By Sonia Suka
The New Paper reported yesterday that Foyce Le Xuan was advised by her pastor from City Harvest Church (CHC) not to speak to the media about revealing all the details of Jack Neo’s advances towards her, six years ago.
It would have been alright if Foyce got this advice from a pastor from any other church but CHC. Why? Because CHC is the same church that Jack Neo and his family go to; and they are being counselled by the pastors from this church as well.
Is there a conflict of interest in CHC counselling both Jack Neo and Foyce Le Xuan?
CHC is, after all building a multi-million dollar, 12,000-seater building and it is in their interest to keep the best donor in its membership, to see the building project through.
The remorseful Jack Neo may very well turn out to be one of the biggest contributors towards this building project. It is human tendency to cover-up our sins with money. Is that not the reason why many temples and churches coffers overflow?
Even if Jack and Foyce are being counselled by two different pastors, do they not come under a hierarchy? Do these pastors themselves receive their counsel from the ‘higher-ups’, who guide them on what to say to Jack and more importantly to Foyce?
It seems that it is precisely because the church had advised her not to speak with the media that she is unable to move on. Foyce after all, seem to have so much of bitterness in her heart towards Jack, describing him as ‘devil’ and ‘inhuman’; and it is good for her to come clean to the media – especially in this case, lest she be made out to be an attention-seeker or even worse, a liar.
If the rationale behind the advice really is that going to the media is not a good way to resolve such issues, should not have the pastors advised Jack the same? Why did a pastor from CHC accompany Jack and his wife for the press conference (which went horribly wrong), if this was indeed their fundamental reason?
It seems that Foyce has evidence that she was harassed by Jack and the pastors at City Harvest Church should not hold-back Foyce from coming forth to the media with this evidence – especially since Jack has conducted his case through the media.
_______________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I guess Sonia Suka does not know what real forgiveness is, in biblical sense.Why not the writer of this article check it out with a bible concordance and come back and rewrite an article about what real forgiveness is.Oh,and also please please do not make judgment on CHC and its pastors before you find out the facts in what is going on.
This is going into an area prohibited by law! The media and this forum should stop linking the issue to church, pastor, religion and the ministers.
That man is evil and a disgrace to himself. However, his friends who happened to be politicians have absolutely nothing to do with his sins!
Enough has been discussed and we should stop at this point before the law is violated.
@My View, you said “that man is evil and a disgrace to himself”. Does law allowed you to defame someone? I think you have forgotten that you have violated the law too and you are no different from the rest, so no point pretending.
What advice is this?Telling people not to reveal details mean not to tell the truth.Is this what is going on over there?I am concern becos I have a junior member who join their activities ,concert etc so often that she got not much time with the family and when ask, is reluctant to reveal to me where she goes nowadays.Now this advice?
And Foyce., judjing by your eye and eyebrow,not revealing the details will do you no good as many will think that you are trying to make yourself looks great. Speak up.unless you are not telling the truth.
senior citizen,
Christians are an easy target for those that want to show off their anticlerical attitudes. I mean how often do you see attacks on religions some of whose members do violence?
As to the charge of conflict of interest, what conflict is there?
BTW,not a Christian.
mice is nice
“buayas will love such a church”
alamak,how come you know I am around?I am hoping to give her personnel counselling without any condition.
I think the writer has hit it way below the belt in her attempt to put her point across. If Sonia thinks CHC is gagging Foyce then please persuade us why you think it is so. To make general sweeping statements along the way just diminishes the writer’s credibility.
For example, if she thinks CHC is very dependent on Jerky’s contribution (which is a joke to say the least) then why does she have to insinuate that people make donations to churches and temple to cover up their sins?
“…It is human tendency to cover-up our sins with money. Is that not the reason why many temples and churches coffers overflow?…” Sonia:
There are many who contribute out of charity, out of love, out of passion for their faith and to paint all these in one broad stroke as the ‘guilt of sin’ is stupid and foolish, or both.
We all know that the CHC has a role to play in this saga and it is not going to leave poor old Jerky in the lurch. That’s what a church is for – not for the holy, haloed ones but for the sinner. It now has to help rebuild the spiritual lives of Jerky and his family.
