Archive for the ‘Michael Koo’ Category

CHC Trial 17, March, 2015 (Day 100-Day 12 Tranche 6)

http://www.citynews.sg/2015/03/city-harvest-trial-did-the-defendants-genuinely-believe-the-bonds-could-be-redeemed/

City News 17 Mar 2015 Morning 1City News 17 Mar 2015 Afternoon 1City News 17 Mar 2015 Afternoon 2

Source: https://www.facebook.com/citynewssg

One of the prosecution’s main point is round tripping.
In essence, they are saying using church money to redeem previous church money (in the form of bond) is wrong.
However, Chew Eng Han gave one critical example that using bond to redeem previous bond is completely fine.
That’s one good solid clean hit on prosecution’s argument, Eng Han!
Keep it up!

CHC Trial 18, July, 2014 (Day 47-Day 5 Tranche 4)

 

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-cross-examination-of-lam-dredges-up-pre-charge-era-of-crossover-project/

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-board-members-collectively-concerned-about-crossover-project-being-discreet/

Phew. One heavy week for John Lam, I believe.
For now, he can rest until 4, August when the cross examination continues.
So far he can answer well, with perhaps one hiccup when Chew Eng Han asked him a lot.
God’s vindication shall be upon him.

CHC Trial 17, July, 2014 (Day 46-Day 4 Tranche 4)

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-chew-challenged-lams-evidence-that-he-had-offered-to-be-chcs-fund-manager/

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-lam-does-not-exactly-know-what-conspiracy-he-is-charged-with/

Hmmm, all of sudden there was disharmony between John Lam and Chew Eng Han.
What was happening?
Well, hopefully there will be more explanation when Chew Eng Han took the witness stand.
Anyway, I am glad N. Sreenivasan managed to bring the big the picture back to the discussion.

CHC Trial 15, July, 2014 (Day 44-Day 2 Tranche 4)

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-the-xtron-bonds-revisited-from-lams-viewpoint/

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-lams-involvement-in-bonds-limited-to-accounting-matters/

Prosecution’s case: “Mr John Lam was part of a plan, an unholy design, to dishonestly misuse church funds to personally benefit Sun Ho.”
It looks like Senior Counsel Kenneth Tan has managed to shoot down this case~~~~

CHC Trial 14, July, 2014 (Day 43-Day 1 Tranche 4)

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/john-lam-crossover-was-chcs-call-to-fulfill-the-great-commission/

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/07/chc-trial-use-of-xtron-bonds-were-revealed-to-board-members/

Finally! The leaders got the chance to explain their action!
John Lam kicked start the ball.
He explained the reasoning behind Crossover Project and CHC Investment Policy.
I shall pray for their vindication!!! :D :D :D

No Case… Not Approved..

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/05/chc-trial-defense-to-take-the-stand-in-july/

Well, I had been praying that the judge would approve the “No Case”.
After all, most of the witnesses sided with the leaders. Looks like it would be a “No Case”,  I thought.
This morning the judge announced he had not approved the “No Case”…. which mean the trial will resume.
It is scheduled to resume on 14, July.

I shall keep the leaders in prayer.
I really hope they can explain everything well..

Why CHC Leaders Should Engage Experienced Lawyers (Part 2)

Well, this is the continuation from the previous post on this subject.

2.) If the CHC leaders put so much faith in God, why do they engage Senior Counsels? Why don’t they just simply pray to their Father God?
This is a religious question and I will use Bible parts to answer it.

To certain extent, there is a merit in this question.
Indeed, there is nothing impossible for God.
God gave victory to Jehoshaphat from the enemies even without Judah army shedding any blood in war (2 Chronicles 20).
Surely, God can do similar things for CHC leaders now….. right?

The answer to this question is simple.
By engaging the Senior Counsels, CHC leaders simply do their best and let God handle the rest.

Perhaps an analogy will be useful.
Meet Mr. X. He is a faithful Christian.
He gives tithes, offerings and donates a lot to charity.
He has a wonderful family. His wife loves him. His children obey him.
He serves in church, regularly goes for mission trips and evangelizes among his friends too.
He prays a lot, reads the Bible, is disciplined in quite time.
In short, he is an almost perfect Christian.
One day, a doctor diagnoses him of later stage cancer and he has to go for surgery.
Assuming Mr. X has the finance,
would you recommend Mr. X to see an inexperienced surgeon? Or, would you recommend him to get help from a chief surgeon?

Perhaps to make it more personal,
what if Mr. X is your beloved grandfather?
Or, what if Mr. X is your beloved father?
Or, what if Mr. X is you yourself?

In the story of  Jehoshaphat, God gave him clear cut instruction (2 Chronicles 20:14-17): he did not need to fight.
Surely, if God clearly tells Mr. X to just pray in faith and not to see any surgeon, you would recommend Mr. X to just pray in faith and not to seek doctor, wouldn’t you?
The question is: what if God does not give any loud and clear instruction?
I believe you would recommend Mr. X to meet a chief surgeon. After all, Mr. X has the finance.
To compare Jehoshaphat with David, David did not receive any instruction from God in one occasion.
He did not just pray in faith; he really sent his army to war (2 Sam 10).

