CHC’s Trial – Topic related to Foong Daw Ching – Part 2 (MrsLightnFriends: 2 April 2015)

Today 31 March 2015, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Chionh continued to cross-examine Tan Ye Peng (TYP) on the document evidence E-269.

Recap of what prosecution witness said about this document evidence E-269 dated 21 July 2008

Foong’s evidence 

Cross-examined by Council Tong (Kong Hee’s council)

Tong: Did you forward it to anyone else?

Foong: Because there’s no message, so I don’t know what … whether I’ve opened this or not, because there’s no message there.

Tong repeated the question again, “Did you forward this to anyone else?

Foong: I, I, cannot recall what happened to this one, because as I say, you know, there’s no message… I already said in my evidence, I don’t recall, you know, having read this or opened this document.

Cross-examined by Senior Council Ramesh (Sharon’s Tan council)
There is an entry in Foong’s appointment dairy on 25 July 2008, which says “3-4pm, CHC discussion with Tiang Yii and Joseph.

Ramesh: And given that this meeting is so close in time, four days in time, to the 21 July email (E-269), it is entirely possible that this meeting on 25 July 2008 was to discuss the four questions posed by Pastor Tan in E-269

Foong: That’s a possibility, that’s right.

I suggest you read CHC’s Trial – Topic related to Foong Daw Ching – Part 1.

Ms Tiang Yii’s evidence (January 2014)

Cross-examined by Senior Council Sreeni (Tan Ye Peng’s council)
Tiang Yii’s evidence was Mr Foong never mentioned anything to her about the information in E-269. Sreeni put to Tiang Yii that she was deliberately distancing herself from Mr Foong.

Sreeni: Have you seen the attachment before?

Tiang Yii: No

Sreeni: Never?

Tiang Yii: No

Sreeni: Mr Foong never showed it to you?

Tiang Yii: No

Sreeni: First time you are seeing it is now in court?

Tiang Yii: Yes

Sreeni: You are on oath now, I just want to confirm this, and you are saying Mr Foong Daw Ching, prosecution witness, who had all this information, never mentioned it to you as the engagement partner?

Tiang Yii: Not this particular email

Cross-examined by Senior Council Ramesh (Sharon’s Tan council)
Tiang Yii’s evidence was there was an internal meeting in Baker Tilly on 25 July 2008. She flagged potential issues to and wanted guidance from these three members.

Three names were mentioned:
1. Joseph Toh who was the head of technical and previous engagement partner

2. Lim Poh Suan who was the head of audit and
3. Mr Foong Daw Ching. (Tiang Yii said I don’t know why they involved Mr. Foong)

Mr Sim Guan Seng’s evidence (January 2014)

Cross-examined by Senior Council Ramesh (Sharon’s Tan council)
Mr Sim has not seen this document at the time he was the engagement partner. He was the incoming engagement partner and he would expect Ms Tiang Yii as the outgoing engagement partner and Ms Foong Aifang to highlight to him.

Ms Foong AiFang’s evidence (February 2014)

Cross-examined by Senior Council Ramesh (Sharon’s Tan council)
Ms Foong confirmed there was an internal risk committee meeting on 25 July 2008, which called by Tiang Yii.

When comes to the document E-269 Ms Foong’s evidence was she didn’t know there was a meeting on 21 July 2008 and Mr Foong did not show this document to her.

Ramesh: I will show you E-269. Take a quick look at this document, Ms Foong, and I will ask you a simple question. Do you recognize this document?

Ms Foong: No

This email was sent ahead of the meeting on 21 July 2007.

Ramesh: This document was sent before that meeting, okay?

Ms Foong: I don’t know the meeting.

….

Ramesh: It is your testimony that Mr Foong did not show you this document.

Ms Foong: Yes

Ramesh: It is your testimony that Mr Foong did not send you this document in soft copy or in hard copy. Is that your evidence? I just watnt to be very clear.

Ms Foong: Yes

31 March 2015, Tan Yee Peng(TYP) cross-examinated by DPP.

I think this is getting more and more confusing. I thought the auditor’s evidence was
1. Ms Tiang Yii did not get the information E-269 from Foong.
2. Ms Foong AiFang did not get the information E-269 from Foong.
3. Mr Sim Guan Seng did not get the information from neither Tiang Yii nor Ms Foong
4. And Mr Foong said he could not recall reading this email attachment E-269 or forwarded to anyone.

If no Auditors has read the document E-267, ironically, why on 30 March 2015 and this morning 31 March 2015, there was a chain of questions relating to E-267?

If I understand correctly, the DPP is saying what was written in the document (E-269) did not accurately reflect the purpose of the setup of Xtron.

On 30 March 2015, Tan was trying to explain to the court that should the finding be relating to only E-267 alone to assess whether Mr Foong knew the actual purpose of the setup of Xtron.

Recap of  30 March 2015, TYP cross-examined by DPP
DPP said if the truth is that Xtron was started for those three very different purposes
1. To be a leader in events management and media
2. To hold future commercial property for the church
3. To be a special purpose vehicle managing the Crossover and Sun’s music career
What’s so difficult about stating it as it is in the answer that you’re preparing here?

