For several times since last Wednesday, the prosecution surprised its own witnesses by presenting new evidence during re-examination.

The first time was during its cross-examination of first witness Lai Bao Ting, and the latest move happened during the re-examination of Koh Siow Ngea this morning, much to the objection of majority of the senior counsels.

Today, the prosecution attempted to argue against what the defense sought to establish in court yesterday – that Xtron was a viable business entity independent of City Harvest Church.

The session, which lasted almost three hours, saw Deputy Public Prosecutor Christopher Ong’s seeking to discredit its own witness Koh, claiming that the latter’s testimonial given in court yesterday was inconsistent with that of Monday.

Ong also pressed Koh for recollection of details and dates of meeting that took place five years ago. Koh said he could not remember these details.

Ong then presented minutes of City Harvest Church’s Investment Committee meeting on 29 July 2007, suggesting that the meeting did not take place, to the objection of defense lawyer N. Sreenivasan.

The defense also strongly objected to district judge See Kee Oon allowing Ong to produce several additional documents that were not referred to in the previous two days. Normally, the prosecution may only re-examine based on documents already marked in court.

Ong sought to highlight what seemed like discrepancies in the minutes of a meeting for CHC’s investment committee, CHC board meeting minutes that Koh had signed off on, and Wahju Hanafi’s guarantee to Xtron and the back-up guarantee signed by Koh, Chew Eng Han, Kong Hee and Tan Ye Peng.

Based on a series of emails, DPP Ong questioned Koh on why the two guarantees indemnifying Xtron’s costs for the Crossover Project do not reflect their actual dates. Koh explained that these were lapses caused by human error, and that “we are never perfect” when dating of certain documents, because of various factors such the need for a lead time to draft documents and the need to take in amendments. He added that there was nothing sinister about these mistakes.

Koh also mentioned that the personal guarantee that Koh, with three others, gave to Hanafi in 2010 was like “hugging him to show our support for him”, for his indemnifying the Crossover Project.

The session today marked the end of the first of what looks like three tranches of trial dates. The second tranche is scheduled for August.

检方证人许少毅昨日被传召上庭时对他的信仰毫无遮掩。他清楚表示相信跨界计划是CHC透过流行音乐接触非信徒的使命。

作为这次审讯的证人之一，许因曾在教会及《思创》公司里担任要职而占有独特的地位。《思创》是何耀珊音乐事业早期的制作公司。许之前为CHC的董事会会员，但后来卸下董事职位并担任《思创》董事；他也曾任教会投资委员会的委员，因此他能以不同的角度来看这个问题。

许少毅证实曾同意用支付《思创》预付租金来购买《Firna》债券。他也认为《Firna》这家印尼玻璃公司使用《思创》购买债券的金额来支持跨界计划是没有问题的。至于CHC向《思创》购买的债券，许也确认债券文件上显示这笔收入用来资助跨界计划—这笔资金的用途并非机密。

身为地产发展商，许同意辩方律师所说的—“《思创》若只是将钱存起来等候购买房产时机到来是很愚蠢的”。作为一名业主，他清楚会计账目上使用预付租金来抵消《思创》发给教会债券背后的逻辑。

许对跨界计划全权的同意和认可成为昨日下午盘问的重点。他透露自己不仅在言词上支持跨界，并且亲身力行；他和姐夫周英汉本身捐赠4万元支持跨界计划。

是什么促使他全力支持跨界计划？

当辩方律师安德烈（Andre Maniam）询问他是否将跨界计划看为“与传福音和拯救灵魂有关，不仅在销售专辑和赚钱而已？”许证实这点。证人曾看见跨界计划在亚洲的成功，因此他同意他的信仰是“坚信不可见的事”，这里指的是跨界在美国的努力。

对投资毫无质疑

辩方律师唐振辉昨日早上指出教会的建堂基金曾用来投资，而这些投资包括《思创》债券都由德意志银行持有；德意志银行是教会投资的托管银行。

更重要的是，他试图证明教会董事会、投资委员会和执行会员对这些投资早已知情，从未有一人，包括外来的专业顾问如律师和审计师质疑过这些投资和交易。

唐问道：“在你和投资委员会、董事会或外来顾问包括律师和会计师的交流中，从未有人提过这些债券是不正当的，对吗？”

许问答：“是的，法官大人。”

