29 January 2015 – SC Tan cross-examined Chew
In the afternoon, Kenneth Tan who is representing John Lam, cross-examined Mr Chew on the following:
1. Questions related to when and how long Mr. Chew had served in CHC. (This can be found in agreed statement of facts)
2. Questions related to the appointments and during he held in CHC. (This can be found in agreed statement of facts)
3. Questions related to the meeting after the Roland Poon incident.
Tan: In fact, you knew since at least the Roland Poon, in which you played a key role in defending the church’s interests, there was an informal board meeting, or a gathering of board members, on 19 January 2003 to discuss the Roland Poon incident. That’s right?
Chew: Your Honour, I do not remember that meeting, but perhaps Mr Tan could tell me the agenda for that meeting.
Tan: It was not a formal board meeting, Mr Chew. Mr Roland Poon allegations had surfaced a few days before that, and serveral board members gathered together, and there was a phone call put through to Mr Wahju Hanafi during that gathering, or that informal meeting. Do you recall that, Mr Chew?
Chew: No, I don’t.
Tan: Do you recall asking Pastor Kong questions on that meeting after the Roland Poon incident broke in January 2003?
Chew: Your Honour, I was in interaction with Pastor Kong a lot since that crisis broke. I would have asked him questions, for sure. But I do not have any recollection of asking him questions after the board meeting, because I can’t even recall that board meeting.
Tan: Let me clarify again. There was no formal board meeting, Mr Chew, and there was no formal agenda. Let me put it another way: Would it be correct that, from your conversations with Pastor Kong following the Roland Poon incident, it was made known to you, in your dealing with the incident, that Wahju Hanafi had told Pastor Kong that he had made a commitment to underwrite the WHOLE Crossover Project.
Chew: Yes, that was what was told to me, your Honour. I believe it was Pastor Kong that told me.
<…then it goes on with the questions on the refund and the board resolution…>
Tan: My question to you, do you confirm that you did sign this resolution and you were aware of and approved, as the member of the CHC management board, of the Hanafis’ request for the refunds so that they could be personal sponsors of the Crossover?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Mr Hanafi wrote:
Tan: … There wasn’t any time if I read Mr Hanafi’s letter, and correct me if I am wrong, your understanding of the letter would be he feels blessed by this project, which is a project which is God’s work, and he’s not going to put a timeframe on his sponsorship; he will sponsor it, come what may.
Chew: Your Honour, if I look at just this letter itself, without any direct communication from Wahju as to his intention, I think one can take it both ways, either way. Whether it’s just for this particular time, in this year, or it could go on for several years or more. But, however, your Honour, first of all, I did not have any direct communication from Wahju as to his intention on this, but knowing Wahju, it would be possible for him to say that he will sponsor the project, without being totally clear what he meant by that. And it will be possible that if over the next five years he needs to put in half a million or $1 million per year, he might do it. However, because of the way he puts it, which is not absolutely clear, if the amount was up to $3million a year, then I don’t think he would be doing it, because it will be a amount beyond what he actually meant.
…..
Chew: Your Honour, could the counsel refer me to the section where I agreed that he would undertake the WHOLE crossover project.
Tan: ….”Question: Let me put it another way: would it be correct that, from your conversations with Pastor Kong following the Roland Poon incident, it was made known to you, in your dealing with the incident, that Wahju Hanafi had told Pastor Kong that he made a commitment to underwrite the WHOLE Crossover Project? Answer: Yes, that was what was told to me, your Honour. I believe it was Pastor Kong that told me.”
Chew: Your Honour, I’m sorry, I didn’t see or hear that word “whole”. What I remember was Pastor Kong telling me that Wahju had put in monies, he intended to put in money to support the Crossover, and, in my mind, it had to do with that particular time, in 2003, for whichever album was in progress at that time.
Tan: Give me a moment, Mr Chew. Do you remember, Mr Chew, that you cross-examined Pastor Kong on this exact point, and this was on 15 Aug 2014, ….. but there was an issue of whether Wahju Hanafi had committed a specific sum of money, and Pastor Kong said, no, he didn’t he said that he would commit to underwrite the whole Crossover. I’m paraphrasing, but I have that quotation. Let me ask it this way, Mr Chew, so I can move the matter along.
Chew: Yes
Tan: These were questions that you asked Pastor Kong specifically in your cross-examination, but it goes back to where I was, which is you are at June 2007. You, and any board member who had been there in 2003, who was there for the resolution here in 2004, would know that if there were any isssues with expenses in the Crossover, you have Wahju Hanafi’s commitment, not a legal commitment, a spiritual commitment that he would sponsor the whole project, “personal sponsors of this crossover project” That is correct. Howcver you want to interpret it, whether there are limits because of his personal capacity, he did undertake, spiritually. “Yes, I will sponsor it”.
