I have to admit, when I first read the official response from City Harvest Church [CHC], my reaction has been anger and disappointment. The picture to the right summarizes how incredulous I felt when I first read CHC’s response. Why is the church still standing by Kong Hee and the other 4 accused by saying that no money has been lost? Even though they are innocent until proven guilty, the church seems to suggest that it is wrong to even charge the accused in the first place.

By the way, I am under the impression that it is inappropriate to comment on cases sub judice – i.e. under judgment. When a member of the CHC alleged that the Commissioner of Charities’ statement on the misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the charity is defamatory, I had mentioned to some friends that can be considered an offence in itself which may lead to contempt of court proceedings. Thus, I am further puzzled by the high profile official response from the church. It makes me wondered what is the agenda behind it. I would assume that the main purpose is to assure the congregation that no one has defrauded the church of a large amount of money.

I made the effort to re-read some of the news on CHC on the media so far, and I noticed there has been no mention whatsoever that someone has taken the S$24 million for their own benefit. However, CHC’s official response did not address the other matters – such as the allegation of attempts made to avoid disclosing related party transactions involving S$770,000, and also the S$338,000 “refund”.

Anyway, let’s all be patient here as everything will be explained when the defendants take the stand. To be fair, I would say that none of those contradict the official statement of the church which only mentioned only the S$24 million. From this perspective, I can understand (although I do not necessarily agree with) where the executive pastor, Aries Zulkarnain, is coming from when he said “The church did not lose any funds in the relevant transactions, and no personal profit was gained by the individuals concerned”.

However, it revealed some other details – i.e. S$24 million in investment bonds. What is obvious now is that the church has too much money, and just like a lot of other charities it no longer know what to do with that money. Instead, CHC turned itself into a investment company, emulating our town councils and to a larger extent how the government uses the country’s reserves in Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Company. It is all well if these so-called investments made profit. But what happens when money is lost? Is the church sufficiently protected against the risks? I recalled that when the Commissioner of Charities [COC] questioned CHC about its $310 million stake in Suntec Singapore, questions surfaced among the public about whether religious organisations – which are registered as charities – should be allowed to go into business using what are essentially donor funds. It is high time the COC and MCYS take a closer look at the matter of charity going into business or investments.

Next, there is the matter of the “Crossover Project”. Let me just say that the matter of Sun Ho’s raunchy music videos is a dead horse that everyone (including myself) should stop flogging. Whether it has anything to do with Christianity and how it helped to reach out to non-believers is a moot point. Instead, let’s all scruntinise this project in another way.

It is said that the members of the church spoke about the success of this project. But what exactly is the point of building a case to show that the church “unanimously” supports the project because of its success? That would be obfuscating the real issue! The real issue is that the level of support for, or the success of this project should not be a basis for the congregation to “sign a blank cheque” allowing funds to be allocated to it without accountability or transparency, or in ways that befuddles the mind of those trying to get a clear picture of it. There’s also the question who should set the criteria used to measure success. After all, I could justify spending an astronomical amount of money even when there were just one person converting to Christianity because that soul is worth to God more than any amount of money. Meanwhile, others might argue that the numbers would be the only objective measure of its success.

When the congregation has been asked to give without end, it is puzzling that they rose fervently to the defense of the accused when they have never asked for a projection of how much fund is needed for the “Crossover Project” nor a breakdown how the funds allocated to it. Would it not be logical that every project should have a projected figure or budget, and whether funds collected is meeting projection or even beyond? Is it not true that if a CEO keep asking investors to ceaselessly throw money in to finance his project without a cost breakdown and details on how that money is spent, the investors (and shareholders) would have sent him packing?

Some CHC members would scoff, saying that I have no right to teach them how to run their church since I am not a member and has given nothing to them. While it is true that I should just mind my own bl**dy business, does it change the fact that when someone keeps asking for money, the giver can and should ask where is that money going to prevent putting money into a bottomless pit? In fact, had CHC been open to its members about its finances all along, it will be easy for the members to hold their chin high and stand up for the leaders as men of integrity. Furthermore, when Scripture is quoted to justify the giving, then logically anyone can ask whether the spending is according to scriptural principles too. For e.g. when one is asked to tithe, then shouldn’t they look into exactly whether the tithes are used strictly for those very purpose? God gave His believers a sound mind to reason. Why begrudge those who pointed out the obvious?

It has always been crystal clear to almost everyone I talked with that this has nothing to do with religious persecution or jealousy, neither is it some kind of trial or tribulation. This is simply a matter of governance. In Singapore there are rules that says what agents of charity should not be doing. When those rules aren’t followed, then those people who are suspected to flout the rules will be officially charged and they have to (unfortunately) explain themselves in a court of law to the satisfaction of the judge. God commands His believers to submit themselves to earthly authorities too!

As a Christian, instead of feeling hurt or persecuted, I thank God that this has come to light. God in His mercy and love has revealed all these so that in the future all elements of His church will stand up to scrutiny.

Praise to be to God, Amen!