唐也尝试证实这些投资有经过定期的审查，并根据投资政策做评估以确保投资没有偏离政策。

唐在庭上跟进这点—他参考了控辩双方案情同意书里2007年8月17日的第一份债券认购协议。许证实他担任CHC董事期间，《思创》支取1300万元。唐也在同意书里注意到一句陈述：“第一次的债券认购协议中支出给《思创》1300万元是用在跨界计划上。”许同意，可以说每一分钱都花在跨界计划上，因为《思创》的责任就是要宣传何耀珊的音乐事业。

昨日下午再次在法庭上提出何清伟（前译名为哈纳菲）和许，以及其中三名被告—康希、陈一平和周英汉在金钱上资助该计划，并也是跨界计划的担保人。

资深律师加南拉美斯（Kannan Ramesh）提起，如果何清伟，作为《思创》的担保人（以防《思创》因跨界而面对亏损）无法还清债务，许和三位被告将为何清伟做赔偿。

倘若《思创》破产，没有何清伟的担保教会就会蒙受损失。

“若何先生因某些原因无法做出赔偿，那账单交给你们四人，你们四人真的能付清这笔钱吗？” 加南拉美斯问道。“如果这样的事件发生，账单就交给你们四人，对吗？”

许同意。

加南拉美斯再问道：“四人当中，有三人是被控非法挪用教会资金，对吗？周先生、康先生和陈先生。”

许回答：“是的，法官大人。”

“因此具体来说，这三人必须共同自掏腰包补偿教会的钱，对吗？有关他们被控非法挪用的金钱。”

许回答：“是的，法官大人。”

审讯将在今早10点30分继续开庭，由检方对许进行复诘。这将为这阶段审讯做总结。

Prosecution witness Koh Siow Ngea was unabashed about his faith when called to the stand in court yesterday. He also stated clearly his belief that the Crossover Project was a mission of CHC to reach out to unbelievers through the use of secular music.

Koh is in a unique position as a witness in this trial, having held key positions both in church and in Xtron, the production company that managed Sun Ho in the early part of her music career. Koh was a  CHC board member before stepping down to assume directorship of Xtron; he was also an Investment Committee member of the church. Hence he could see the issue from different perspectives.

The property developer confirmed that he agreed with the advance rental paid to Xtron being used to buy Firna bonds. He also saw no issue with Firna, an Indonesian glassware company, using the money it obtained from Xtron for its bonds, to support the Crossover Project. As for the Xtron bonds purchased by CHC, Koh confirmed that the bond documents stated the returns were to be used for the Crossover—there was nothing secret about the use of funds.

As a property developer, Koh also agreed with the defense counsel that it would have been “silly for Xtron to keep the money in a bag waiting to buy some property.” As a business owner, he saw the logic of the offset between the advance rental and bonds that Xtron issued to the church by using accounting entries.

Koh’s wholehearted buy-in into the Crossover Project took centerstage at the cross-examination yesterday afternoon. It was revealed that he supported the Crossover Project not only in word but in deed: he, with his brother-in-law Chew Eng Han, personally donated $40,000 to fund the project.

What drove him to have such unbridled support for this project?

When asked by defence counsel Andre Maniam if he “personally saw it (the Crossover Project) as more about spreading the gospel and saving souls, rather than just selling albums and making money?”, Koh said this was true. Having seen the success of the Crossover Project in Asia, the witness agreed that his faith was a “conviction of things not seen”, those things being the Crossover effort in the US.

INVESTMENTS WERE NOT QUESTIONED

Defense lawyer Edwin Tong also pointed out early yesterday morning that the church’s building fund was used to acquire investments, and that such investments, including the Xtron bonds, were all held by Deutsche Bank, which was the custodian bank for the church’s investments.

More importantly, he also sought to establish that these investments were known to the Church’s board, Investment Committee and executive members, and that none of these people, including external professional advisors like lawyers and auditors, ever for once questioned these investments and transactions.

Tong asked, “To the extent that you had any interaction with any other members on the IC, or the board, or any of its external advisors, including lawyers and accountants, there was not a single suggestion that these bonds were not proper; right?”

Koh replied to the court, “Correct, your Honour.”

Tong also sought to establish that the investments were regularly reviewed and assessed against the Investment Policy to ensure there were no deviations from the policy.

He followed that up by referring to the first bond subscription agreement of Aug. 17, 2007 in the agreed statement of facts. Koh confirmed that during the time he was on the CHC board, $13 million was drawn down by Xtron. Tong made note of a statement in the ASOF that “The $13 million disbursed to Xtron under the first BSA was applied to the Crossover Project.” Koh agreed it was fair to say that not a single cent was spent on any other purpose than the Crossover, since Xtron had been tasked with promoting Sun Ho’s music career.