TYP: Your Honour, I don’t know how to answer this question, except that when we prepared it, we prepared it with an intention to put down all the relevant points and put in different sections, so I guess we didn’t lump it together.  And, your Honour, if you would look at E-269, when I wrote to Mr Foong, I also mention about Sun, so in all these documents that we write, not only do we write that it’s event management, media, production, we do mention Sun as well.  It’s just that we don’t lump them all together.

DPP: Since you mention E-269, please go to the write-up again and confirm that what is said about the reason for Xtron being set up in 2003 is that it was started in 2003 in preparation to manage CHC’s future building, and you do not tell Mr Foong that it was actually started for three different reasons.

TYP: Your Honour, it’s not written down in this paper, in the manner that Ms Chionh is saying, but your Honour on 21 July, when I met Mr Foong and actually before that as well, we already have explained to him how Xtron will be used as a private entity, a private company for CHC’s future commercial building, and Mr Foong himself will already know in 2003 that Xtron was managing Sun.  So your Honour, we shouldn’t just look at the document on its own, in isolation, but with the circumstances.  My meeting with him on 21 July 2008, all of these relevant information would have been given to Mr. Foong.

DPP: From what you’re telling us the write-up about Xtron and why it was started in E-269 is, in fact, not complete or not accurate and Mr Foong would only get the full picture with additional information that you give him when you speak to him.  Correct?

TYP: Your Honour, I disagree…… see E-269 “As such, we do need to have a professionally-run private company to build and manage a commercial building that is open for a church to use on a long-term basis.” this is managing the building part. .. and I know I’ve written about Sun as well being managed by Xtron. Your Honour, I think we tried our best to give all the relevant information to Mr. Foong.

On 31 March 2015, TYP told the court that he agreed with Mr Chew Eng Han’s evidence that “Xtron was set up as a special purpose vehicle of the church to manage the Crossover mission.” (For TYP this is one of the three reasons for Xtron being setup.)

The DPP referred TYP to open E-269.

DPP: Can you tell us where in the write-up in E-269 do we see the information that Xtron was set up as a special purpose vehicle of the church to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, it’s not written explicitly in this manner in E-269, except, your Honour, that we mentioned about Sun’s being an artiste in Xtron, your Honour.

DPP said this is different from a statement that Xtron was set up as a special purpose vehicle of the church to manage the Crossover. Correct?

TYP: Your Honour …

DPP: Just “Yes” or “No” first, please, and then you can explain.

TYP said I agree that it is not written as a special purpose vehicle and explained….Your Honour would have seen from my EIC some of the evidence showing that Mr Foong knows that Xtron is managing Sun.

DPP: Are you saying, and is it your position, that Foong Daw Ching knew since 2003 that Xtron was set up as a special purpose vehicle of the church to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, I would not be able to say that Mr Foong knows it as a quote unquote “special purpose vehicle”.

DPP: Are you saying that Mr Foong knew since 2003 that Xtron was set up in order to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Yes, your Honour, I believe so.

DPP: What is the basis of your saying that Mr Foong has known since 2003 that Xtron was set up in order to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, it’s in the context of the Roland Poon incident, our meeting with him after that, and our subsequent emails to him, whenever we mention about Sun or Xtron, your Honour.

DPP: Was Mr Foong told explicitly in 2003 that Xtron is being set up to manage the Crossover?

TYP: No, your Honour. There was no direct explicit meeting with Mr Foong to just specifically mention this matter.

DPP: So on what basis do you say that he would have known since 2003 that Xtron was being set up to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, I’ve said earlier that on the basis of the circumstances surrounding the Roland Poon incident, and how subsequently when Xtron was incorporated we have email correspondence with Mr Foong concerning Xtron matters.

…….

DPP: Since you say that you believe Mr Foong had known since 2003 that Xtron was set up in order to manage the Crossover, why is it that when you sent him the write-up in E-269, which, according to you, was supposed to put before him all the facts relating to Xtron, AMAC and church, when you sent him that write-up you did not simply set out the information that Xtron was setup in order to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, there’s no particular reason why I didn’t write it this way. It was, because, as I’ve explained, we have put all the points that’s relevant into this document; it’s just that we didn’t write it the way Ms Chionh is describing.

DPP: Not just the way that I describe, Mr Tan, but the actual facts, as you claim that the fact of the matter is Xtron was set up in order to manage the Crossover. That was one of the three reasons for it’s setting-up. If that is a fact, why not state it?

TYP: Your Honour, I tried my best to state whatever the reasons that I’ve already said was the reason why Xtron was started. The paper was prepared in just one day, your Honour. I wasn’t thinking too much about how we should phrase it in a way that maybe would help us in explaining in a trial like this, your Honour. But at that point in time, I thought we just give what was relevant.

DPP: Why do you need to think so hard about how to phrase the simple fact Xtron was set up to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, it’s because Mr Foong would know already, in my mind.

DPP: In your mind?

TYP: Yes, your Honour, because we have been talking to Mr Foong all this while about Sun, about Xtron and about the Crossover. He is something that would be in our conversations with him for many years by the time of 2008.

DPP: Can I put it to you, Mr Tan, that your evidence this morning has been entirely disingenuous, and what is stated in the write-up in E-269 is entirely inconsistent with what you claim that Foong knew all along that Xtron was setup to manage the Crossover?

TYP: Your Honour, I disagree.