If God tells us specifically what to do in a given problem, definitely we will obey Him.
If God does not say anything, I am sure we will do our best and let God do the rest.

In general, God wants to bless His people in their career.
However, they should work hard in addition to praying in faith.
In general, God wants to bless His children in their study.
However, they should study hard in addition to praying in faith.
For now, I assume God does not specifically say anything to CHC leaders.
I believe God wants to deliver CHC leaders from this trial.
However, in addition to praying in faith, they should do their best too: engaging experienced lawyers is one example.

Let’s keep them in prayer, shall we?
No Case. No Case. No Case.
In Lord Jesus’ name I pray. Amen!

CHC Trial: “No Case’ Submission 9, April, 2014

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/04/chc-trial-defense-reminds-court-church-money-was-used-for-churchs-purpose-suggests-prosecution-has-not-satisfied-chares/

Well, today was the end of “No Case” submission.
The defense really gave prosecutors a very difficult time.
In fact, I agree with the defense: the prosecution generalized the case.
They had not specified the involvement of each leader in the different issues and emails.
Such generalization is hardly evidence for any particular charge.

I have this good feeling that the judge will approve “No Case” submission.
What case is there which the defense needs to answer when most of the witnesses actually sided with the leaders???

Why CHC Leaders Should Engage Experienced Lawyers (Part 1)

Been thinking a lot about CHC leaders, my own leaders, these days.
In particular, today was the start of “No Case” submission by the defense lawyers.
If the judge approves this “No Case”, the leaders will be acquitted right away.
If the judge does not approve, the defense will then get their turn in the next tranche.

As I read through online forums, there are two questions I am interested in:
1.) If the leaders are innocent, why do they need to engage experienced lawyers like the Senior Counsels? Why not young lawyers?
2.) If the leaders have so much faith in God, why do they need to engage experienced lawyers? Why don’t they simply pray to their Father God?

The first question is a technical question, meaning it does not involve any particular religion.
Both religious and non-religious can ask this kind of question.
The second question is a religious question. It involves much discussion in using Bible concepts.

Today’s post is dedicated to answering the first question.
I am not speaking on behalf of the leaders, btw.
I am simply speaking out of my personal opinion.

If they are innocent, why do they need to engage experienced lawyers?
It is because, realistically speaking, innocence alone is not enough; innocent people can still be jailed for the crime they do not do.

One classic example.
In 1980, Lindy Chamberlain told the authorities a dingo had taken her baby.
Surprisingly, the authorities accused her of murdering her own baby.
The forensic evidence of the blood seemingly pointed out that Lindy killed the baby, not the dingo killed the baby.
Despite the witnesses’ testimony which did not agree with the prosecutors, Lindy was still jailed.
Some time later, an evidence emerged: the baby’s jacket was found near a dingo’s lair.
Lindy was then acquitted of all charges.

It is very unfortunate that the evidence emerged very late.
A mother who lost her baby, who was innocent… was jailed.
An innocent person was jailed.

(Now, I do not know whether Lindy engaged any lawyers or not.
If she did, I do not know whether Lindy engaged inexperienced or experienced lawyers.
If she really did engage experienced lawyers, that would actually enforce my point further:
sometimes, innocence + experienced lawyers may not even be enough for acquittal)

Why not just engage young lawyers?
In the court, in the midst of heated argument, inexperienced defense lawyers would crumble against experienced prosecutors.
Additionally, inexperienced lawyers might not be able to see evidence in the midst of piles of documents.
Hence, by engaging Senior Counsels, CHC leaders actually receive fair footing to defend themselves.
Experienced defense lawyers vs experienced prosecutors.
Fair and square.

Some may say that in the end, being guilty or innocent all depends on how well the lawyers argue.
To certain extent, this statement is technically correct.
A friend told me a story of Mr. X. My friend considered Mr. X guilty due to insider trading.
However, Mr. X engaged a lawyer who could argue so well that Mr. X was able to sue back.

In this midst of this “No Case” submission, I am really praying the judge will approve a “No Case”.
Once it is approved, CHC leaders can have a normal life.
They can always tell their side of story and present evidences from their side.
Just that they do not need to do it inside the court room anymore.

I will address the second question next time.

References:
1.) http://creation.com/the-australian-dingo-a-wolf-in-dogs-clothing
2.) http://creation.com/lindy-chamberlain-creighton-interview
3.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_Chamberlain-Creighton

CHC Trial: “No Case” Submission 8, April, 2014

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/04/defense-prosecution-has-presented-no-direct-evidence/

http://www.citynews.sg/2014/04/chc-trial-prosecution-created-a-cut-and-paste-conspiracy-says-defense/

This morning was the beginning of the oral presentation for “No Case” submission.
Both Kenneth Tan and Edwin Tong argued that the prosecution had not given any evidence to show that John Lam and Pastor Kong were guilty.

In the afternoon, N. Sreenivasan, Michael Khoo, Kannan Ramesh had their turns.
Links to CityNews above will explain their arguments.

Yes! Go go go, defense lawyers! God is with you!! I will pray for your success too!!