Relief, disappointment greet court’s decision on City Harvest
Kong Hee leaves the supreme court on April 7, 2017. Photo: Jason Quah
SINGAPORE — Several City Harvest Church (CHC) members expressed a sense of relief and gratitude after news broke that the High Court on Friday (April 7) had reduced the sentences of six former leaders of the church.
Still, those whom TODAY spoke said that that while they were thankful for the outcome, they were also disappointed that the six, including CHC founder and senior pastor Kong Hee, were not acquitted. Prior to the verdict, some church members said that they had been praying and fasting for the six accused.
Mr Kelvin Tan, a church member for nearly eight years, said Kong and the other five ex-leaders, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Serina Wee, and Sharon Tan, might “have started out with good intentions”.
However, because “they handled (things) a bit wrongly”, they were viewed as having done wrong in the eyes of the law, and therefore had to face the consequences, said Mr Tan, 24.
While he described the court’s decision as a “fair verdict”, Mr Tan said he was still disappointed “since they still have to go to jail”.
Mr Lennard Phua, a CHC member for 18 years, said he accepted that the six had “made a mistake by acting in accordance with the advice given by trusted counsel”. “Perhaps, further due diligence would have helped,” the 42-year-old said.
On Friday, Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin delivered the verdict on behalf of the three-judge panel. He said that the court, by majority, decided to allow the appeals by the former church leaders against their convictions “only to the limited extent”.
Judge Chao said the court did not think that the six should be convicted for criminal breach of trust by an agent under Section 409 of the Penal Code, and reduced it to that of criminal breach of trust under Section 406, which carries a lower maximum sentence.
The court also accepted that the six had acted in what they considered to be the church’s best interests.
In the two-one split decision, Justice Chan Seng Onn held a different view from Judge Chao and Justice Woo Bih Li.
In a statement released on its website after the verdict was passed, the CHC’s management board said that while was it “deeply saddened” by the court’s decision, “we thank God for shorter sentences”.
Thanking members for “seven years of ceaseless prayer and uncompromising faith”, the board said that through the seven years since news broke, “we have learnt many lessons”.
Mrs Carol Soh, a church member of 12 years, said she was “thankful” that there was finally some closure to the case after all these years.
“More importantly, I am very thankful that there is recognition that the leaders have acted in the best interest of the church, and that there was no personal gain,” the 45-year-old added.
Other Christians interviewed were less sympathetic towards the six CHC ex-leaders.
A 60-year-old, who wanted to be known only as Mr Lim, felt that Kong’s jail sentence, which was cut from eight years to three-and-a-half years, was too short when compared to the rest since he was seen to be the leader of the group.
Mr Lim, who was in court on Friday morning to hear the verdict, said he had been following the CHC saga, out of interest as a Christian, and also because he was “concerned with somebody using the name of God”, and had “wanted to see justice being done”.
Another Christian, a 60-year-old retiree who wanted to identified only as Mr Low, was “disappointed” at the reduced jail terms. He said a tougher custodial sentence would “send a stronger message”.
After the verdict was delivered, lawyer Paul Seah, who represented Sharon Tan, told reporters his client was “disappointed” that she was not acquitted, but was pleased that her jail sentence was reduced.
She was also glad that the court recognised that she had only a limited role to play in the affair, he told reporters.
Former church fund manager Chew Eng Han, who said he was disappointed at the court’s decision, added that he was considering making another appeal.
Speaking to reporters after the court session, he maintained that “if the money was used for the church’s benefit, it is not misappropriation”.
