Rarely do I get such an enlightening comment that I would feature it (well, it has happened before) - but today's award for best comment goes to my reader Hea Bea. On the issue of Kong Hee's motivation, Hea Bea explained:
Wow. It all makes sense - I am honoured to have such intelligent readers who are happy to share their insight into the issue! I had actually recorded a vlog piece last night to discuss Kong Hee's motivation - it centred around the issue of why Kong Hee chose to go down the route of round tripping, despite knowing that it was a dangerous path to take. I had come up with three theories, but Hea Bea's theory trumps them all. Anyway, for what it is worth, here are the three theories in a nutshell to analyze Kong Hee's motivation and why he turned to crime.
 |
| Why did Kong Hee takes such huge risks? |
Theory 1: It was deliberate, a carefully well planned scheme, would have gotten away with it if not for the whistle blower. This seems to be a convenient theory that many have defaulted to but I am not totally convinced it is true. If your aim was simply to embezzle a lot of money, you would quietly hide it away in some offshore account rather than attract a lot of attention. Sun Ho and Kong Hee were hardly lying low - quite the opposite, in fact they were very hungry for attention. This does not conform to the typical kind of criminal behaviour that one would expect of criminals who do not want to be caught. Hell no, they were so brazen about the whole thing!
Theory 2: It was simply a lack of plan B - some Christians can be very stupid (no offence if you are a Christian, if you're not stupid, then I am not talking about you). They can simply assume that if they pray about a project, if a pastor (such as Kong Hee) gives it his blessings, then there's no way they can fail. That's not how it works in Christianity - Jesus is not some kind of 摇钱树 ("money tree") who would simply grant you wishes and bless you with material gain and success as a 'reward' for your religious devotion. Anyone who has read the bible would be familiar with the book of Job where god tested Job's faith by taking everything away from him - his livestock and then his entire family. Job was faithful and a very good man, so why did he suffer thus?
I could talk about the theology behind the link between faith and asking for prayers to be answered (I did spend many years as a Christian when I was growing up in Singapore), but the bottom line is that it was clear that Kong Hee and Sun Ho were so confident of their success that they spent money they were never going to earn back. Why did they do that? Did they simply assume that Sun Ho's success was a forgone conclusion? Did they feel a sense of entitlement to the money of the church? On what basis did they think it was justifiable to spend that much money on Sun Ho's music career? Did they assume that they would succeed because project Crossover was a Christian mission which had the blessings of the pastor and the church? Either way, if Sun Ho's career didn't generate a huge profit, they would be in big trouble as that would leave a huge hole in their finances. Hindsight is a bitch, isn't it?
So without a plan B, when things went desperately wrong, they panicked, ran down the wrong path and got into trouble with the law. They didn't intend to swindle, embezzled or defraud - but after they had lost the money, they had to choose to either confess to having lost the money or face a huge PR backlash. They chose the latter over the former (ref: Hea Bea's explanation as to why this makes complete sense), it wasn't premeditated but it was still nonetheless criminal. If they pleaded thus (ie. it wasn't premeditated), this may lead to a more lenient sentence.
 |
| Oh man, this was one expensive mistake... |
Theory 3: They did what they did with a complete sense of entitlement. Maybe I am splitting hairs here - but the difference is whether or not they had any criminal intention in the first place or if they broke the law without knowingly doing so. Let me give you an example to illustrate this point.
Say you come to London and I invite you to stay in my flat. As my friend and my guest, I am a gracious host and try my best to make you feel comfortable. Where would you draw the line in terms of the liberties you can take?
 |
| Do you want to use my washing machine? |
Would you use the tissue paper in my toilet? Of course.
Would you use the soap and shampoo in my bathroom? Sure, why not? (Well, definitely the soap, I am not sure if you would like my shampoo...)
Would you help yourself to tea and coffee in my kitchen? Of course, as a host, I would offer you hot drinks.
Would you help yourself to the food in my fridge?
Aha. This is where it gets a bit more complex - you would help yourself to say a piece of bread or a biscuit without asking, but if you wanted something that cost a bit more, say a nice serving of expensive ice cream, then you would ask for permission. You might even feel obliged to replace the ice cream if you felt guilty about eating my ice cream.
Would you help yourself to my clothes? Again, this is a complex area. Say if you find yourself short of socks or need a spare T-shirt, I would gladly offer them to you. But if you started wearing my expensive suits or shoes without asking, then I would get very offended indeed.