It resurfaced in court yesterday afternoon that Wahju Hanafi and Koh, together with three of the accused persons—Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han—financially supported and guaranteed the Project.

Senior counsel Kannan Ramesh brought up the issue of the indemnity Koh and the three accused gave Wahju Hanafi should Hanafi, who stood guarantor for potential losses incurred by Xtron for the Crossover, not be able to pay its debts.

Without Hanafi’s guarantee, had Xtron gone bankrupt, the church would have suffered losses.

“If Mr Hanafi for some reason was not able to pay, and the buck then passed down the chain to the four of you, would the four of you have been able to pick up the tab?” asked Kannan. “If indeed this chain of events had happened, really the buck would have stopped with the four of you, isn’t it?”

Koh concurred.

“Of the four, three persons are people who have been charged with criminally misappropriating moneys from the church, correct? Mr Chew, Mr Kong and Mr Tan,” asked Kannan.

“Yes, your Honour,” Koh replied.

“So in substance, these three persons together – these three persons would have to cough up cash to make the church whole, right, in relation to money that they have been alleged to have criminally misappropriated?”

Koh answered, “That’s right, your Honour.”

The trial resumes this morning at 10.30am, with the re-examination of Koh by the prosecution. This session will bring this tranche of the trial to a close.

《思创》是否面对亏损而这些亏损是否由城市丰收教会来承担？在今早的审讯中，这是辩方律师盘问检方证人许少毅时所关注的重点。

辩方以此回应检方昨日的论点；检方指出《思创》在2007年损失200多万，在2008年则损失900多万元。

然而，今早辩方尝试证实这是在销售收入进来之前，为制作和宣传何耀珊的专辑所支出的费用。

今早在庭上证实的另一点是：教会曾向会友分享使用流行音乐来传福音的异象，这项计划也正式称为跨界计划。2007年2月特别会议的记录中也包括这点，并有约500名执行会友一致同意支持该计划。

辩方试图证实自2002年，CHC管理董事会就开始支持跨界计划；这项计划符合了CHC的使命—为了赢得灵魂而提倡传福音的事工，在新加坡或海外皆是如此。2007年，董事会已同意竭尽所能支持耀珊，因为她所做的是代表基督进入文化的实际榜样。

辩方声明，跨界计划是“完全诚实”的，因为它不是特别让CHC的某一名会友受益，而是推广整个组织的异象。

康希的律师唐振辉也向许询问：“跨界计划是成功的，而且你会将庞大的出席（演唱会）人数当作跨界成功的标准？”许回答是，并同意耀珊的成功就等于跨界的成功。

检方今早提到的另一点是《思创》不独立于教会，并且无法自行做投资决定，但辩方再一次挑战这点。在唐振辉的盘问下，许证实尽管这两个机构确实有“共同的异象”，但不管在财务或董事会上，《思创》都是独立于教会的实体。

有关教会提出的建议，房产发展商许少毅确认他和另一名《思创》董事钟嘉荣都会做出独立的判断来保护《思创》的利益，当然也会考虑到教会的宗旨，因为教会是《思创》最大的客户。

唐也呈上了《思创》员工提到有关购买器材或人事事宜（如员工薪金和花红）的电邮。董事们的确能够了解《思创》的财务状况。这几封电邮和回复也显示了公司在这些事上曾征询许和钟的意见，而在日常运作上也曾寻求他们的批准。

唐尝试证明《思创》除了CHC外也有其他客户。第一届亚洲青年运动会（于2009年新加坡举行）的主办单位曾聘请他们；一些草根组织、银行、新加坡管理大学及其他基金会如《我爱儿童(Mainly I Love Kids)》的公司晚宴也使用他们的服务。《思创》曾参与周华健、林俊杰、郑秀文等艺人所办的演唱会。2010年，《思创》也协助西联汇款、人事部和*Scape举办活动。唐表示，这一切只能代表一件事 —《思创》很明显是一门“可行的生意”。

辩方也表明CHC董事会、投资委员会、执行会员及外聘审计师对CHC建堂基金用在投资《思创》债券一事知情，并批准了这项交易。

审讯将在今天下午2点15分继续开庭。

Did Xtron suffer losses and were they borne by City Harvest Church? That was the key focus as prosecution witness Koh Siow Ngea was cross-examined by defense lawyers in this morning’s session of the trial involving six leaders of the church.

