Today is Mr Chew Eng Han six days on the
stand. This morning he was cross-examined by SC Mr Sreenivasan, SC
Maniam and DPP Christopher Ong. The cross-examination by the SCs ended
around 10:42 am and DPP Christopher started his cross-examination around
11:18am.
Below is the recount of cross-examination by DPP Ong on 2 February 2015.
2 February 2015 – Chew cross-examined by DPP Ong
DPP begin with some background information from Mr Chew such as how long he have been a member of CHC and the roles and responsibility of the positions in CHC.
Questions related to the minutes in CHC are they fictitious?
DPP: So I’m asking about those specific
minutes, but, since you say referred to this as a practice within the
church as far as you know, there would be meetings that would be meeting
minutes that are essentially fictitious: the meeting never took place,
therefore, those things that supposedly discussed at the meeting never
took place?
Chew: Okay, now you are asking me a
different question, right? Because my point was that the meetings may
not have taken place, although the dates are there.
DPP: Yes
Chew: Now, we are going one step
further, which is do the minutes of any meeting actually reflect the
actual meeting, right? And your Honour, as far as the board minutes are
concerned, all the board meetings took place, I believe. As far as the
committee meetings are concerned, I can’t remember which committee I was
in.
DPP: We were talking about the finance committee.
Chew: Yah, as far as the finance
committee, which happened before 2007, right, I think, I there were many
meetings that didn’t take place. But I don’t see any minutes in the
evidence, so I can’t comment on.
DPP: Well, if meeting didn’t take place
but minutes were produced, then it’s logical that those minutes must be
fictitious, correct? Because they document things happening, discussion
taking place, that did not take place.
Chew: Your Honour, that is possible.
However, I need to point out that even in the corporate world this take
place because all companies supposed to hold a AGM every year, and then
they did a proxy at certain point, place and time and the meetings never
took place as well. So that in itself is not evidence of a false
evidence being put into the minutes.
….
DPP: As far as your knowledge goes,
which committees are you able to say would have had meetings that were
dated despite the fact that the meeting never took place?
Chew: I already said that I’m not sure
if there were actual minutes or meetings that didn’t take place. So I
can’t answer that question.
Questions related to the “Role of Committee”
DPP opened an email exhibit dated 6 July 07. Serina Wee wrote to John Lam, Martin Ong and Charlie Lay.
DPP: Can you go through each of them and confirm whether, in fact, this was a role played by the investment committee.
Chew commented on the roles.
……
DPP tried to establish the point that the board only make decision to approve on the total budget figure. The budget was not presented to the board.
DPP asked Chew …… what role did the
board play in determining, “Well, we have this amount of excess funds
which should be invested”?
Chew: Your last line, right, it says
“Well, we have amount of excess funds which should be invested”, to
Xtron or Firna bond or anything?
Mr Sreenivasan who is representing Tan Ye Peng stood up
Sreeni: The question has gone from the
general to the specific, because two bonds are referred to. Then can my
learned friend confirm he’s limiting his question to the time that Mr
Chew was on the board, as opposed to the time when Mr Chew left the
board?
……
DPP: I’m asking him about the
decision-making on how much should be invested into Xtron and into
Firna, all right? He was involved in those supposed investments. So I’m
asking him, based on his knowledge, because he told us that it was Kong
Hee and Ye Peng and Serina who worked out how much was required to be
invested in these bonds, what role the board played?
Chew: What role the board played vis-à-vis Kong hee and Tan Ye Peng?
DPP: No what role the board played…
Chew: In my mind, I wasn’t at the board
meeting especially for Xtron bonds after I stepped down. What I think
would have happened is that it would have been presented to the board at
the beginning of inception of the bonds that Xtron was going to issue
$13m of bonds. That amount was already known because of the amount
started in BSA. And then the board would approve it and say “yes”.
That’s the role that the board has. Other than that, the board would not
be looking at the breakdown of the budget, if that’s the question
you’re asking me.
