Eph 2:4-7
4 But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, 5 that
even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he
raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have
been saved!) 6 For
he raised us from the dead along with Christ and seated us with him in
the heavenly realms because we are united with Christ Jesus. 7 So God can point to us in all future ages as examples of the incredible wealth of his grace and kindness toward us, as shown in all he has done for us who are united with Christ Jesus.
Eph 1:19-20
19 I
also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God’s
power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power 20 that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God’s right hand in the heavenly realms.
There are different levels of power in Greek (Kratos->Ischus->Energeis->Dunamis). God ued Dunamis to raise us together with Christ from the dead. God has to raise Christ from the dead for our justficication to be righteous.
Rms 4:25
25 He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God
If Jesus is in the picture, we can do nothing and let God do everything! Jesus says do not worry. Look at the lilies of thee world where He clothed them (specifically for ladies) and the birds of the air where He provided for them (specifically for men). Seek first the kingdom of God and all His righteousness and all these shall be added to you.
Why did God give the 10 commandments? It was tough not to break any of the 10, in the book of James, it is written that if one break any 1 of the 10, he broke all.
James 2:10-11
10 For the person who keeps all of the laws except one is as guilty as a person who has broken all of God’s laws. 11 For the same God who said, “You must not commit adultery,” also said, “You must not murder.”[e] So if you murder someone but do not commit adultery, you have still broken the law.
When God brought them out of Egypt, God was in control. He provided for them water and food and is the pillar of cloud for them night and day. When they murmur about the bitter water of Marah, God did not punish them but instead made the water sweet by asking Moses to throw the tree (cross) into the water. When they murmur about nothing to eat, God oblight and rain down manas and quails from heaven. When they had nothing to drink, God produce water from the rock. When they came to Mt Sinai, the people were getting hot-headed as they boasted they can keep and laws God gave to them. God gave them the laws. After these, man has being living by the convenant of laws. After 1500years, God says enough is enough where He sent His son Jesus to died on the cross to restore the convenant of Grace. Friends, God wants us to sit back and relax and let him in control. Let his grace works tremendously in your life. It's by faith that we believe we received the gospel of grace. This grace will count us reighteous before God.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
COC's action to remove Kong Hee & Co from office.
On April 9 COC annouce the intention to remove them
On April 9 CHC Released a statement
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We are sad to inform you that the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has notified the Management Board of his intention to remove eight City Harvest Church leaders and members from their office(s) or employment as governing board member, officer, agent or employee of, or trustee for, the Church.
They are Senior Pastor Kong Hee, Pastor Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee, Sharon Tan, John Lam, Chew Eng Han, Teo Meng How and Jacqueline Tan.
At this point, they have not been removed yet.
What happened
On 31 May 2010 the COC instituted an inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act (Cap 37) ("the Act") into our Church. Following the inquiry, nine City Harvest Church leaders and members, including the eight individuals mentioned above and the wife of Pastor Kong, Sun Ho, were suspended from their office(s) or employment as governing board member, officer, agent or employee of, or trustee for, the Church in June and August 2012.
In December 2012, the COC had requested for these suspended individuals, to voluntarily extend their suspension until six months after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings involving six of the eight affected individuals.
The COC informed the suspended individuals that should they not give their consent for the extension, the COC may proceed to consider removal under section 25A of the Act.
But despite the fact that a majority of the nine suspended individuals had voluntarily consented to the extension of their suspension, the COC has notified all of the individuals, with the exception of Sun, of his intention to remove them from their office(s) or employment of the Church, following a 10-month suspension.
What happens now
Pastor Kong and Pastor Tan will continue to perform their pastoral duties.
Under section 29 of the Act, before the COC makes an order to remove without his consent a governing board member of a charity or trustee for a charity, or an officer, agent or employee of a charity, the COC shall give him not less than one month’s notice of the COC proposal, inviting representations to be made to the COC within a time specified in the notice.
The eight have until 13 May 2013 to make their representations to COC on why they should not be removed.