This was in response to the prosecution’s argument yesterday that Xtron had made losses of more than $2 million in 2007 and more than $9 million in 2008.

But these were actually expenses incurred to produce and promote Sun Ho’s album before sales returns came in, the defense sought to establish this morning.

It was also revealed in court earlier today that the vision of using pop music for evangelism was communicated to the church members and it became officially known as the Crossover Project, and that about 500 executive members gave their unanimous support to this project.

The defense also sought to prove that since 2002, the CHC Board has supported the Crossover Project as being consistent with CHC’s mission to promote a ministry of evangelism for soul winning, both in Singapore and overseas. In 2007, the Board agreed to do whatever is necessary to show its support for Sun as what she is doing is a practical example of engaging Christ in culture.

The Crossover is “completely honest” as it does not benefit any particular member of CHC in isolation, but only the organizational vision as a whole, the defense argued.

Kong Hee’s lawyer Edwin Tong also asked Koh: “The Crossover was successful and you would regard the huge turnout (in concerts) as a gauge of the success?” Yes, replied Koh, who agreed that the success of Sun would equate to the success of the Crossover.

Another point brought up by the prosecution this morning was that Xtron was not independent of the church and was unable to make investment decisions on its own. But this was again challenged by the defense. When cross-examined by Tong, Koh confirmed that Xtron is a separate entity from the church in terms of accounts and directorship, although the two organisations had a “common vision”.

With regard to all the proposals that came from the church, Koh, a property developer, confirmed that he and Choong Kar Weng, the other Xtron director, would exercise independent judgment in safeguarding the interests of Xtron, naturally taking into consideration the objectives of the church since it was Xtron’s largest client.

Tong also presented emails of Xtron staff regarding equipment purchase and human resource matters such as staff salary and bonuses. The directors were able to keep abreast of the financial health of Xtron. These exchanges showed that Koh and Choong were consulted on all these matters and their approval pertaining to the daily operations had been sought.

Tong also sought to prove that Xtron engaged in business with other clients besides CHC. Examples include being engaged by the organisers of the inaugural Asian Youth Games, which was held in Singapore in 2009; corporate dinners of grassroots groups, banks, Singapore Management University and other foundations such as Mainly I Love Kids. Xtron was also involved in concerts put up by the likes of  Emil Chau, JJ Lin and Sammi Cheng. In 2010, Xtron was also involved in the running of the events organised by Western Union, Ministry Of Manpower and *Scape. This could only mean one thing – that Xtron was clearly a “viable business”, argued Tong.

The defense also argued CHC’s Board, Investment Committee, Executive Members and external auditors were all aware of and approved the use of CHC’s building fund for investment into Xtron bonds.

The trial resumed at 2.15pm this afternoon.

Phil Pringle, senior minister of C3 Church in Sydney, Australia and the president of the C3 Church International, a global movement of over 240 churches, is in Singapore to conduct two weekend services back to back at CHC. He is here to support and encourage the church while CHC’s senior pastor Kong Hee and five other church leaders go through the first week of the trial against them for allegedly misusing church funds.

In this interview Pringle shares with City News how his friendship with Kong Hee began, how giving thanks is a secret weapon, and he exhorts the congregation to see beyond the trials of the present as a purchase for a future that would be a blessing to the nations.

You taught us about giving thanks yesterday. But how do you give thanks when things are really hard, when you feel betrayed or when you feel someone’s done you a great wrong?

I think the sacrifice of praise—which the Bible calls thanksgiving, giving thanks under difficult circumstances—is the best antidote to a bad attitude, because you’re grateful to God not just in the circumstance but for the circumstance. And that’s a big difference.

Sometimes we like to say, we thank God in the circumstance even though I hate the circumstance, but the Bible is actually saying, thank God for the circumstance as well. The funny thing is as soon as you’re thankful for something or someone, you see them positively. So instead of hating or criticizing them, you now see the positive in them.

That’s why Paul thanked God for the people he was writing to, because it gave him a platform for every following comment. One of the best things a pastor can do is to thank God—for his congregation, his board, his wife and children. Even though some of those people might be frustrating him, if he thanks God for them, he’s gonna change his views and see things differently.

And once you see things differently, you actually see a strategy, a way forward. If I thank God for a problem, then I’ll find a way to deal with it because the positive mind always sees a way through. The negative mind accepts defeat and can’t find a way.