…..
Chew: … In other words, the initial discussion for the Xtron bonds I think it was not tabled at the board.
DPP: Mr Chew, that’s what I’ve been
driving at and asking you to clarify, because you said earlier that it
would be the board that determines how much of excess funds to invest,
but, from the process that you’re describing, it seems as if the
decision on how much to invest is actually made in relation to the Xtron
and Firna bonds by Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina, based on the
financial needs of Sun Ho’s music career. And then, only when the way to
invest those funds has been structured by you, that the board is then
asked for their okay. That’s your understanding of the process?
Chew: Yes, with the qualification that ….. “seems
as if the decision on how much to invest is actually made in relation
to the Xtron and Firna bonds by Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina”, I
would agree to the whole statement, except for that line because what
Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Serina is doing is to decide on the total
budget that they need for the album, they are not making the decision to
invest. They are making a decision on the total budget required, which
is then presented to the board, that Xtron needs to issue $13m of bonds
and then the board approves that figure of $13m to invest into Xtron
bonds.
<…..many questions …>
DPP: Because your last answer suggested
that the budget is presented to the board and then the board decides to
invest $13m to Xtron, there’s actually a step in between, correct? The
budget is given to you, you structure the bond proposal, then the board
just decides whether to accept the proposal or not?
Chew: Yah. It’s not the budget given to me; it’s the budgeted figure.
DPP: The amount required?
Chew: Yes. And similarly for the board, it’s not the budget that’s presented; it’s the budgeted figure.
Questions related to “Any assessment done by the committee?”
DPP: So are you saying, Mr Chew, that
at the time you were carrying out the role of the church’s third-party
fund manager, you were never, yourself, conscious of being assessed?
Nobody ever sat you down and said, “Come, let’s assess your performance
as fund manager”?
Chew: It’s not a formal assessment,
but, of course, I know, your Honour, that they would be assessing me all
the time because this is the money of the church, and, rightfully, they
should be assessing my performance. But I don’t think there was a
formal sit-down assessment where I have to face the committee and they
start asking me questions. I was also aware, your Honour, that they were
talking to other fund managers, but that’s the extend of it. I didn’t
know what else, other details.
…..
DPP: If the fund manager were found to
be not performing up to the standard or what was expected, it would be
the investment committee’s job to intervene. Correct?
Chew: Again, I think it’s the
management board that has the power, your Honour, rather than the
investment committee. The investment comm’s role would be to do the leg
work, to do the background work and find out how the other fund managers
are performing and then present that to the board to make a decision.
DPP: So it would be the investment committee’s job to present the assessment, but if there was a decision to be taken to remove the fund manager, that would be taken up at the board level?
Chew: Yes
Did Mr Chew hide any information from the board?
DPP: If misleading information were
being given to either the investment committee or the board, that would
interfere with their ability to carry out that supervisory role.
Correct?
Chew: Yes.
DPP: You’ve specifically mentioned that
most of the time you were personally giving your responsibilities to
the board on the investment performance. So if you had given them
inaccurate, misleading information, untruthful information, that would
have hindered their ability to supervise you. Correct?
Chew: Yes
DPP: As far as you’re concerned, was
the board and the investment committee always given accurate and
truthful information regarding your activities as the fund manager?
Chew: As far as I’m concerned, meaning as far as the information I give to them?
DPP: Or as far as information that you know was given to them, even if it didn’t come from you.
…..
Chew: At that time, yes. As far as I
was concerned, the board and investment comm were given accurate and
truthful information that was relevant for them to make decision.
DPP: Speaking specifically about information on the investments being made with CHC’s funds, correct?
Chew: Yes
…..
DPP: But, your position is that you
were never involved at the time in hiding any information or giving any
untruthful information to the board. Correct?
Chew: Yah, not to the board, but I did have intention, your Honour, to hide it from Charlie Lay for the reasons that I stated.
