The lawyer of the founder of City Harvest Church sought to show today (Sept 10) that Kong Hee had nothing to do with the numerous transactions involving glassware firm Firna ... Today, Kong Hee’s lawyer Edwin Tong posed a series of questions to Mr Hanafi, asking if Kong had anything to do with what should be done with the proceeds of the Firna bond. He also asked Mr Hanafi if Kong had anything to do with the convertibility of Firna bonds into shares and if the founder decided on the various draw down details. Mr Hanafi said Kong was not involved in these matters.
I could be wrong of course, but this latest development looks like a first step by Kong Hee's lawyer Edwin Tong to move towards some kind of compromise position. Previously, they had been steadfastly refusing to admit any wrongdoing - I wonder what has prompted this latest move by Tong to take this position? Is there perhaps a sudden realization on the part of someone in the CHC camp that they are not going to get away with this after all despite protesting their innocence all the way? Did someone (possibly Kong Hee himself) get cold feet about trying to go down in a blaze of glory, yelling, "NOT GUILTY!" all the way down to his prison cell?
One theory that several of my readers have put forward in response to one of my previous posts, is that Kong Hee has some powerful backers in the government, within the PAP (I am not convinced, but many of you seem to believe that is the case). So by that token, it isn't just Kong Hee and his lawyers deciding what they should do next - there is a third party (possibly within the government) telling him what he can and cannot do. Kong Hee is under the impression that he won't be punished, or at least won't be punished harshly. If that is the case, then it could be possible that Kong Hee's friend(s) in the government have quietly taken him aside and told him to change his current tactics.
What has sparked this change of heart? Maybe it is a contemplation of what may happen to CHC if Kong Hee faces a long spell in jail - when he gets out, maybe there won't be any church left for him to lead if he is really locked up for a very long time. It is unbelievable that there are those who would rather take the blame for this, in order to spare Kong Hee any jail time - but such is the psychology of those stuck in a cult. For those of us observing from the sidelines, it seems pretty unreal that people are willing to go to jail to save Kong Hee, but if they have been so immersed in the culture of CHC for many years, they are wrapped in their little bubble, isolated from reality. People in that situation have a knack of believing in whatever they want to believe in and can be totally oblivious to the truth, even if it is staring at them in the face. They would rather sacrifice themselves for Kong Hee than to acknowledge the truth - go figure.
Will this tactic work? Personally, I doubt it because if they wanted to pursue this, they should have done it a long time ago. It seems like a desperate last minute tactic at the moment which just isn't convincing. In any case, how convincing is the argument that Kong Hee knew nothing about these financial transactions, especially when it involved money from his church to fund his wife's music career? Kong Hee is the central linchpin that links everything together, so try convincing a judge that he knew nothing about the round tripping. It simply isn't a convincing argument, so it surprises me that they are even willing to go down this route.
So what do you think? Are we seeing a change in tactic which will eventually lead to a compromise on their part to accept some blame (but try to spare Kong Hee at the same time)? Or is this merely a small gesture on their part to try to maintain Kong Hee's innocence as part of their defence argument? Or is Edwin Tong simply a desperate man who has run out of options and has no idea what to try to do next in court? Let me know what you think.
I will be writing a piece on Edwin Tong next as we focus on how he has performed as Kong Hee's defence lawyer. There are times when I read some of his statements and I think, dude, what drugs are you on? What kind of lawyer are you? For crying out aloud, are you f*cking hallucinating or what? Do you actually hear some of the bullshit you're spouting in court? Are you brainwashed or stupid? What do you think you're doing to your career as a lawyer after this case? And OMFG, he is a PAP MP on top of that. Who is ever going to take you seriously after this? Akan datang - it's going to be fun! I just love digging up dirt on anything to do with the PAP!
 |
| Is there a change in tactic by Kong Hee's defence team? |
One theory that several of my readers have put forward in response to one of my previous posts, is that Kong Hee has some powerful backers in the government, within the PAP (I am not convinced, but many of you seem to believe that is the case). So by that token, it isn't just Kong Hee and his lawyers deciding what they should do next - there is a third party (possibly within the government) telling him what he can and cannot do. Kong Hee is under the impression that he won't be punished, or at least won't be punished harshly. If that is the case, then it could be possible that Kong Hee's friend(s) in the government have quietly taken him aside and told him to change his current tactics.
What has sparked this change of heart? Maybe it is a contemplation of what may happen to CHC if Kong Hee faces a long spell in jail - when he gets out, maybe there won't be any church left for him to lead if he is really locked up for a very long time. It is unbelievable that there are those who would rather take the blame for this, in order to spare Kong Hee any jail time - but such is the psychology of those stuck in a cult. For those of us observing from the sidelines, it seems pretty unreal that people are willing to go to jail to save Kong Hee, but if they have been so immersed in the culture of CHC for many years, they are wrapped in their little bubble, isolated from reality. People in that situation have a knack of believing in whatever they want to believe in and can be totally oblivious to the truth, even if it is staring at them in the face. They would rather sacrifice themselves for Kong Hee than to acknowledge the truth - go figure.