This is a very challenging time for our eight Church leaders and members, their families, and our Church. Please continue to pray ceaselessly for them and for the Church. Let us remember what our Advisory Chairman Dr AR Bernard has exhorted us to do:
Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. (Rom. 12:12 ESV)
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Aries Zulkarnain
Executive Pastor
Chairman, Management Board
City Harvest Church
On April 9 Kong Hee Released a statement
A Statement from Kong Hee The Commissioner of Charities has just announced that it intends to remove 8 individuals, including myself, from the exercise of their respective offices in CHC. It has also given a press release on this earlier today. Here are my thoughts on this matter. First, I have only just received a 227-page report by the COC containing allegations against all 8 individuals. This is currently under review by our lawyers. However, I am confident that there is no basis for the COC’s actions and I will in due course make the appropriate representations to the COC. Second, I am happy that the COC has decided not to take any action against Sun and has now vindicated her. Sun and I were always confident that there would have been no basis to take any action against her even though the COC had suspended her earlier. Third, as regards this present step, I am surprised why the COC has decided to embark on this course of action. The COC has never explained how CHC’s property is allegedly at risk, such that it was necessary to issue suspension orders in 2012 and removal orders in 2013. Notwithstanding my views above as to the lack of merits of the suspension and removal order, I had agreed with the COC that it would be expedient and practical for a voluntary suspension to be in place until 6 months after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The issues raised in both proceedings are related, and the AGC is involved in both sets of proceedings. I would add that, in fact, it was the COC who made the proposal to me to defer until the criminal proceedings are disposed of, on condition that all 9 affected individuals agree. The COC had also agreed that this would be entirely without admission to liability and without prejudice to my rights. In February 2013, both Sun and I accepted the COC’s offer. Subsequently however, the COC informed me that the premise on which I had agreed to the voluntary suspension had changed. This was apparently because they were not able to get everyone to agree with them. This is however not something that is within my control. I also did not see how this would alter the fact that Sun and I had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on their terms, and I informed COC accordingly. It was after this that the COC has now decided to pursue this course of action. Clearly, the COC was itself of the view that it would be more expedient for this matter to be dealt with only after the criminal trial was entirely disposed of. This was clear from their own offer to me, which also provided that the consent would be without admission of liability and also without prejudice to my rights. Yet, it now imposes a deadline on me to respond to the COC a mere 2 days before the commencement of the criminal trial. I will therefore seek clarification from the COC on this point. In the meantime, I understand that the Commissioner of Charities has assured the CHC Board that I will not be prevented from preaching at CHC’s services. This is only fair as there is no basis for the COC to encroach on the services of the church. I look forward to being in church to worship God with my friends and family. I hope that you continue to keep me, my family and the church in your thoughts and prayers.
On April 11 Kong Hee released another statement
I am glad that the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has issued clarifications on some of the issues that were raised in my earlier statement. Here are my thoughts on these clarifications.
On 28 December 2012, the COC made an offer to me to defer the next stage of any regulatory action, if all nine individuals agreed to voluntarily extend their suspension orders, and Sun and I accepted the offer.
As I stated in my earlier statement, the COC subsequently informed me, on 14 March 2013, that the premise for our agreement to the voluntary suspension had changed. The COC revised the terms of the original offer, and abandoned the requirement for unanimous consent as one individual did not consent. When I asked for clarification for this change of position, the COC informed me that the risks of the lapse of that individual’s suspension order could be managed.
Given that the premise for the COC’s offer had changed, and the fact that Sun and I had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on the COC’s original terms in February 2013, we did not see any reason to consent again to the revised offer. As I stated in my earlier statement, we informed the COC that we had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on the COC’s terms.
Furthermore, even though the COC had asked Sun on 14 March 2013 to voluntarily consent to the extension of her suspension, the COC has now taken the view, less than a month later, that there is insufficient evidence that she was involved in any misconduct and mismanagement that allegedly took place in CHC.
I intend to address this matter with the COC directly, and I hope that you will all continue to keep my family, myself and the church in your thoughts and prayers.
On April 11 COC does the following clarification
Summary
Kong Hee deliberately left out the March 25th Deadline to convince the reader including myself that he and Sun Ho are among the five who opt in. After his followers wrote to COC to petition against the removal, COC has to clarify that they are not in. Half Truth?
This espisode is so how similar to Suntec Deal Annoucement. Initially, Kong Hee annouce to the congregation that City Harvest has gain significant stake in Suntec and are co-owners. But the actual facts are they are only small shares in the consortium investor group that invested in Suntec. He even hide behind the non-discolsure clause not to reveal much details. Is there such a clause? Buying Suntec Shares will automatically qualifies one to be a co-owner?