You’ve been a friend of CHC since 1992. That’s 21 years till now. What was your first meeting with Pastor Kong like?

The first time I remember meeting Pastor Kong was in a very large warehouse that he had rented, but he only had maybe 120 people. So he’s always had huge faith, stepping out in enormous ways.

The very next meeting I had with him was at our annual conference, now known as the Presence Conference. And he was on his honeymoon. He came to our conference on his honeymoon. So I was very impressed with that, and I gave him a gift so he was able to go out and buy some clothes for his wife as a present.

I think that was the beginning of the relationship, because I saw in him such a great faith, such a wonderful attitude, and I just felt that he was just going to do something incredible for God.

How would you say the relationship has developed over the years?

I think our relationship is a combination of several factors. In the early years, I would have guided him and been something like a mentor to him, and I would still be that now, but only by his initiative, not mine. But I would also treat him as a peer, a colleague, and someone that I would stand with in the faith.

There are not many people in the world I would feel that I am called to lay down my life for—and I’m not trying to be dramatic—but he would be one of them. I generally feel that over the years, my Christianity is expressed in helping people I can help, who may not necessarily be those whom others have access to, such as pastors. There are many pastors who are facing difficult times whom I feel I can be of a little help to.

But I would put Pastor Kong in a totally different category than just that because he’s a close friend. I think that we should lay down our lives for our friends. That’s what the Kingdom is. It’s a privilege for me too. It’s an honor. I’m blessed to being involved with City Harvest Church.

At Presence Conference last month, you had Pastor Kong come onstage. You really showed a lot of support for him, and after that there was a lot of negative talk on the Internet. How do you deal with that?   

I don’t—I don’t even bother reading it. You know, I’ll be worried if every comment about me was positive.

Why do you say that?

Well, I’m not sure you’re really being effective if you haven’t got critics. There’s not a person who’s achieving anything in the world today who hasn’t got critics. But we’ve taken criticism all our lives for following Christ, for taking steps of faith. I don’t really bother with it. Sometimes it comes across my path and I try to toughen up and not let it affect me.

You spoke about it during your sermon (last Sunday), about the “poison” that some emails or articles carry. What if a new member in church sees something that offends them? How would you advise them to step away from it?

For a young, new person, that’s such a hard thing. I think you’ve got to be upfront and tell people how you’re feeling. In the early church there was a lot of persecution, a lot more than there is now. There are churches in the Middle East where if people know they became Christians, they could be killed.

I know of a church which last year buried 150 of its members who were killed [for being Christians]. There’s a C3 church in that same country which can’t hold meetings on a regular basis because if the locals know when they’re having a meeting they will attack, so they have to constantly change the timings, and they can’t all gather at once; it’s very underground.

So the reality of Christ coming in to a person’s life has to be very real, [not] just going to church, being religious. Because when people discover Jesus, they will pay any price. I think that’s the surest way (to stay away from the poison). But I also think if they received Christ with eyes wide open, they will see that there is a price to following Christ.

What do you see in the future of City Harvest Church?

The price it’s paying today will be the purchase of a future of incredible blessing, of great abundance. I think it will affect the world in a lot of ways, especially in terms of cell groups, culture and reaching a lost world. I think CHC will have a huge impact in China; it’ll possibly be its most major calling, but it may also affect the whole of Asia.

CHC will be celebrating its 25th anniversary next year. What should the members look towards, what should they focus on?

The next 25 years. If you extrapolate the last 25 years of growth, you’ll probably come out to half a million people, if we keep growing at the rate we’ve been growing at. So once you see an end result, you can develop a pathway to it, a strategy. That’s why God sees the end from the beginning. Every leader or person in management needs to see the end from the beginning.

You would have heard that Sun’s suspension has been lifted and that she is back as our executive director. What are your thoughts on this?

I think Sun is essential to the core, the fabric and the culture of the church, and her input should not be underestimated. Her concepts, her design, her input into the worship, the leadership and the people should not be undervalued in any way at all. I think she’s very key to the future of City Harvest Church.