Now, because of the poor generalization of the article, one wonders whether it is true in the first place that there has been a gag order by CHC on Foyce. What we should know is that Foyce is not as stupid to be bound by such an order. She has already proven it and she had already appeared in yesterday’s news to reveal the threats she had been receiving.
And finally; Jerky to go to the media is totally different from Foyce doing the same. One is the predator, the other is the prey, the sinner and the just. How the writer cannot distinguish between the two is unfathomable.
Hi My Views,
You are still living in the age of fear. If you had been here earlier, you would have realized that at TOC, these sort of discussions have a way of sorting itself out.
Sure, there are heated debates with no-holds-barred emotions, arguments and counter-arguments, but in TOCland, we have the habit of ‘wiping the table’ when all the ramblings are done for a particular thread.
Let us not instill fear into our fellow-citizens. It does not work anymore.
I agree that the man is a disgrace but I am not sure that the politicians have no part to play in it. Jerky has years to contemplate his moves. Surely, you are not so naïve to believe that his adulterous affair will not be found out?
Surely, you do not think there is no coincidence that GY happened to be the first and only person he could ‘think’ off in his time of distress? After years of contemplation, GY was the first on the list? Dare you to probe further.
Why didn’t he thought of his pastor? Why not come clean with his wife? Why not his showbiz friends who would have understood him better? Why Georgie Porgie?
Why did so many Whities come out to defend him? Why has there been no condemnation from the Whities thus far?
And you want us to stop so that we do not ‘violate the law’? Is asking questions violating the law? Are questions put forth to our politicians a violation of the law? Which law?
I do agree that the church should not have advised Foyce against speaking to the media when they have not done so in the case of Jack and even supportively sent a church pastor to accompany Jack throughout the what eventually ended up as a fiasco press conference. Was there any church pastor accompanying Foyce when she went to make the police report? While this article may be speculative in some way, however, it does speak of what is on a lot of people’s mind with regards to the CHC involvement in this incident. Should Jack gets the support of CHC mega church congregations regardless of the magnitude of the misstakes he had committed just because he is a prominent member of the church? Perhaps this is an appropriate time for CHC and it’s members to think about such issues. Yes, eventually CHC should forgive Jack if he genuinely repented for his mistakes and wrong doings, but not before condemning his act of adultery (which is considered as an “abomination” in the bible) and the predatorial methods he used in achieving his objective.
Let’s not speculate as to whether CHC did or did not involve themsleves in helping Foyce when she made the police report. The crux of the matter is, since Foyce had made the report, we should let the police go about their investigations. And to protect Foyce from any unnecessary legal conflicts and challenges in future, it is still best that she keep quiet and not talk to the media at least until the outcome of the police report.
CHC had given the right advice to Foyce, just as any lawyers would advice their clients the same, once the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the police.
For all those who ask why CHC was dragged into this mess, it clear from the start that JN intended for them to be involved for reasons only he knows – whether to truly provide spiritual guidance or to give his battered image more credibility among the religious.
Unlike some other churches which choose to guide from behind the curtains, CHC has taken a VERY active role in the saga so far, from being a guide, to a counsellor and even spokesperson to the press! Their actions and words so far are scrutinised, criticised or prasied by the press and online. They wanted to be more visible, so now they have to bear the scrutiny. Comes with the territory.
Pastor dressed in Armani suits, pastor’s wife scantily dressed and stars in steamy music videos. What do you expect.
perhaps it is just pastoral advice and not so much a gag order by the church..
In using the word “gag”, I think Sonia is deviously insinating something improper without any basis.
Shame on you Sonia !!
PS : Jack is still an ass
To Chou, unlike you, personally, I do not know whether it is right or wrong for CHC to advise Foyce against speaking to the media or to support Jack during the press conference, what I do know is that since CHC pastor has already supported Jack during his press conference then any advise to Foyce against a similar act is self-contradicting and therefore wrong. If you are comparing CHC to a law firm, then CHC involvement becomes a conflict of interest, since both are their “client”. But since CHC’s role appears to be that of counselling, then do not see the problem of conflict. As for whether a CHC’s pastor was physically present to support Foyce in the same way as the pastor who supported Jack, there is no need for speculation since it has already happened, all it needs is just confirmation. Eventually, as long as CHC’s gives equal support towards Jack and Foyce, since both are equally their church member, then it is fine, otherwise, you just cannot blame anyone for asking “why not?”.