Would you help yourself to the money in my wallet? You might say "no way" - but if you needed say £1 for a bus ticket, then I would probably gladly offer it to you.
 |
| What are we 'entitled' to? |
You see, there are some things we can take with a sense of entitlement - or simply with the assumption that the other party involved wouldn't mind (such as you using the toilet paper in my flat), whereas with other things, we can take but only when permission is granted, then there are just some liberties we would never take under any circumstances. Is this whole situation with Kong Hee simply an internal misunderstanding within CHC - with Kong Hee taking liberties that he shouldn't have with the assets of the church? After all, haven't we all encountered situations where someone made an wrongful assumption about his entitlement and taken something that he shouldn't have?
This boils down to whether Kong Hee had deliberately set out to swindle his congregation or if it was a misunderstanding about what he felt he was entitled to and the liberties he could take. Nonetheless, this presence (or lack of) intent only makes a small difference in the sentencing, if there was intent to commit a crime, then the sentence will be harsher. If you can prove that there's no intent, then you may get a more lenient sentence. But with Kong Hee screaming "not guilty" all the way, it is hard to see how he is going to get a more lenient sentence. After all, when he did realize that things had gone wrong, he could have confessed and admitted to his mistakes (and faced whatever PR backlash there would have been) rather than try to cover up the mess (ref: Hea Bea's explanation).
 |
| As if this hasn't caused enough bad PR already... |
So there you go. I am heading to the airport now to spend my weekend in Ireland, I will catch you guys next Monday when I am back in London. Until then, have a good weekend everyone. Ciao!
According to the internet Cho Yonggi was accused of embezzling millions from the church. Why am I not surprised.
ReplyDeleteToo bad you are no longer in SG LIFT. Now is lunar 7th month and all around I can see noisy auctions with ppl bidding 10s of thousands for plastic or paper. Why do ghosts need so much money pray tell? I think man has more uses for it than the ghosts do.
Concerning Kong Hee's motivation, I think that until we get a chance to literally "tap his brain", it is going to be a bunch of speculations on our own end. However, I do find that your explanations or theories are rather interesting, especially number 2 and 3, which point to a sense of entitlement on Kong's side, whether a grandiose one or a more latent one. My gut reaction tells me that since Kong Hee and his church subscribe to the aberrant prosperity gospel, which sees God to be at the beck-and-call of mankind, and a human-centered gospel to begin with, it is not a surprising thing if they do feel a sense of entitlement to all the funds, and to success in Sun Ho's musical endeavors. The irony of it all is, Sun Ho had spent so much, but other than the flopped singles, a second album in English NEVER materialized.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I am now at Belfast international airport awaiting my flight back to London. One can see why some people buy into this prosperity gospel - when you tell people something they want to hear, they will gladly part with their money in return. Such is human nature.
DeleteThis talk about human nature reminds me of an old blog article:
Deletehttp://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/megachurches-and-the-cultural-applications-of-religion/
I guess that it would be easy if we paint Kong and his associates(and wife included) as totally evil and out to rip people off. But between this approach and yours of seeing them as a bunch of people who feel extremely entitled, I think that the latter seems more probable. A friend of mine back in Calgary actually knows them personally, and while he is somewhat naive and unsuspecting about this couple and thinks of them as a good couple, I sense that Kong Hee and his group actually BELIEVE in the 'divine authorization' of their acts even if illegal or wrong. Then again, since Kong Hee and his group never believed in the correct things(their theology and practices seem rather mangled from all counts of an orthodox and Biblical framework, and many of what Kong Hee says in his sermons are actually distortions of Bible verses, taking them out of their context to fit in with his ideas, more than reading the verses in their historical and exegetical contexts), it was not surprising to me. Fancy making the claim in one sermon that the Chinese of the Shang Dynasty worshiped Shang Di, a pagan deity, and that they were monotheistic!!! Hahaha...I am no theologian but I have historical training as an academic, and that is seriously OFF.
DeleteThat said, since he believes that God the Father apologized to him, I guess that he and his group are all set to go!
Man will believe what they want to be true.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is an exception in Law here (and in the UK where we got it from) for a defense of implied consent, similar to what you mentioned above about your flat's guest. Then is also what is called strict liability - yes or no, the motive or mens rea is not important, you either broke the law or didn't, An example would be a traffic offense - you either beat the red light or didn't, your motivations are irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI remember writing a long time back in your blog when this issue 1st came up, about the odds for Kong Hee at trial. I think they still hold true, however I haven't really checked exactly what the charges are, things like embezzlement are all press jargons like buglary. There is no offence named embezzlement - it's usually cheating, cheating as an agent, criminal breach of trust or forgery and so forth.
