[Singapore] ACCUSED City Harvest Church (CHC) member John Lam yesterday
admitted on the stand to having been involved in every major decision
of the church - a testimony in direct contrast to his lawyer's assertion
earlier this week that Lam just "pops out here and there".
He was also challenged on his claim that companies such as Xtron
Productions (which managed Sun Ho's singing career and the church's
evangelical effort, the Crossover Project) were independent from CHC;
the prosecution produced several documents pointing to CHC having called
the shots for these companies.
Lam is among six CHC members charged with having "dishonestly
misappropriated" some S$24 million of the church's building funds to
finance Ms Ho's career, and with round-tripping another S$26.6 million,
using entities such as Xtron, to cover the alleged misappropriation. The
others on trial are Ms Ho's husband, senior pastor and co-founder Kong
Hee, deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, finance manager Sharon Tan, and
former finance manager and board member Serina Wee.
Lam's lawyer, Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan, had said in his opening
statement on Monday that Lam had played a much smaller role than the
others in the transactions in question: "All John Lam is, is a volunteer
. . . he seems to pop out here and there."
But, under cross-examination by the prosecution yesterday, Lam admitted to being involved in all major decisions of the church.
Chief prosecutor Mavis Chionh produced a transcript of an extraordinary
general meeting held by CHC on July 7, 2007; at that meeting, Kong had
described Lam, head of the church's investment committee, as being "very
qualified" and who has "been with us in every major decision we've made
from Day 1".
Ms Chionh asked Lam if it was correct to say he had been with the church in every major decision made from Day 1.
"Yes, I can agree with that," Lam replied.
She showed minutes of other meetings - one in March 2010 with the
church's executive members, at which he addressed accusations made
against Kong; at another meeting months later, he presented audit
findings to the executive members.
"When we look at (these), the history of your involvement in the
church, the key appointments you have held, the responsibilities you
have held, it is clear that you are not just an ordinary member who
happens to 'pop in and out' of the church," Ms Chionh said.
Lam disagreed, saying: "My statement, and as my counsel has said,
regarding this case, my position has always been (that I) popped in and
out . . . I'm not disagreeing that I'm qualified, that I have
experience, but I am an ordinary volunteer."
He also asserted that entities such as Xtron, while aligned with CHC's objectives, were independent.
But Ms Chionh put it to him: "(On Thursday), you were the one who told
us that (CHC senior pastor Kong Hee) wanted the directors of all these
companies listed to be responsible for the running of their company . . .
If these companies are all independent of the church, why should Mr
Kong, as pastor of the church, be in a position to say that he wants the
directors to be made responsible for the running of the companies?"
She produced evidence showing the church's role in the running of these
companies - in particular, Xtron. The court was shown a document
listing individuals whom Lam, Wee, Chew and Tan Ye Peng suggested to
Kong and the CHC board as being suitable directors for the "independent"
companies.
She also produced another document on the agreement between Xtron and
CHC on CHC's subleasing of Singapore Expo Hall 8 from Xtron, for which
Xtron did not charge the church a mark-up for renting the Expo space.
"Assuming Xtron is an independent commercial entity that deals with the
church at arm's length, why is it that it would not charge any mark-up
on the rental of Expo?" she asked.
Lam said he believed there was a mark-up provided for in the
sub-leasing agreement. Ms Chionh then produced another document: an
e-mail from Wee to senior church members which said a CHC board meeting
had decided CHC would pay Xtron a mark-up, "as only then will it be
deemed an arm's length transaction"; the e-mail also carried Wee's
calculations on how the mark-up was to be done.
"Do you have any explanation as to why, if Xtron is an independent
commercial entity, . . . is Serina (Wee), the church's finance manager,
proposing in this e-mail how much mark-up Xtron should charge CHC for
renting the Expo premises? It doesn't make sense for the church, if it
is dealing at arm's length with Xtron, a commercial entity, to say,
'Hey, I want to pay you more rent than you are now charging me. Please,
can I pay you more rent?' You would expect Xtron to be the one to
propose a rental mark-up. Do you agree?"
Lam, not answering the question directly, only said that CHC was
prepared to pay a mark-up because it wanted Xtron to be independent.
"Mr Lam, if you have no answer to what I've been asking for the last 10
minutes, I suggest to you then that what we see here (in the e-mail)
suggests that your evidence about City Harvest and Xtron being two
entities that operate independently of each other and at arm's length is
not true. Do you agree or disagree?"
"I disagree," Lam said.
The hearing is adjourned until Aug 4.
No comments:
Post a Comment