Chew: Your Honour, I will agree that Wahju Hanafi was known to the board to be a firm and big supporter of the Crossover, right from 2003 all the way to 2007, the time that you’re referring to.
Tan: Yes, and as a firm supporter, Mr Chew, he would put his money where his mouth is and sponsor it in money terms.
Chew: If he could.
Tan: If he could.
Chew: Yes.
Chew: In all likelihood, yes, your Honour.
……
Tan: And isn’t it correct that after you had presented this proposal to Pastor Kong, he agreed with it but he said, “Get the lawyers to do the documentation and check with Mr Foong Daw Ching”? Isn’t that what happened?
Chew: Yes, your Honour, and I add on that Pastor Kong wouldn’t just ask me to get the lawyers to do the documentation but to check with the lawyers first what they thought about it, before we do the documentation.
…..
Tan: And you checked with Mr Foong Daw Ching?
Chew: Yes, your Honour. Your Honour, when it comes to Mr Foong, most likely I would have done it together with at least Pastor Tan or Serina. I wouldn’t have seen Mr Foong alone, because I’m not that close to him.
Tan: Yes. The meeting with Mr Foong Daw Ching took place on 25 June 2007. That’s a Monday. That’s correct, isn’t it.
Chew: I think so, if you tell me. Yes.
Tan: I say that because Mr Foong Daw Ching had, in a diary entry, that Ye Peng and Eng Han were to see him at 11am to 12pm on that date.
Chew: Yes. I do recall there was a meeting with him. I just don’t remember the date.
[Mrs Light’s comment: Mr Foong Daw Ching, the partner of Baker Tilly TFW LLC. On 17 September 2013, he was cross-examined by Mr. Edwin Tong.
During the cross-examination Mr Foong said he didn’t attend the meeting on 12 August 2008. And in that context Mr Tong requested Mr Foong to produce his diary. Subsequent cross-examination by the SCs revealed that it’s possible he did attend some meetings.
Tong: Mr Foong, with respect, you have spent a lot of your evidence telling us you don’t remember. But now, as at January 2013, you can remember very clearly what happened on 12 August 2008, about four and a half years prior to that. I just want to know what is the basis of that suddenly clear and lucid recollection.
Foong: Your Honour, I think, as I said, there were a stack of email that I was given. I could have flicked through, I could have checked because, when I say, you know, “requesting FDC to attend but cannot remember if he did”. So in a notation like this, then I need to chck lah, is it requesting me to attend but cannot remember if he did? so when a notation like that comes to me, I would then ask a bit more question lah and say, “Is there?”, so it’s not like I suddenly remember, you know , because notation like that, “FDC to attend but cannot remember”, so that say oh, it could be that meeting that you know, so there was some discussion.
Tong: Mr Foong, do you keep a diary?
Foong: I do keep a diary.
…..
Tong: Do your record your meetings anywhere?
Foong: I don’t
Tong: How would you know which meeting to go for, at what time?
Foong: No, I have appointment in my diary, yes I have.
Tong: You do. You actually have a diary?
Foong: I have a diary, yes.
…..
Tong: … Can you please check, and if you do, please bring it tomorrow, all right?
Foong: Oh what?
]
Chew: That’s right, your Honour.
Tan: Then the issue of raising money by having Xtron issue a bond to be invested out of CHC’s Building Fund was raised with Mr Foong.
Chew: Yes your Honour
Tan: Mr Foong said CHC’s subscription to the bonds issued by Xtron was okay. This is what your counsel said as long as Xtron paid a reasonable interest and the church did not lose out on the deal.
Chew: Yes, your Honour, and that’s why I put the coupon rate at 7% to make sure it was more than reasonable.
Tan: Yes. Mr Foong also said that no disclosure was required for the church’s purchase of Xtron bonds as it was an investment like any other investment.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: He also advised that, with the investment of the Building Fund, the church should draft an investment policy to state the kinds of investments the church would invest in.
Chew: Your Honour, I cannot remember whether this instruction came from Mr Foong, himself but yes there was this need. Wherever it came from or whomever it came from to do an investment policy.
<…. Kenneth Tan opened an email exhibit E182…>
In this email Serina wrote:
Tan: …..That’s why I say that at the meeting with Mr Foong Daw Ching, Mr Foong Daw Ching suggested that there should be an investment policy drafted stating the kind of investments that the church should invest in. So I ask you again, I know it’s a long time but given what was said in the email, isn’t it correct that at that meeting Foong Daw Ching addressed this issue and made the suggestion?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
….