The Commissioner of Charities (COC) on Tuesday gave notice to
eight of nine individuals earlier suspended from various posts at City
Harvest Church that it intends to remove them from their posts and
terminate their executive memberships.
The eight are Kong Hee, Lam Leng Hung, Tan Ye Peng, Kelvin Teo Meng How, Tan Shao Yuen Sharon, Chew Eng Han, Tan Su Pheng Jacqueline and Serina Wee.
The commissioner’s office said that at this point, there is insufficient evidence to show that Kong Hee’s wife, Ho Yeow Sun, was responsible for or contributed to the misconduct and mismanagement that was uncovered by a COC inquiry into CHC.
It was the findings of the inquiry that led to the suspension of the nine from their positions as members of CHC's board, employees of the church and executive memberships between June and August last year.
The eight are Kong Hee, Lam Leng Hung, Tan Ye Peng, Kelvin Teo Meng How, Tan Shao Yuen Sharon, Chew Eng Han, Tan Su Pheng Jacqueline and Serina Wee.
The commissioner’s office said that at this point, there is insufficient evidence to show that Kong Hee’s wife, Ho Yeow Sun, was responsible for or contributed to the misconduct and mismanagement that was uncovered by a COC inquiry into CHC.
It was the findings of the inquiry that led to the suspension of the nine from their positions as members of CHC's board, employees of the church and executive memberships between June and August last year.
On April 9 CHC Released a statement
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
We are sad to inform you that the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has notified the Management Board of his intention to remove eight City Harvest Church leaders and members from their office(s) or employment as governing board member, officer, agent or employee of, or trustee for, the Church.
They are Senior Pastor Kong Hee, Pastor Tan Ye Peng, Serina Wee, Sharon Tan, John Lam, Chew Eng Han, Teo Meng How and Jacqueline Tan.
At this point, they have not been removed yet.
What happened
On 31 May 2010 the COC instituted an inquiry under section 8 of the Charities Act (Cap 37) ("the Act") into our Church. Following the inquiry, nine City Harvest Church leaders and members, including the eight individuals mentioned above and the wife of Pastor Kong, Sun Ho, were suspended from their office(s) or employment as governing board member, officer, agent or employee of, or trustee for, the Church in June and August 2012.
In December 2012, the COC had requested for these suspended individuals, to voluntarily extend their suspension until six months after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings involving six of the eight affected individuals.
The COC informed the suspended individuals that should they not give their consent for the extension, the COC may proceed to consider removal under section 25A of the Act.
But despite the fact that a majority of the nine suspended individuals had voluntarily consented to the extension of their suspension, the COC has notified all of the individuals, with the exception of Sun, of his intention to remove them from their office(s) or employment of the Church, following a 10-month suspension.
What happens now
Pastor Kong and Pastor Tan will continue to perform their pastoral duties.
Under section 29 of the Act, before the COC makes an order to remove without his consent a governing board member of a charity or trustee for a charity, or an officer, agent or employee of a charity, the COC shall give him not less than one month’s notice of the COC proposal, inviting representations to be made to the COC within a time specified in the notice.
The eight have until 13 May 2013 to make their representations to COC on why they should not be removed.