今天下午的审讯由检方继续向第三位证人许少毅询问关于许和三位被告康希、陈一平和周英汉签署的担保协议书。该协议书是哈纳菲为跨界计划做担保的后备担保书，以防跨界计划遇到亏损。

当检方问许为何签署这份担保书，许表示他完全相信哈纳菲能够承担跨界计划的费用，并透露哈纳菲拥有雄厚的财力。

检方在庭上展示了《思创》和CHC受托董事会之间的预付租金授权协议书，该协议的资金如何被退还，《思创》债券的重组和Riverwalk房地产的购买—旨在否定债券的真实性。

辩方将在明天早上开始对许少毅进行盘问。

许少毅在2008年7月至去年12月期间担任《思创》的董事。他是一名房产发展商，自1997年起就是城市丰收教会的会员，也是商业突破小组的领袖之一。从2007年7月7日至2008年7月28日，他是CHC管理董事会的成员。

今早的审讯不同于上周检方对会计师的仔细盘问，大多关注在许口述的见证上。检方向许询问2008年《思创》所面对的亏损。

副检察官王守仁在今早的审讯中试图建立《思创》和教会之间的关系。他向许询问，为何担任《思创》的董事后就卸下教会管理董事会成员一职，而证人解释这是为了避免可能潜在的利益冲突。

许也证实身为《思创》的董事，他没有领受任何酬劳，而是将其董事职位当作一项服事。

当问及“服事”指的是什么，许解释这是他在为教会做事。对他而言，能够担任这项职位是他的“荣幸”。

王透过他的盘问尝试证明许不清楚为何为《思创》做出某些决定。许则解释他是“非执行”董事，并没有经手《思创》的日常运作，而是交给《思创》的经理和员工处理。

副检察官也向许询问有关跨界计划的事宜，跨界计划乃是教会“接触失丧的人”的外展。许证实跨界计划差派出去的人是何耀珊，《思创》也曾经是何耀珊的经纪公司，但在他担任董事时，何耀珊已不再是《思创》旗下的艺人。

经过短暂休息后，检方在庭上展示《思创》的文件，并尝试证明《思创》购买Riverwalk一事当中的交易有关联，而一些文件上也有许的签名。许也证实他了解一些文件的内容，并解释既然文件是由律师准备的，他认为在上面签字并没有问题。

审讯在今天下午2点45分继续开庭。

Today’s afternoon session of the CHC trial continued with prosecution questioning its third witness Koh Siow Ngea on a guarantee agreement signed by Koh and three of the accused, Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng and Chew Eng Han. The agreement in question was a back-up guarantee for Wahju Hanafi’s guarantee for the Crossover Project, in the event that the Crossover incurred losses.

When questioned why he had signed the guarantee agreement, Koh replied that he had complete faith in Hanafi’s ability to underwrite the Crossover Project, adding that Hanafi was a man of “high worth”.

Prosecution took the court through the advance rental license agreement between Xtron and the CHC board of trustees, how that agreement was refunded, the restructuring of Xtron bonds, and the purchase of the Riverwalk property—all in an effort to show that the bonds were not genuine.

The defense will begin cross-examination of Koh tomorrow morning.

Koh Siow Ngea served as a director for Xtron from July 2008 till last December. A property developer and a member of City Harvest Church since 1997, he serves as a Business Breakthrough Group leader too. He was also a board member of CHC from July 7, 2007 to July 28, 2008.

Unlike last week’s detailed questioning of the accountants by the prosecution, this morning’s session relied mostly on Koh’s spoken testimony. Koh was queried on losses that Xtron appeared to have made in 2008.

Deputy public prosecutor Christopher Ong spent much of this morning’s session seeking to establish the relationship between Xtron and the church. When he asked Koh why he stepped down as a board member when he was appointed as Xtron’s director, the witness explained it was to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

Koh also confirmed that he received no remuneration for his services as a director of Xtron, and said that he saw his position as its director as a form of ministry.

When asked what he meant by “ministry”, Koh explained that he was doing something for the church and that it was “an honor” to fill the role.

Ong, through his questioning, tried to show that Koh was unclear on reasons for certain decisions made for Xtron. Koh explained that he was a “non-executive” director and did not handle the day-to-day running of Xtron, a job that was left to the managers and staff of Xtron.

The DPP also queried Koh on the Crossover project, which was an outreach of the church “to reach the lost”. Koh confirmed that Sun Ho was the person sent out in the Crossover project, and that Xtron had been Ho’s artist manager, but by the time he became director she was no longer an Xtron artist.

After a short break, court resumed with the prosecution running through Xtron documents—in the attempt to show inter-connected transactions surrounding Xtron’s purchase of Riverwalk—some of which bore Koh’s signatures. When queried, Koh confirmed he understood some of the documents and explained that since the papers had been prepared by lawyers, he was comfortable to sign off on them.

The trial resumed at 2.45pm this afternoon.