Code testing

1. We refer to the media reports on the City Harvest Church case which quoted the statement by Kong Hee that he and Ho Yeow Sun had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on COC’s terms, and would like to make several clarifications.

2. In view of the concurrent criminal proceedings, the COC had on 28 December 2012 proposed to all nine individuals that the COC would defer the next stage of any regulatory action should they collectively agree to a voluntary extension of their suspension orders.

3. The deadline for the consent was extended twice, and by 7 February 2013, eight out of the nine suspended individuals, including Kong Hee and Ho Yeow Sun, had initially consented to this proposal.

4. Even though one of the suspended individuals had declined to give consent, the COC was at that time still prepared to defer regulatory action, as he felt that the risks of that single individual’s lapse of suspension order could be managed.

5. To avoid any doubt, the COC asked the 8 individuals on 14 March 2013 to confirm in writing that they would still agree to voluntarily extend their suspension, notwithstanding the lack of consent by the remaining individual.

6. However, by the final deadline of 25 March 2013, only 5 of the 8 individuals provided their consents. Kong Hee and Ho Yeow Sun were not amongst the 5 who consented, even though they had agreed to do so earlier. Please refer to Annex A for the timeline of events.

7. The COC could not extend the suspension of just these 5 individuals and initiate removal proceeding on the others. This is because the individual cases are linked, and adverse findings may be made which may indirectly affect or implicate those who are not part of the removal process.

8. Hence given the circumstances, and the lack of collective agreement among the individuals, the COC had no choice but to proceed with regulatory action.

Office of Commissioner of Charities