This is a very challenging time for our eight Church leaders and members, their families, and our Church. Please continue to pray ceaselessly for them and for the Church. Let us remember what our Advisory Chairman Dr AR Bernard has exhorted us to do:
Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. (Rom. 12:12 ESV)
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Aries Zulkarnain
Executive Pastor
Chairman, Management Board
City Harvest Church
On April 9 Kong Hee Released a statement
A Statement from Kong Hee The Commissioner of Charities has just announced that it intends to remove 8 individuals, including myself, from the exercise of their respective offices in CHC. It has also given a press release on this earlier today. Here are my thoughts on this matter. First, I have only just received a 227-page report by the COC containing allegations against all 8 individuals. This is currently under review by our lawyers. However, I am confident that there is no basis for the COC’s actions and I will in due course make the appropriate representations to the COC. Second, I am happy that the COC has decided not to take any action against Sun and has now vindicated her. Sun and I were always confident that there would have been no basis to take any action against her even though the COC had suspended her earlier. Third, as regards this present step, I am surprised why the COC has decided to embark on this course of action. The COC has never explained how CHC’s property is allegedly at risk, such that it was necessary to issue suspension orders in 2012 and removal orders in 2013. Notwithstanding my views above as to the lack of merits of the suspension and removal order, I had agreed with the COC that it would be expedient and practical for a voluntary suspension to be in place until 6 months after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The issues raised in both proceedings are related, and the AGC is involved in both sets of proceedings. I would add that, in fact, it was the COC who made the proposal to me to defer until the criminal proceedings are disposed of, on condition that all 9 affected individuals agree. The COC had also agreed that this would be entirely without admission to liability and without prejudice to my rights. In February 2013, both Sun and I accepted the COC’s offer. Subsequently however, the COC informed me that the premise on which I had agreed to the voluntary suspension had changed. This was apparently because they were not able to get everyone to agree with them. This is however not something that is within my control. I also did not see how this would alter the fact that Sun and I had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on their terms, and I informed COC accordingly. It was after this that the COC has now decided to pursue this course of action. Clearly, the COC was itself of the view that it would be more expedient for this matter to be dealt with only after the criminal trial was entirely disposed of. This was clear from their own offer to me, which also provided that the consent would be without admission of liability and also without prejudice to my rights. Yet, it now imposes a deadline on me to respond to the COC a mere 2 days before the commencement of the criminal trial. I will therefore seek clarification from the COC on this point. In the meantime, I understand that the Commissioner of Charities has assured the CHC Board that I will not be prevented from preaching at CHC’s services. This is only fair as there is no basis for the COC to encroach on the services of the church. I look forward to being in church to worship God with my friends and family. I hope that you continue to keep me, my family and the church in your thoughts and prayers.
On April 11 Kong Hee released another statement
I am glad that the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has issued clarifications on some of the issues that were raised in my earlier statement. Here are my thoughts on these clarifications.
On 28 December 2012, the COC made an offer to me to defer the next stage of any regulatory action, if all nine individuals agreed to voluntarily extend their suspension orders, and Sun and I accepted the offer.
As I stated in my earlier statement, the COC subsequently informed me, on 14 March 2013, that the premise for our agreement to the voluntary suspension had changed. The COC revised the terms of the original offer, and abandoned the requirement for unanimous consent as one individual did not consent. When I asked for clarification for this change of position, the COC informed me that the risks of the lapse of that individual’s suspension order could be managed.
Given that the premise for the COC’s offer had changed, and the fact that Sun and I had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on the COC’s original terms in February 2013, we did not see any reason to consent again to the revised offer. As I stated in my earlier statement, we informed the COC that we had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on the COC’s terms.
Furthermore, even though the COC had asked Sun on 14 March 2013 to voluntarily consent to the extension of her suspension, the COC has now taken the view, less than a month later, that there is insufficient evidence that she was involved in any misconduct and mismanagement that allegedly took place in CHC.
I intend to address this matter with the COC directly, and I hope that you will all continue to keep my family, myself and the church in your thoughts and prayers.
On April 11 COC does the following clarification
SINGAPORE: City Harvest Church's founder Kong Hee and
his wife Sun Ho were not among the five church leaders who reaffirmed
their consent to voluntarily extend their suspension orders.
The Commissioner of Charities (COC) had asked for eight church leaders - including Senior Pastor Kong, who had initially given their consent on 7 February, to confirm by 25 March this year.
This was revealed by the Commissioner in a statement to clarify why he had "no choice but to proceed with regulatory action", and propose to remove the eight from their management positions.
The Commissioner of Charities' inquiry into City Harvest Church, instituted in May 2010, has revealed misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the charity particularly to money in the Building Fund, earmarked for specific purposes.
Financial irregularities of at least $23 million were discovered. The funds were used with the intention to finance Sun Ho's secular music career, and the inquiry had found that there was a concerted effort to conceal it from stakeholders.
On 28 December 2012, the Commissioner proposed to nine church leaders that it would defer the next stage of regulatory action if all nine agreed to voluntarily extend their suspension orders.
By 7 February 2013, eight out of nine, including Pastor Kong Hee and Sun Ho, had initially consented to this proposal.
Although there was no collective agreement, as one person did not consent, the Commissioner said it was still prepared to defer regulatory action.
On 14 March 2013, it asked the eight persons to confirm in writing that they are still agreeable to voluntarily extend their suspension.
