Mrs Light n Friends reports,
Cross-examination of Serina Wee on 5 May 2015 (Morning 35mins)
We were still looking at E-331 in the morning. (Read 4 May 2015 about E-331 and E-325)
The prosecution alleged that the director in Xtron was just a window dressing to show the members.
Recount of Serina’s cross-examination
DPP: Really, it wasn’t necessary for Siow Ngea to be placed on the board in order for CHC to have assurance that Xtron’s activities would remain in line with the church’s vision. Correct?
Serina: Your Honour, it’s not necessary for that purpose, but the context of the EGM is about the Riverwalk transactions and if the members are concerned about how the church’s interests will be protected. That’s why Siow Ngea, as being as a past church board member, to be placed as a director in Xtron, that would help to protect the church’s interest.
DPP: What you are saying is that, in the context of wanting to resassure the members, this move of putting Siow Ngea there on the board of Xtron was really done just to show the members that an extra step was being taken to protect the church’s interests. Correct?
Serina: Your Honour, I don’t agree that it’s just to show the members, because the placing of Siow Ngea, this is something that the church board decided, so this is what they feel is good for Siow Ngea to do that, to go over to Xtron.
DPP: Yes, but, Ms Wee, you just said, two answers ago, that it wasn’t necessary for Siow Ngea to be put there to ensure that Xtron’s activities remainded in line with the church’s vision. So if it wasn’t necessary, then it’s just, if I may use the term, window dressing correct? It’s something that the members can be told during the EOGM that will give them the reassurance that you felt they wanted.
Serina: Your Honour, I don’t agree that it’s window-dressing, because I cannot speak on behalf of the board, because I wasn’t at the board discussions, but, from what I understand, this is what the board feels is good to do, for Siow Ngea to go over.
…
DPP: When Eng Han says “any profits will be well managed by us for future works”, who is “us”?
Serina: I think he’s referring to Xtron.
DPP: Is Eng Han part of Xtron?
Serina: Your Honour, Eng Han is not part of Xtron but what he’s trying to say is that whatever profits that Xtron make it will be managed for future works that is common vision with the church.
DPP: So your understanding is that when he says “us” here, he’s not referring to himself, to you or to Ye Peng, but instead, to Xtron?
Serina: Yes, your Honour, and generally he is referring to Xtron.
DPP: At this point, you, Eng Han and Ye Peng would all have been familiar with how Xtron was being run, who was in charge, how it was set up, how it was organised. Correct?
Serina: Yes
DPP: When Eng Han said that Xtron is under CHC control in this email, did you agree with him?
Serina: No, your Honour, I did not agree, and I did not comment in the email until I saw the final suggestion.
DPP: You see Ye Peng replies to Eng Han. He doesn’t say, “But Xtron is not controlled by CHC”. He simply asks: “Are we allowed to say Xtron is under CHC control?” Ms Wee, would you know what he meant by whether “we are allowed to say Xtron is under CHC control?”
Serina: Your Honour, I explained before, this discussion about control is in the context of going forward through the placing of Siow Ngea on Xtron, will it mean that the church control Xtron. So that’s why Pastor Tan is asking a innocent question going forward are we allowed to say that Xtron is under control?
DPP: When you say that this was only in the context of going forward through the placing of Siow Ngea on Xtron, are you saying that prior to Siow Ngea being placed on the board of Xtron the church had no control or influence over the profits that Xtron was making?
Serina: Your Honour, I’m saying that the church had some influence over Xtron’s affairs, but it’s not full control.
DPP: When Wahju and Kar Weng were the directors of Xtron, were they free to take the profits and pocket them, if they were any?
Serina: Your Honour, yes, they are free to, but they have given a indication that whatever profits that the company accumulate they intend to donate it.
…
DPP: … you all would have had confidence that the profits would not simply be pocketed by the directors but that it would be used in line with the church’s vision. Correct?
Serina: Yes, your Honour. There was confidence, but I must say that they are still the shareholders of the company; they are the directors. This is just based on a understanding. They are free, really, to do what they want with the monies in the company.
….
DPP: So putting Siow Ngea on the board of Xtron and this compromise statement that was crafted by Eng Han, and then included in the EOGM notes is all about appearance, isn’t it? It’s to create an appearance that will satisfy the members but at the same time will not cause the auditors to require consolidation. Correct?
Serina: Your Honour, I don’t agree that it is to create an appearance. It is what the board thought is necessary and good for Siow Ngea to become a director in Xtron.
…
DPP: Well, point 3, we’ve just talked about it, only says “not to paint the picture that CHC has full control”. It says nothing about whether Siow Ngea being on the board would result in CHC being in control of Xtron. Correct?
Serina: Yes, your Honour, it’s not stated plainly, but this point 3 is a result of our discussion with Mr Foong about this issue.
DPP: But, as we’ve already gone through, what is stated there in point 3 was not something new; you didn’t learn this from Mr Foong. You already knew this. Correct?
Serina: Your Honour, I must make it clear. What we know is that control will lead to consolidation, but what we were checking with Mr Foong specifically is about the transaction, that if Siow Ngea is placed as a director, does it mean control? And in that context, Mr Foong advised that it doesn’t mean control. He understand that there is some control, some influence, and that’s why he’s advised us this way, “Don’t say it like it’s full control, you don’t want people to misunderstand”
Serina: Ms Wee, I put it to you that by constantly falling back on this meeting with Mr Foong on 1 August, you are simply trying to cover up the fact that you, Eng Han and Ye Peng were already well aware of the issues of control and of consolidation, and that you had, in fact, already come up with the plans and crafted the language to achieve the outcome that you wanted, which was to avoid the perception of CHC controlling Xtron.
Serina: Your Honour, I disagree. We went to Mr Foong, is to seek his advice on this issue particularly. If we already were clear that there is control, then there is no need to go to Mr Foong.
The cross-examination continues …
Source: Cross-examination of Serina Wee on 5 May 2015 (Morning 35mins), Mrs Light n Friends, http://mrslightnfriends.com/cross-examination-of-serina-wee-on-5-may-2015-morning-35minute, Published 06/05/2015. (Accessed 15/05/2015.)
Categories: City Harvest Church
Leave a Reply