Ex-board member: I gave inaccurate evidence - City Harvest trial (BT: 17th July 2014)

SINGAPORE] In what was perhaps one of the more highly anticipated moments of this long-running trial, former City Harvest Church (CHC) member Chew Eng Han - representing himself for the first time since the resumption of the hearing - grilled his former fellow church-goer and board member John Lam, who was on the stand.

Among other things, Chew - who has no legal training - had Lam admit that he had given inaccurate evidence at an earlier stage of the trial.

The pair are among the six accused of having "dishonestly misappropriated" some $24 million of CHC's Building Fund to finance Sun Ho's music career and then "round-tripping" another $26.6 million 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.

Chew, in a clear break from the others, quit the church in June last year; he also discharged his lawyer, Senior Counsel Michael Khoo, and is now defending himself.

When his turn came to cross-examine Lam, he challenged the latter's assertion that it was Chew who came to Lam with the idea of setting up Xtron Productions to manage CHC's evangelical effort, the Crossover Project. Through his line of questioning, Chew accused Lam of submitting false evidence:

"Mr Lam, I'm putting it to you right now: I didn't approach you, I didn't have this grand vision of a media events company. I had a full-time job - State Street Bank at the time. I was not into entertainment, nor into concerts; I wouldn't even have had the time to think about it.

"So I put it to you that the evidence you have given to the court - that it was my idea - is false."

Lam maintained that he had testified that Chew was the originator of the idea because it was Chew who approached him in May 2003 about having Xtron act as the artiste manager for Ms Ho. Chew argued that, since this hearing began, Lam has had sight of e-mails that showed that Chew was not the originator of the idea; the correspondence showed that others - included Kong and Tan Ye Peng - were discussing the idea before Chew came into the picture.

Chew said to Lam: "These two e-mails (exhibits), E-653, E-281, weren't they already in your hands since the trial started? So, you would have read them before you gave your statement."

Lam replied: "My statement was that, at the time, in May 2003, I had no knowledge that someone else was asking (Chew) Eng Han to tell me to set up Xtron . . . because it was Eng Han who approached me about being a director in Xtron."

To which, Chew said: "Mr Lam, I'm not asking for your recollection of May 2003. I'm asking for your recollection since the trial started - you would have access to these two e-mails, and you would have gone through them. And (I'm) asking - (having) read through those e-mails, how could you come up with the statement that it was Chew Eng Han who started Xtron?"

At which point, Chief District Judge See Kee Oon stepped in: "Mr Chew, you are basically saying that Mr Lam has given evidence which is at least inaccurate. So, do you agree with this, Mr Lam?"

At this point, Lam conceded, replying: "Your Honour, yes, I agree."

Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan, who is representing Sharon Tan, pointed out Chew's lack of legal credentials, but this has been a shortfall to which Chew has not been adverse to admitting.

When he opened his cross-examination of Lam, he had quipped: "I would just like to make a bit of a request: when the counsel in front, when you hand out new exhibits, don't forget there's a little junior counsel here. I need some of the documents too."

At another point, following an argument between the prosecution and defence counsel over a point of law, Chew said: "I don't understand what all these counsel are saying."