Agree with Sloo (something which I don’t normally do).
Jerky has it all planned. The politician, the church, the forgiving wife, the quiet children and the MSM. Throw in a bit of showbiz drama and all attention is deflected from the crime he had committed.
See how people are now talking about everything else except the act of adultery – which is the main point of all these hoola boola.
And with the CHC at the forefront of it all just shows how well this Jerky has planned his escape route. Nothing beats using the name of God to help vindicate any wrong-doings.
I just want to know:
Did Foyce have sex with Jack?
The writer’s headline: “foyce le xuan attention-seeker, liar or just plain gullible/gagged by the church” is highly defamatory. Without any conclusive evidence, the writer launches a personal attack on her character and the integrity of City Harvest’s pastors and accusing them of not acting in integrity by putting the church’s financial interests ahead of her interests. This is highly unprofessional in conduct for a writer, without establishing the facts and creating controversy, it’s malicious and wilful in behavior.
A lawyer may also advise her not to speak with the media, so as not to provide more legal complications and entanglements. Since she has received unwelcome sexual advances when she was young and under Jack’s employment contract. I believe she has suffered financially and emotionally, especially now when she is receiving threats of violence.
This case is more of Jack using his position to proposition young aspiring actresses, as young as sixteen years old. City Harvest may be trying to shield Foyce from the media attention and not condoning Jack’s action even though a pastor was present at the press conference. Probably the other pastor is not free that day to accompany Foyce to make a police report.
Since this concerns their church members, how they approach this matter is between the church and the affected parties. Outsiders may not fully understand or agree with their actions.
@Andrew Leung: Foyce was the one who said in TNP report that people may perceive her as attention-seeker or liar if she don’t come out with the true facts. And the church did ‘gag’ her from going to the media. So, what defamatory are you talking about? The church is not a legal firm to advise to speak or not to speak to the media. The writer has rightly questioned the double-standards used by the church.
How in the world can a church possibly issue a “gag order” ? On what authority does it make sure anyone complies ?
You guys siao arr ? You know what a gag order is or not ?
I did not read the New Paper, the link provided above in this article did not mention this fact that she feared being misunderstood that she might be attention seeking or lying. I doubt the church has the power to gag anyone. She was merely receiving pastoral advise, this may not be legal advise, although she is not prevented from seeking legal counsel. The writer insinuates some wrong doing by the church and I find that defamatory. Casting doubt and aspersions on the church pastoral staff or financial interests.
Lest I be misunderstood, i am no fan of CHC either. but to say that CHC “gag” its member is really stupid (to put it midly) and defamatory (hey, i also learn a thing or two from PAP!)
It is said that Christian churches are very much like organised crime. Both preys on human weakness, generate huge profits for its operators, and almost impossible to eradicate.
The church does not organise itself to commit illegal activities, it has sympathy on human weaknesses and not all churches are rich, it does have enduring power to exist.
joe
Mar 17, 2010 11:19
How in the world can a church possibly issue a “gag order” ? On what authority does it make sure anyone complies ?
God’s authority lah. Useless on non-believers, but on believers … could be more effective than you think. The more devout, the more effective I think.
lobo76
LOL ! something like “hey Foyce, you talk some more to the media, God will zap you” ?
TOC - I think the headline needs to be changed again. The word gag should be taken out.
Change to “Advice by church – FOyce Le Xuan”
if you read history, many churches has sold “forgiveness for sins” .
in china, temples are now becoming profit-maximising corporations.
indeed, the devils have taken over some of our religious organisations. Salvation is not to be found in these organisations but in our heart.
Foyce should carefully and diligently record everything said to her.
The Online Citizen is not doing itself any favour by publishing an unsubstantiated opinionated article which did not seek the views of either Foyce or the City Harvest Church to confirm if the writer’s assertions are true.
There is a significant difference between an article published under the umbrella of an online site, and comments made by the online community. The former refers to the author’s interpretation of the facts that supports the substance of the article. In order for the substance to be factual, the author would need to take the effort to validate the assertions made in the article. Only then can an article be viewed by the online community to be authentic and objective.