Tan: What happened would be, if I understand the chain of emails, that you spoke to John Lam after this email and asked John Lam to take the lead in drafting the investment policy
Chew: I cannot remember, your Honour.
Tan: I say that because if you want Mr John Lam to suddenly draft an investment policy when he was not at the meeting with Mr Foong Daw Ching, he would need to have an explanation as to the context of how this request came from Mr Foong and what was to be covered in the policy. Would you agree?
Chew: Yes, your Honour
…..
Chew: Your Honour, I don’t have a recollection of the chain of events, as to the sequence as well.
Tan: Okay.
Chew: But if you say that’s what happened, I think it is possible.
….
Tan: It was an important point to you that Foong Daw Ching had approved the idea of using the bond for the Crossover
Chew: Definitely, your Honour, because I have known Pastor Kong, he will ask many times, “Did Foong Daw Ching say okay?” So that is a must for every transaction, major transaction.
7. Questions related to the meeting Mr John Lam said he had with Mr Chew.
During John Lam’s EIC on 14 July 2014, he said he had a meeting with Mr Chew around 23 June 2007.
Tan: What was your impression from that as to will Xtron be able to pay? What would be the status of these sales? What was your impression then as at 23 June?
John: Yes. Firstly, your Honour, my impression then is that this upcoming USA album will be very successful. My frame of mind at the time was Sun has already been very successful in her last five Mandarin pop albums. In these last few years before 2007, we have been updated on her success and likewise when she was moving to the USA, the board has also been kept abreast of the news of that: she is making very good progress, she’s being recognised in the USA. My impression at the time was that this album would be a success, and, therefore, to invest the bond into the music album, I was certain that the sales would come in and, therefore, repay back the bond proceeds, both then principal as well as the interest. I said earlier that I know that Xtron is managing, responsible for this project. But the same time, I know that Pastor Kong is driving this Crossover Project. In my time with him, all these years, I know Pastor Kong never fail in any major projects in the church. I believe at the time that planning calculations would have been done, budgeting would have been done on the forecast to ensure that there is album sales coming in to repay the bond. Likewise, if Eng Han wants to be the fund manager, I would expect that he will have relied on the calculations, and hew will have ensured that the projections make sense for the sales to be able to repay back the bond proceeds. Then finally, I asked him, I mean, these album sales, yes, of course, there’s an element of risk “Is there any other way to protect this risk?” So I asked him this question.
Tan: What was his answer?
John: Your Honour, he said to me that in the unlikely event it all fails and that the bond will default, he said Wahju Hanafi will personally indemnify any losses from this projects. He said that Wahju will give a personal guarantee for this bond. For me, I’m aware of a couple of things about Wahju. I know he’s a staunch supporter of the Crossover Project.
….
On 17 July 2014, John Lam being cross-examined by Mr Chew,
Chew: Back to the meeting, 23 June. So you are very sure there was a meeting?
John: Your Honour, I said as far as I recollect, around 23 June. It was before 27 June.
Chew: And why does have it to be before 27 June?
John: Because on 27 June I received an email as well as a phone call with Mr Chew that they have spoken with Foong Daw Ching and Foong has advised that we should draft an investment policy in order to invest. So the reason I was prepared to draft the policy was because Mr Chew had already explained to me that church is going to be investing our Building Fund and one of the investment will be a bond issued by Xtron.
Chew: The reason why you could recount that meeting was it because of the proximity of that meeting to the day that I met Foong Daw Ching and that’s how you piece it together?
John: Your Honour, it is a long time ago. I am sure there was a meeting between me and Mr Chew and the contents of the meeting, as I said, I do recall. I do admit that, to the best of my recollection, it was near to that period, but I cannot say absolutely sure, because I don’t have a record of the meeting or the appointment in my calendar or so on. So, yes I do take into account that I was asked to draft the investment policy, that the meeting would be before that, so, to the best of my recollection, it will be sometime before 27 June.
…
Eng Han produced his passport evidence that he was not in Singapore from 18 June 2007 till 24 June 2007. Followed by an email evidence dated on 15 June 2007.
Chew: So I’m submitting to you that up to this time of 15 June 2007, the idea of Xtron bonds had not been birthed, and if I hypothetically met you on the next day, 16 June, a Saturday, there would be no way I had enough time to conceptualise a plan for Xtron to issue bonds to the church and to get Wahju to personally guarantee as well and to be able to tell you that album sales will be good, because I’ve not seen the projections that the time, and I assured you that it is a good investment. I’m submitting to you, Mr Lam, that meeting never happened and the contents of the meeting are not true.]