So what do you think? Are we seeing a change in tactic which will eventually lead to a compromise on their part to accept some blame (but try to spare Kong Hee at the same time)? Or is this merely a small gesture on their part to try to maintain Kong Hee's innocence as part of their defence argument? Or is Edwin Tong simply a desperate man who has run out of options and has no idea what to try to do next in court? Let me know what you think.
Gee thanks for linking my blog post to your article. I'll just add a few things, last year when I replied to your blog after your started on the CHC saga, I felt the odds for a full acquittal for KH would be as low as 3-1, figuring that 1 or more of the co-defendants would take the blame and claim KH was innocent/unaware. However as the trial wore on, they all seemed to be insistent of their innocence and as such, it would be harder for KH to feign ignorance. However as you pointed, there might still be a late change of tactics and either 1 or more will then take the brunt of the blame or they will minimise KH's role extensively.
ReplyDeleteIt's still early days, we'll be able forecast better when the prosecution rests. Under our system, the prosecution must present its case and thereafter the judge will decide whether it has a built a prima facie case - meaning as it stands the prosecution has made a reasonable case of the accused guilt. If left unanswered it would be enough to warrant a conviction. If Judge See believes there is (and usually for most cases, the prosecution always builds a prima facie case), he will call for the defense.
This is where the defense team must strategise how to rebut the charges - because if they don't a conviction will be the end result. Technically everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but in reality - when the prosecution crosses this stage - the burden of proof shifts to the accused. They have to raise a reasonable doubt by poking holes in the prosecution's case or disproving it altogether - that's where shifting the blame can play a crucial part. If 1 or more of the 5 other accused declares that KH knew very little or did not approve the fund transfer/cover up etc, or if he knew after the fact (did not actively participate) or breached only some procedural matter, he may be acquitted of the more serious charges and escape with a hefty fine, short jail term or full acquittal. So in short we have to wait for the prosecution to rest after presenting their case in full.
Another thing to add about my odds on the possible jail terms - my gut feeling at this time (based on where things stand now), is that KH is looking at a jail term of 10-13, but he might also get something a little lesser if we look at 2 other cases. Catholic priest Father Joachim Kang got 7 years for cheating his church, while the Sunshine Empire accused involved in a multimillion dollar swindle with sums closer to what KH and co are accused of, got 9 years. If these 2 cases are used as the benchmark, KH might get anywhere from 7 to under 10 years, if found guilty of the main charges. Then again you have the cases of the PUB executive and SIA officer involved in cheating of tens of million, and they got sentences well above 10 years. My prediction of 10-13 is based on a marriage of all of these cases.
Finally the most crucial factor in determining sentence will be what amount of church funds has been lost through this scheme they are accused of and how much has been recovered or paid back. If the amount lost is in the tens of million, any sentence below 8 years is very unlikely, 9 years (as in the Sunshine case) might be the starting point.
Hope I clarified things a bit with this explanation.
Hi and thanks for your detailed response.
DeleteI gotta dash for a meeting shortly, but wanted to ask you one question please: what do you think about Edwin Tong, the MP lawyer defending Kong Hee? What do you think of the job that he has been doing so far?
I think too many people are linking the connection of Edwin Tong being a PAP and being KH's lawyer and coming out with conspiracy theories, in that KH will get off lightly because of this. If the prosecution's case is weak or the defense raises a reasonable doubt, he'll be acquitted. If the case is winnable he'll win or if the evidence is so stacked up against him, he'll lose, PAP lawyer or no. Mr Tong I think is better at litigation than as a criminal defense lawyer, but he's senior enough - you don't become a senior partner at Allen & Gledhill by being a mug. Moreover he was already there practising before being tapped to be an MP by the PAP. He didn't rise to such a high position just because he was an MP. Most people engage lawyers they know or heard off. I don't know if Mr Tong is/was a CHC member, but I think he's probably a friend of KH or someone close to him, and thus was asked to be their lawyer in this case. Personally I think Davinder Singh (former MP and LKY's lawyer) would have been a better choice, but maybe they wanted a Christian lawyer.
ReplyDeleteThus far I think he's doing an okay job trying to distance KH from any illicit actions, or trying to paint him as doing what he thought best in raising the church profile - thru Crossover, and whatever financial wrongdoing alleged was nothing sinister, but just them being naive or making procedural mistakes not criminal.
But we must also consider that Mr Tong must act (as far as possible) on his client's advice. So if KH says never mind, all the defendants and me are the same, don't try and push the blame to anyone of them, just fight the case on its merits based on what I have briefed you, Mr Tong must fight it that way.
Unless of course KH, told him do whatever it takes to get him off, in that case Mr Tong might go and pin the blame on somebody else. That said it won't be easy, because the other defendants all have very senior lawyers, and they would advise their clients to rebut these allegations and not take the fall for KH.
In a trial such as this with so many co-accused there would definitely be some kind of agreement as to how each would present their defense, and not try to defer blame. The worse thing they could do, is each blaming the other, in the end, all might get convicted.