Questions related to Eng Han relationship with each of the other co-accused persons.
Eng Han said “… We hardly have meals together. It’s just work and ministry.”
DPP: Just as an aside, you’ve mentioned BBG a few times already this morning. Can you just tell us, what exactly in BBG? It is a network of cell group?
Chew: It started in 2003 as a little
group of ten and these were mainly entrepreneurs. I told Pastor Kong
that I have a vision to start a group that’s meant for people that are
working in the marketplace and that have a vision to use their positions
of influence, whatever they’re doing in their work, to use it for good
purpose, to further the kingdom of God. And that why don’t I start a
meeting in the marketplace, in the city itself, during lunchtime, and
Pastor Kong said, “Yes, it’s a good idea”. So we started with ten in
2003 and it grew to about 120 people by the year 2005.
And BBG also has an objective to do as
much as possible in humanitarian works. So BBG has contributed lots of
money to schools and hostels in China, has given to the Sichuan
earthquake as well, $120,000. We’ve given hundreds of thousands of
dollar, basically, and these have all come from the 100 over members of
BBG. We believe in using our monies, the things that we earn, the money
that we earn, to help the under-privileged.
[Mrs Light’s comment: For those who are interested to find out more about BBG please email to Mr Salt: salt@mrslightnfriends.com]
Questions related to the Crossover Project – losses, budgeting and financing of the Crossover project
<… many questions and answers….>
DPP: Mr Chew, you used words like
“subconsciously” and you may not know. Can you explain exactly what it
is you recall being your state of mind in relation to the losses of the
Crossover Project?
Chew: I say “subconsciously”, your
Honour, because I had not been entrusted the duty of managing Xtron. I
trusted Tan Ye Peng and Kong Hee that, whatever they were doing with the
Crossover would not just achieve missions but make financial sense as
well. And that’s why I said “subconscious”, because I didn’t set my mind
or put my mind to think at the time whether monies were probably
managed or not. I had no reason to think otherwise.
And your second question is recalling
my state of mind in relation to the losses of the Crossover Project.
That even if I knew there were losses in the Crossover Project in 2004
to 2006, in my mind I would think that it is natural because Sun had
just started, she’s new in the market, and that perhaps at that time
Xtron was focusing not just on making money but there were concerts 80
concerts at the time 2003 to 2004. There were concerts in Xtron which I
knew probably not make money, and there it would be natural for Xtron to
perhaps incur some losses. But never at any point in time, your Honour,
did I think that the album itself whether it’s Mandarin or the English
album. I never thought that the album would be a money-losing venture.
If Xtron did lose money it would not be because of the album but because
of other activities, which Xtron was just taking on behalf of the
church, like the concerts.
DPP: Sorry, what concerts?
Chew: The Crossover concerts, in 2003
to 2004. There were 80 concerts that were held over eight months. I
think Xtron, your Honour, was also involved in some humanitarian works,
if I'm not wrong. Again, I cannot comment for sure because I was not
involved in the management of Xtron.
DPP: We were talking about the role
that you played in ensuring the money required for Sun Ho’s music career
was made available. Let’s talk about the roles of your co-accused
person, specifically in the Crossover Project. Clearly, Kong Hee was the
overall person in charge of the Crossover Project. Correct?
Chew: Yes
DPP: Because, in the first place, it was his vision, or, rather, the vision that had been given to him?
Chew: Yes. There were never had been
any need for bonds or Crossover Project, your Honour, if Kong didn’t
have that vision, then nothing would have been done.
DPP: Kong Hee was also the key person in charge of the budgeting and financing of the Crossover project?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
DPP: Can you explain what you mean or
what you understand to mean when you agree that he was the key person in
charge of the budgeting and financing?
Chew: Kong Hee was the one who with the
vision for Sun to cross over to Asia to the US. He was the one that
believed that if we launch her into the US and cut out an album that
would be successful, and because of that, because of the success and
fame, that Sun would then be able to make inroads into Asia, especially
into China. And Kong Hee also was the one who told us that to Crossover
into the US would require very much.