A final deadline of 25 March 2013 was given.
But by then, the Commissioner only received consents from five of them.
This time, pastor Kong Hee and Sun Ho were not among the five who reaffirmed their consent even though they had agreed to do so earlier.
The Commissioner said because the individual cases are linked, he could not extend the suspension only for those who gave their confirmations.
Separately, in his latest statement on 11 April, Pastor Kong maintained that the premise for the Commissioner's offer had changed.
He said as he and his wife had already agreed to the original terms in February 2013, they did not see any reason to consent again to the revised offer.
There was no mention of the 25 March deadline in his latest statement.
The Commissioner has allowed all eight persons to make representations before deciding on removing them.
For four individuals, the Commissioner is also inviting representations from the public. They are:
- Pastor Kong Hee;
- Chairman of City Harvest Church's Board Lam Leng Hung who served as its Treasurer from 7 March 2010 to 10 April 2011;
- Vice-Chairman of City Harvest Church's Board Tan Ye Peng; and
- Key officer of City Harvest Church Kelvin Teo Meng How who exercises general control and management of the Charity's administration.
All representations to the Commissioner of Charities have to be made by 13 May 2013.
It is understood that some church-goers have already submitted representations to the Commissioner of Charities not to remove their leaders.
The Commissioner of Charities (COC) had asked for eight church leaders - including Senior Pastor Kong, who had initially given their consent on 7 February, to confirm by 25 March this year.
This was revealed by the Commissioner in a statement to clarify why he had "no choice but to proceed with regulatory action", and propose to remove the eight from their management positions.
The Commissioner of Charities' inquiry into City Harvest Church, instituted in May 2010, has revealed misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the charity particularly to money in the Building Fund, earmarked for specific purposes.
Financial irregularities of at least $23 million were discovered. The funds were used with the intention to finance Sun Ho's secular music career, and the inquiry had found that there was a concerted effort to conceal it from stakeholders.
On 28 December 2012, the Commissioner proposed to nine church leaders that it would defer the next stage of regulatory action if all nine agreed to voluntarily extend their suspension orders.
By 7 February 2013, eight out of nine, including Pastor Kong Hee and Sun Ho, had initially consented to this proposal.
Although there was no collective agreement, as one person did not consent, the Commissioner said it was still prepared to defer regulatory action.
On 14 March 2013, it asked the eight persons to confirm in writing that they are still agreeable to voluntarily extend their suspension.
A final deadline of 25 March 2013 was given.
But by then, the Commissioner only received consents from five of them.
This time, pastor Kong Hee and Sun Ho were not among the five who reaffirmed their consent even though they had agreed to do so earlier.
The Commissioner said because the individual cases are linked, he could not extend the suspension only for those who gave their confirmations.
Separately, in his latest statement on 11 April, Pastor Kong maintained that the premise for the Commissioner's offer had changed.
He said as he and his wife had already agreed to the original terms in February 2013, they did not see any reason to consent again to the revised offer.
There was no mention of the 25 March deadline in his latest statement.
The Commissioner has allowed all eight persons to make representations before deciding on removing them.
For four individuals, the Commissioner is also inviting representations from the public. They are:
- Pastor Kong Hee;
- Chairman of City Harvest Church's Board Lam Leng Hung who served as its Treasurer from 7 March 2010 to 10 April 2011;
- Vice-Chairman of City Harvest Church's Board Tan Ye Peng; and
- Key officer of City Harvest Church Kelvin Teo Meng How who exercises general control and management of the Charity's administration.
All representations to the Commissioner of Charities have to be made by 13 May 2013.
It is understood that some church-goers have already submitted representations to the Commissioner of Charities not to remove their leaders.
Summary
Kong Hee deliberately left out the March 25th Deadline to convince the reader including myself that he and Sun Ho are among the five who opt in. After his followers wrote to COC to petition against the removal, COC has to clarify that they are not in. Half Truth?
This espisode is so how similar to Suntec Deal Annoucement. Initially, Kong Hee annouce to the congregation that City Harvest has gain significant stake in Suntec and are co-owners. But the actual facts are they are only small shares in the consortium investor group that invested in Suntec. He even hide behind the non-discolsure clause not to reveal much details. Is there such a clause? Buying Suntec Shares will automatically qualifies one to be a co-owner?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)