So I will need to check what exactly he's facing in charges.
I think some of it will fall into the strict liability, as agent (of the church) I think there are certain rules he must abide legally as to public funds and maybe some he can claim implied consent. Or it could fall somewhere in between.
Either way it will be difficult for him, if 1 of the other defendants admits guilt and implicates him.
Even if his motivations were not altogether criminal in the sense of attempting cheat by deception, it would still be a criminal offence under the law. Given the huge amount involved, he's definitely looking at a lengthy jail term, even if the criminal element is less obvious or intended. If it were, the sentence would be even stiffer.
Oh ya, another thing, I think this will be a strategy by his defense team - Crossover was a resounding success and justified the huge cost. It's like that old quote, it's not how many votes you get but who does the counting! Plus in this case, how the counting is done.
ReplyDeleteKH likes to roll out figures like 200k people 'saved' (turn Christian)& at some events (Taiwan and China), the figures reached 1 million. How did they get this figure? Easy, just tally the number of persons turning up for her events and declare this. After all isn't being saved more important than money? So what if 10 or 50 million dollars was spent, you can't put a price on salvation from Eternal Damnation. So Crossover in their minds/beliefs was correct because of the number saved. They deny criminal or ill-intent in that sense and use this instead. Even if they had ill-intent, this was always going to be a valid reason.
Use such figures and proclaim to the church that Crossover is successful. How it works is simple but ridiculously funny - if say I a Catholic (in my faith I would thus be considered saved, but not to KH and CHC), attended Sun Ho's event where people were asked by raising hands to say they accept Jesus as the Saviour, and I did so (obvious since I believe in Him), KH would declare me saved. The same would be true for my friend Joe who's from another church (and saved), but attended the event. Of course if we were to go an affiliate church of CHC in say Malaysia or China, that church would also declare us as saved by them and justify their expenditure based on our attendance. So literally you can have thousands, maybe millions of saved souls being re-cycled at CHC/Sun Ho and KH specials, and thus declare the event a resounding success!
I'm not saying there might not be any true and new believers who were inspired by Sun Ho/KH and CHC and because of them, accepted Jesus and became 'truly saved', but I suspect that figure is much smaller. Or even if there were new concert goers/attendees and they raised their hand or told church members they agree to be saved (but in reality just did so, to get out of a 'queasy or sticky situation'), they would be added to the figures even if the didn't actually believe. Or if they did so under pressure but then never again attended another event, they still would be considered part of his 'votes'.
That is 1 way some religious leaders justify their actions, just to give you another angle.
Btw I was rather amused when you linked CHC members gullibility to your mother's and made a similar references to Catholics being in denial over the sex abuse. I dunno abt Europe or the West, but I have yet to find a fellow Catholic here who didn't believe the allegations. Catholics are probably the least 'religious' or fanatical. Heck I even smoke in church after mass, and nobody blinks an eyelid. I drink as well as do many Catholics but if I was from a Charismatic Church, I would be hauled up and giving a telling to for my actions. Catholics do believe in Jesus etc, but no matter what out leaders say, even the Pope, we accept that it's up to each individual to do what he wants religiously. If he wants to be deep, good, if light, it's alright, that's why we have things like Hail Mary, prayers of intercession, Communion, confession etc. It's up to you as to how far you want to fulfill all of these obligations. The Church will encourage, but you must decide individually.
We even had a priest here charged for embezzlement like KH a decade ago, he got 5 years. Do we deny he did wrong? No. Do we hate him? Not really, we hate the sin not the sinner. He deserved his punishment but it doesn't mean what he thought was wrong just because he stole or misused the funds. So maybe it's the same with peadophile priests, we hate their crimes and believe in justice, but the religious duties they did correctly, that we accept. Accept the message not always the manager.
I have no doubts about their guilt due to the fact that they actually did all those things like creating shell companies to conceal the movement of church funds and those incriminating emails where they discussed how to sell it to the other church members among other things! Why is this necessary at all if all is above board? It's prima facie they are aware that what they were doing is illegitimate and cannot see the light of day. But I am really alarmed by their stupid and COMPLETE lack of care and conscience in wasting such a humongous sum of money given in good faith by the faithfuls on such a ridiculous and infantile undertaking! The cynical in me says that Kong only objective was to spoil his bimbo of a wife with money he believe he is entitled to. I have see some of his church's and his own antics on YouTube and cannot stop wandering how awfully and hopelessly DUMB most of the congregation must be.
ReplyDeleteThe entire church must be feeling very besieged all because of the shenanigans of one uxorious man and his infantile mentality wife?