Tan: In fact, Mr Chew, prior to your meeting with Foong Daw Ching, you had taken an occasion to share with John Lam that the Crossover needed money and that a bank loan option had not been successful and an investment by the church into an Xtron bond was being considered, and you were seeing Foong Daw Ching. That’s how it went, didn’t it?
Chew: It’s quite likely, your Honour.
Tan: And, in sharing it with John Lam, you shared with John that the investment was viable and legitimate because it was principal protected and it will get a better return than the bank rate?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
….
Tan: … The timeframe we’re talking about is using the reference point of 26 June, which is your meeting; 27 June 2007, when John Lam gives his response on the investment policy. That’s the timeframe.
Chew: Your Honour, as far as I recall, in my mind, I think in the years 2003 to 2006, I had knowledge that Wajhu would be the one giving it to Xtron, and he would be the bigger giver. When 2007 came, and I was told that the budget will be much bigger than for a Mandarin album, and now we are talking about a loan from Citi Kar Wah bank, $10million or whatever and the bonds is now $13m, honestly, by then, I didn’t think about Wahju, because the amount has gone too big. But it doesn’t mean that Wahju will not continue to support, but in my mind, I thought that these are big bucks right now, we need more than just one man to finance the album. But Wahju would still figure in the whole Crossover Project. There’s no reason to think that from 2007 onwards, he will suddenly drop out.
….
Tan It was raised by CHC buying the bond, and we’re talking about what happens if there was a shortfall in the payment, Wahju Hanafi could step up to the plate and make good that shortfall by virtue of his commitment.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: And this was one of the points that was shared when you and John Lam talked about this investment into the Xtron bond.
Chew: Could you repeat the question? It doesn’t make sense.
Tan: Okay. And this was one of the point that is, the commitment of Wahju Hanafi to be a sponsor of the Crossover which was raised and discussed when you and John Lam were talking about the viability and legitimacy of the church investing in an Xtron bond.
Chew: Your Honour, I do not remember specifically talking about Wahju Hanafi as one of the talking points, but it could be possible.
Tan: In fact, my instructions are, as you have heard Mr Lam on the stand, that the issue of Wahju Hanafi making good or guaranteeing the Crossover expenses was something which he remembers in the conversation with you. If you can’t remember that, those are my instructions as to what Mr John Lam remembers,
Chew: I cannot remember that, your Honour.
Tan: I put it to you that that did happen, but you can’t recall. In that whole discussion you told John Lam, “Yes, so now I will check with the lawyers and I will check with Foong Daw Ching.”
Chew: Yes, that will be highly possible.
….
Tan said that during Kong Hee EIC he said he met Eng Han in mid-June, after service at Expo, in the back room, and Eng Han discussed this option of investing in an Xtron bond with him.
…
Chew: Your Honour, I’m not sure about the dates, whether it’s 16 June that that meeting happened.
Tan: I understand you’re not sure of that.
Chew: Yes
Tan: I’m just using that reference point as what Pastor Kong has said.
….
Tan: We also know that you were in Japan from 18 June till 24 June.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: And when you came back, the next day you saw Mr Foong Daw Ching?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: So you would have spoken to Pastor Kong and to John Lam before you left for Japan on 18 June.
Chew: And why is that so?
Tan: Your meeting was on 25 June and you weren’t in Singapore between 18 to 24 June. Pastor Kong says you met him at Expo, and John Lam says you met him at Expo. And this was before you met Foong Daw Ching, so I put the date as the physical meeting must be before 18 June.
Chew: Your Honour, that’s provided that we discussed it at a physical meeting.
Tan: Yes
Chew: It could have been via the blackberry while I was in Japan as well.
Tan: Let me pause. First, I say it’s a physical meeting with Pastor Kong because that’s Pastor Kong’s evidence. Pastor Kong says it was a physical meeting at Expo in the back room after service in mid-June. And I stand corrected, but I think you did not challenge him on that.
Chew: You said this was his EIC, right?
Tan: Yes, to which after that, you could cross.
Chew: If I didn’t bring up this point, it doesn’t mean that I agree.
Tan: Okay.
Chew: Because the sequence didn’t really matter much to me.
Tan: That’s why I say it’s a physical meeting. I say it’s a physical meeting with John Lam because that’s his evidence, that he met you after service at Expo as well.