On the other hand, the latter is dependent on the supposed substance of the article as comments by the online community are opinions by individuals who interprets the article in their personal capacity. Since these comments are based on the article, then it is incumbent on the author to ensure that the article is factual so that the accompanying opinions represent objectively what the online community feel about the article’s argument.
In the absence of any substantiation in the article, the author has inadvertently joined the online community in the interpretation of what is published in The New Paper. In this case, there is no article in the first place, and whatever is published under this headline is no different from promulgating assertions that are not confirmed by the subjects in the article (i.e. Foyce and City Harvest Church).
Considering the seriousness in making statement of a church being deliberately involved in this scandal to protect the funding of their initiatives, I see the author’s efforts in this article to be frivolous and weakens the standing of The Online Citizen as an independent online editorial site.
B.F.
E.F.
All stand up please! Let’s applaud the ‘Economic Fact’ for encapsulating all that is needed to be said.
Econ Fact,
why u so defensive about CHC?
r u member?
@ where is pinkie hiding to eat hum?
I am a member of the Catholic Church and a proud one as well (despite all the sex scandals rocking the Church). So I have no affiliations with the City Harvest Church.
My argument is based on publishing articles that are substantiated. After all, this is where comments come from in the first place. If not, then it will be better to make comments in the online site of The New Paper instead, rather than The Online Citizen.
B.F.
E.F.
This article asserts that CHC manipulates their members to gain money. All the question marks are just rhetorical and do not hide the author’s assertion. I think this article is sub-standard compared to the other TOC articles.
TOC – time to do the right thing, baby. Take this report by Sonia out and make a statement, man.
I’m glad to know that I’m not the only person who thinks that ‘speaking in tongues’ is a perfect example of ‘the emperor’s new clothes’. My spouse used to be from CHC and I’m so glad she managed to leave them at her own free will.
I agree to the former comments. I’m appalled to know that TOC will allow an article to be published that is not based on anything solid factually.
I would like to ask whether the three hundred and one million $ outfit provides food kitchen for the poor and needy. I was directed to a website but it did not offer much hope only loads of pics with old folk smiling. Could someone please just tell me in plain and simple english where I can direct hungry people too? Give life.
City Harvest Church gives a bad impression that Christians are hypocrites. The pastors of
this church are concerned with their high pay packets and their image only, they are not
really messengers of God to spread the religion. They give other Christians of mainstream
Churches an unfavourable image.
The pastorial care given out by CHC is much better than that other mega-church based in a mall. 6 or 7 seven years ago. I used to go to this other church. I believe the case involved adultery involving a ST journalist and an engineer who worked on propulsion systems. The whole church ganged up against this guy. First the accused was allowed to confront the wife with a deacon. Secondly, when this man asked why, he was told to shut up and move on. When he asked further, they said, it is the will of God that he should no longer pursue the matter. Eventually his reputation was destroyed due to persistent rumors as the deacon kept phoning up people and asking them, did this man suggest that he wanted to sleep with you? And all those other sort of incriminating questions. So he was ruined.
At least CHC doesn’t do such things. I think they handled this case very well and with regard to the law and the spirit of Christ. Well done!
My Views
March 17, 2010 02:49
“However, his friends who happened to be politicians have absolutely nothing to do with his sins!”
Jack Neo has committed a sin? then why does he deserve the kid gloves? unavoidable like accidently spilling a drink on someone’s shirt? like oops sorry, i din mean to…?
public opinions matter, it shapes our society. looks like S’pore is still stuck in the pre-war era where its alright for men to stray & maybe pin the blame on the wives?
o.O
Astarte hamster- Mar 17, 2010 14:14
You can find some organisations with a food ministry listed at the webpage below.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Who-says-theres-no-free-lunch-in-Singapore
–
I don’t think City Harvest has a food ministry, and how they should help someone and to what extent is also up to them and their abilities. We should not expect to push this burden on them and their members if currently their outreach and ministry is not in that area or if they are not ready.