…….
The man with the vision would be the one who comes up with the budget and decides on the budget and the financing in short.
DPP: Why is that?
Chew: Because, in the end, the monies
are being used to finance a vision. So the holder of the vision holds
the authority for the budget and the vision and the finance.
DPP: What you’re saying is that the person with the vision decides how much money to be pour into pursuing that vision?
Chew: He will be the one that comes up
with the final figure, and then he’ll put it to the board. And, because
the board trusts him and the board believes in the vision, I can’t see
any situation where the board would say “no”.
……..
DPP: Now, when you say that you don’t
know whether it was Kong Hee or Tan Ye Peng but the idea came about, can
you explain who first presented the idea of the church lending surplus
Building Fund to Xtron to you?
Chew: It was Tan Ye Peng that spoke to me verbally.
DPP: Are you able to confirm that Kong Hee was aware of this idea?
Chew: If he wasn’t aware, your Honour,
at the time that Tan Ye Peng spoke to me, he would have been quickly
made aware of it very soon after, because Tan Ye Peng would not make a
decision without Kong Hee.
DPP: By the time the first Xtron bond was entered into, do you know for sure whether Kong Hee knew about this idea?
Chew: Oh, yes, of course. By the time
the bond is entered into, he would have known about it and tell us what
he thinks about it.
DPP: Because, as the plan evolved, Kong Hee was told about it. Correct?
Chew: Yes
DPP: By yourself as well as Ye Peng and Serina?
Chew: Yes
<….discussed about Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee and John Lam involvement…>
…..
DPP: The Xtron directors themselves
could not be the ones making decisions for the Crossover Project budget
because they did not fully know what was going on Correct?
Chew: That’s right.
…..
DPP: So really, Kong Hee and Tan Ye
Peng were the real persons in control of Xtron insofar as the production
of the Su Ho’s music album was concerned. Correct?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
…..
DPP: So Kong Hee in his evidence, has testified that the budget was actually decided by the Xtron directors. Is that correct?
Chew: No.
DPP: He has testified that the Xtron
directors would independently decide if there was money to carry out the
budgeted plans. Is he correct?
Chew: No
DPP: Generally, I think Kong Hee, it’s
fair to say, has taken the position that he did not exercise overall
control over the Crossover Project. Is that correct?
Chew: No
DPP: In other words, Kong Hee has lied
about his position of control over the Crossover Project and, in
particular over the budget of Sun Ho’s music production. Correct?
Chew: Yes
DPP: More specifically, Kong Hee has said that he was not involved in the financing of Xtorn. Is that correct?
Chew: That’s a lie.
DPP: He said he has no role in the financing of the Crossover Project, especially Sun Ho’s music career. Is that correct?
At this point Kong Hee representing lawyer Mr Lee(not Edwin Tong), stood up.
…….
Lee: your Honour, I believe that’s
correct. But there are also various parts in my client’s evidence where
he actually formalizes and talks about what he understand by financing.
If my learned friend like I can drag those out and give it to him as
well.
DPP: Mr Chew, as far as you are concerned, Kong Hee did have a role in the financing the Crossover Project, correct?
Chew: Yes. Your Honour, for me,
financing has to do with the sources of the money and how that money is
going to be put to the entities that are taking on the Crossover. And if
the source of money comes from the church, obviously, it’s Kong Hee
that decides. And that’s a financing decision.
DPP: So based on your knowledge, when
Kong Hee said that he was not involved in the financing of the Crossover
Project, he was, again, lying. Correct?
Chew: Yes.
Lunch break
[Mrs Light’s remarks: For those
who are interested to attend tomorrow’s afternoon session, please note
that it will start slightly earlier around 1.30pm or 1.45pm.]
No comments:
Post a Comment