Chew: Okay
Tan: I put it to you that your meeting with John Lam was a physical meeting and it was at Expo after service.
Chew: That is possible.
Tan: And it was before 18 June, when you left for Japan.
Chew: Yes, if it was a physical meeting, it has to be before I left, before 18 June.
Tan: You don’t have any Blackberrys or email evidence of exchanges with Pastor Kong or John Lam on the Xtron issue between 18 and 24 June, do you?
Chew: No because there are too many years passed.
Tan: So I will put it to you that you met John Lam at a physical meeting before 18 June at Expo and you discussed the Xtron bond on the basis which I have been questioning you for the last series of questions.
Chew: That is possible.
8. Mr Tan dwell on the legality and technicality with Mr Chew
Mr Tan argued that Xtron, which is a registered company in Singapore, is not the same as a trust run by the Trident Trust governed by BVI law. He said Mr Chew analogy is not true, because there are more differences in the position that there are similarities.
Mr Tan was cross-examining what Mr Chew said on 26 January 2019. (Under the topic: The relation between Xtron and CHC – intricacies and rationale)
On 26 January during Mr. Chew’s EIC, he was explaining a write-up by Trident Trust regarding the concept of using trust to achieve certain commercial objectives. He further explained that although Xtron wasn’t set up as a trust, but in substance it really operated as a trust. What the church leadership wanted, really, was to divert ownership of Xtron into the hands of some people that CHC could trust, and those people were basically Mr. Koh Siow Ngea, Wahju Hanafi and Choong Kar Weng.
Chew: Yes, it won’t take long.
Tan: With his Honour’s guidance, go ahead.
Chew: Yes, your Honour
Tan: Look at the last name of the member, Lay N Hiang Charlie.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: So during those four meetings in which you were chairman, Charlie Lay, as we have referred to him, was a member of the committee that you chaired.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: On 9 September, looking at the same table, you stepped down as chairman but you remained a member of the finance committee. That’s right, isn’t it?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: If you look at 9 September on page 6, at the bottom, Charlie Lay was a member of the finance committee. That’s right, isn’t it?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: If you look at 9 September, ….. Charlie Lay was a member of the finance committee.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: I refer you to E-673, please.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: E-673, at the top of the page, has an email from John Lam to several people, including yourself, dated 13 September 2006, in which he talks about Charlie Lay.
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: In your evidence on 28 January, yesterday, you said you believed that at this time, 13 September 2006, you had not yet met Charlie Lay, because it was a big church. Do you recall that?
Chew: Yes, your Honour.
Tan: It’s been a long tme and the facts are very involved, but I have refreshed your memory with the agreed statement of facts. Isn’t it correct that you actually had dealings with Charlie Lay as the chairman of the finance committee and as a member of the finance committee for several meetings before 13 September 2006?
Chew: Yes, your Honour. Let me qualify that at this time, when we were having the finance committee, I don’t think we meet that often, number one; number two, I think in my EIC I could have said that I probably had not yet met Charile Lay. I wasn’t totally sure.
Tan: Yes, you weren’t totally sure.
Chew: Yes
Tan: Like I said, that’s why I refreshed your memory first.
Chew: Yes
Tan: To clarify, if you look at the agreed statement of facts… these particular dates, for example the first date, 20 January 2006, would mark dates of the finance committee meetings, would they?
Chew: Your Honour, I cannot be sure that those meetings took place because, back then, City Harvest does have a practice of writing dates of meetings that sometimes don’t take place.
[Mrs Light's comment: At this point, a loud laughter was heard from the prosecution.]
Tan: I am not going there, Mr Chew, and it’s not for any other reason but I don’t need to go there.
Chew: Not that I’m saying that there’s anything wrong with it, but sometimes people don’t meet, they just talk informally, and City Harvest has a culture like, “Let’s slot everything correctly, just put the dates to it”, just for good record purpose, not that they’re trying to hide anything.
Tan: This paragraph 2.9 is part of the agreed facts and to be fair, Mr Chew it’s more than likely that in one of these five meetings you would have met.
Chew: Yes, your Honour
Tan: Charlie Lay.
Chew: Yes. Your Honour, I’d also like to add that, before the year 2007, there wasn’t much investments. There wasn’t much to discuss for the finance committee.
Tan: Yes, you had a Super Bowl issue.
Chew: Yes, just one stock, we don’t need to meet to talk about it. We could just email each other. So there may not be that many meetings of the finance committee. That’s it. Thank you.
Tan: Thank you, Mr Chew. I have no further questions, your Honour.
No comments:
Post a Comment