If KH and all the co-accused are getting along well, or if all of them are sympathetic to him, even to the extent of taking the fall, then he can adopt any defense to his benefit and not fear repercussions. But if 1 or more of them have burnt their bridges with him, then he's in serious trouble, because he'll be fighting 2 battles, one against the DPP and the other against them. Thus far it still seems united, the key question will come when the prosecution rests after making a prima facie case, and their individual defenses are called. Lose that and they will be staring at a lengthy jail term. The biggest danger to KH is that 1 or more of them make a deal with the DPP for a lesser charge or plead guilty in the hope of getting a lighter sentence (they can do at any time). Once that is done, their statement of facts (which they will have to agree upon pleading guilty) of what transpired, can and will used as evidence against KH. It's very hard to rebut the evidence of a co-accused who has pleaded guilty, since he's already convicted and jailed, there's no reason for him to lie.
Btw the DPP is Mavis Chionh, a very senior lawyer herself and a former District Judge. So both sides have heavyweights, and not what conspiracy theorists are saying, Mr Tong's PAP links will help KH over and above everything else.
Since you are going to write a piece on Edwin Tong - I'd like to highlight another thing. As already mentioned, Mr Tong is obliged to take KH's instructions and defend him in that manner. He may counsel against a certain course, but if KH insists he must comply or withdraw. And of course this being a multi accused case, his hands are tied in that he has to walk a tightrope and keep to any agreement with other counsel (if there was one). If there wasn't, he must be wary of going after another co-accused, whose lawyer would then throw back 'some bombshells' at KH.
ReplyDeleteNow some may ask: why should a PAP MP take up this case - the short answer is why not? Everyone is entitled to a defense, even a multi-murderer like the Kovan cop killer. Every lawyer called to the Bar subscribes to that, of course some would turn down certain cases they might not feel comfortable with, but at the end of the day, if one can afford a lawyer, one will always get one. You can ask the court to assist if every lawyer you asked turned you down, the judge would direct the Law Society or some other body to provide one. In capital cases, you'll always be assigned one if you can't afford them. So why shouldn't Mr Tong take this case - it's a huge case, lots of exposure and most crucially a very handsome legal fee. I think virtually every criminal defense lawyer would jump to defend KH because of the huge fees involved.
His personal feelings about CHC should be cast aside, he's there to defend not judge. He may disagree with the Crossover and KH/Sun Ho's lifestyles or their teachings (Mr Tong is a Catholic I just learnt) but that doesn't mean he can't or shouldn't defend them. His job is to merely raise the best possible defense as instructed by the clients. It's up to the judge to accept it or not.
Anyway the point I wanted to make in this further reply is; Mr Tong shouldn't care if he thinks KH is guilty, but he must not know it for certain. In other words, he cannot defend KH, if KH admitted his guilt to him. He might think KH could have done it, after looking through the evidence and statements, but still defend him because everyone is entitled to a defense. However a confession/admission by KH means he's obliged to advise him to plead guilty and then only mitigate, he can no longer defend him. Doing so is a very serious breach of legal ethics - and the punishment usually is disbarment. Why? Because a defense lawyer (and the prosecutor) are officers of the court. Their 1st duty is to the court and that duty is primarily determining the truth. Presuming or thinking someone is guilty is very different from knowing for sure. The former basically means it's not entirely clear, thinking/presuming is not a certainty and it's up to the court to decide one way or the other. The latter means certainty and you cannot defend further, doing so is being dishonest.
That's also why all of them have individual lawyers, because if 1 lawyer represents 2 or more accused, and 1 of them pleads guilty, he cannot carry on defending the other. Because the former's guilty plea and statement can and may be used against the other accused represented. That would put the lawyer in a conflict of interest with the truth, because the 1st client is admitting that both he and the 2nd client are guilty. The lawyer would now be aware of his 2nd client's guilt and he cannot defend him further.
I may not be 100% sure on whether my reasons hits it on the nail, but I'm 100% sure no lawyer can defend an accused who confesses his guilt to him and no lawyer can defend a 2nd co-accused after the 1st pleads guilty.
fr the start kh knows he is guilty but cannot admit it becos of the high stake...so he has no choice but to go for a battle that he has no confidence of winning..at least he appears innocent & persecuted (even God comforted him) before some dump flock. And he can also buy time get influence & support from abroad - they travelled to many places after being charged including china(hm..maybe his wife knows some top officials in china - she was coined some love ambassador there and involved in Beijing Olympic etc rite?). Maybe he can through all the connections get away with lighter sentences n let the rest shoulder all.
ReplyDeleteNow since chew turns his back against kh, the natural thing to do is to rally all (the rest of the accused + those pro-him witnesses) against chew alone.
beats me why kh's lawyer took on the case...when he presented those emails trying to prove kh's careful deliberations over the "investments", it became own-goal proving tat kh is involved in financing his wife's career...but cannot blame mr tong lah, we all know the end from the beginning tat its a case of lost battle.
Lift, thanks for the article. I am also a FT, but a Singaporean FT in Thailand. I am very intrigue by CHC case but can hardly get any updates here in Bangkok. So your post has given me a lot of information and insights. It's December now, what's the latest? Any more updates? Greatly appreciated.
ReplyDelete