would sadly need much more than just prayers to continue this journey of faith. 

I recall Jesus once said: "Whoever has ear to hear, let them hear." And by an extension of that, "whoever has eye to see, let them see." 

Most times, it not that we are in a metaphorical sense deaf or blind. But it is because we choose not to hear and see that which is staring at our face as it goes against what we so eagerly want to believe about our leaders and our church. 

This is, I believe, a major part of the reason why we are where we are today in the first place. And why leaders of megachurches (or for that matter, current leaders of the world) have such unbelievably wide latitude and license to act as they please.

And if this lesson of checking our leaders, putting them in their place, exercising moral courage to speak out, is not nurtured and learned (even after all that has happened), we will surely repeat it at the most unwitting season in subsequent lulled years. 

In Psalm 107:2, it says, "Let the redeemed of the Lord speak out, those whom he delivered from the power of the enemy". 

Let's just hope that we will all move on from here and as a redeemed people, will always be prepared to "speak out" (not just on a celebrative tone but on a cautionary note), even at the expense of losing our membership in a tight-knit community for the "blissfully unperturbed" who rather treads gently with cold feet than walk firmly and boldly in faith and in truth. Cheerz.