I believe the government should bear most of the burden for our society and to help solve the citizen’s problems. I believe NTUC/MOM should look after the unemployed and older workers.
buaya
March 17, 2010 07:13
huh? you already there? did you get a door gift like a hug or kiss from any pretty young thing? :p
you 1 2 counsel Foyce personally? no condition except in private har? :D
any new update of wat is happening after Foyce filed the 2 police report
All Astarte Hamster is asking for is something very basic and expected from any Christian gal, she is concerned for her fellow human beings. We all know titanium panels used to decorate very expensive buildings commissioned by meglomaniacs cannot be eaten. Didnt Jesus said, I come to give you life, so just give her the directions to the nearest soup kitchen in the East currently operated by CHC and we can all put this to rest. She has been asking this question for so many times and all of you seem to be so defensive.
Foyce picture on this site is so beautiful, like a holy saint or holy angel.
Sweet and innocent lovely to behold.
substantiated or not, i dun think chc pastors wld want to come under the spotlight and be questioned by a group of journalists and by TOC reporters
i dont think they, the pastors, dare to defend all the accusations thrown at them because they have too much to hide and too much to lose.
thats the reason mega pastors resist scrutiny by the press.
you assemble the right team of people to question their practices, their entire operation will be seriously under threat
as such, this article stands.
substantiated or not, i dun think chc pastors wld want to come under the spotlight and be questioned by a group of journalists and by TOC reporters
i dont think they, the pastors, dare to defend all the accusations thrown at them because they have too much to hide and too much to lose.
thats the reason mega pastors resist scrutiny by the press.
you assemble the right team of people to question their practices, their entire operation will be seriously under threat
as such, this article stands.yes.
It’s really unnecessary to take potshots at the Church like that, and all these wild assumptions are really pushing it. I mean like are these the same people who spend all day talking about how the PAP is a conspiracy theory and commit no time to thinking how problems can be resolved? Judging from the looks of these wild allegations its hard to see this platform that’s supposed to foster cogent, thoughtful discussion is different from STOMP.
Indeed, the potshots taken at CHC and the irrelevant remarks do to some extent show the failure of the article to highlight real issues such as the structure of gender discourse in Singapore, its effects on religious structures, the concern about sexual harassment and the possible support structures in place (as the writer seems to side with Foyce, which is an acceptable bias if handled correctly). Instead, the anti-CHC/anti-religious bias has caused a chase for red herrings.
Sonia: do ignore all the personal attacks, which are downright silly. I hope you’ll write a more well-founded article next time, though.
The writer should have written to CHC directly to clarify her concerns, or to Straits Times to get CHC to issue a press statement. Jack Neo has commited adultery which is not illegal and Foyce does not need to call for a press conference to reveal her past. The writer instead launches attacks on the pastors and the church which she is then liable for legal actions.
As for how the church spend their money, it’s also up to them. You can write in to Straits Times to criticise them or to highlight this problem of food for the hungry. It’s unnecesary to criticise them here, they should have the right of reply.
I believe their main goal will be to make disciples and not to provide free meals service, if they provide free meals in future, people may also complain that they try to force people to convert by tempting them with food. Jesus did feed the hungry, but he also know that they did not appreciate him but came only for the food. Currently they still have to raise money for the building fund, only the government is capable of making sure its citizens are fed.
Dunno why some are treating this like a national calamity. So much ink, saliva, time, and now a church over what is essentially a fool’s behavior. Of course, some sensationalism is expected in any media form with this sort of “news”. S’pore is always a “follower” (e.g. Just for Laugh Asia) and maybe this is just attempt to create a Tiger Wood case.
I would suggest any pastor(s), counsellor, monk, nun, bishop, etc…. just slap both Jack and Foyce silly and simply asked them ONE question: Don’t they know they were involved with a married man (aka there is a wife and family)? No need to waste time counselling them if the answer is Yes.
One issue with this article is that CHC is portrayed as THE church, implying that it embodied all and/or christian values. This is certainly VERY misleading as I understand it is nowhere near a univeral church per sec and not even a mainstream. Recently with the Aware & Ronny Tan cases, there are some distortion of Christianity values with such self-style churches/pastors/social values. Nothing against them but TOC should be careful not to give bloggers the impression that they are mainstream christianity. Fashionable, hip, energetic, upbeat, marketable…. etc, maybe.