約書亞記第九章一節至廿七節
《約書亞記系列九》
林永健牧師
福遍中國教會
2015.11.15
國語堂
引言
1. 我很不喜歡被人標籤（labeling），那是一種很糟糕的感覺，我很不喜歡這感覺！可是我卻很容易去標籤別人！
當有人問我口袋有多少現金的時候，我說我只有兩塊錢，她說：「為什麼你是這樣的？」（國語翻譯的廣東話，「物你咁架？」），我的感覺很不好，我口袋現在雖然只有兩塊錢，但我並是「只有兩塊錢的男人！」，我有被標籤、被定罪的感覺。
2. 當我們來到教會、來到神的面前的時候，或許你有「被標籤定罪」的感覺！
- 或者因為過去不好的背景，你有黑五類（地主、富农、反革命分子、坏分子、右派）的感覺！別人或你自己常常有意無意地提起過去不好的背景。「你是農村長大的孩子，你懂什麽！」「我是酗酒的家庭長大的，我的心理並不健康！」
- 或者曾經做過錯事，有不能翻身的感覺；如何悔改努力都有「跳進黃河洗不清」髒髒的感覺！
約書亞記「當滅的物」包括迦南七國的國民，「耶和華你神領你進入要得為業之地，從你面前趕出許多國民，就是赫人、革迦撒人、亞摩利人、迦南人、比利洗人、希未人、耶布斯人，共七國的民，都比你強大。耶和華你神將他們交給你擊殺，那時你要把他們滅絕淨盡！」（申七 1-2）
如果你是七國的國民之一，你的感覺如何？你會做什麽？
我相信你一定很憤怒，很不甘心，想盡方法去掉這「當滅之物」的標籤，這正是當當迦南人的反應。
「約但河西，住山地、高原，並對著利巴嫩山沿大海一帶的諸王，就是赫人、亞摩利人、迦南人、比利洗人、希未人、耶布斯人的諸王，聽見這事，就都聚集，同心合意的要與約書亞和以色列人爭戰。」（書九 1-2）
為什麽不？滅也要被滅得轟轟烈烈，不能朿手待斃！
約書亞記給人的感覺就是殺、殺、殺，而神就像是血腥的神，我們下一代常問我的其中一個問題就是約書亞記的「種族滅絕屠殺」（genocide），我們沒法想像一個慈愛的神會下命令滅絕七個國家的民族！若你是七國的民族之一的成員，你會做什麽？
2. 今天的經文是有關這七國中的一個民族、希未人（Hivites）之一、基遍城的居民之故事！他們如何從「當滅的物」（herem）名單上的民族，成為聖殿中神的祭壇邊作工的人？如何從前遠離神的人，如今得親近（once were far off now brought near）？而且是靠那麽近，在神的祭壇邊工作！
3. 約書亞記第二章喇合的故事是約書亞記第一個迦南人從遠離神卻得以親近神的例子，她從被標籤定罪為「該死」的亞摩利人，蒙恩成為以色列國民之一，更成為救主家譜上一位外邦奇女子，因為她看見光就來就光，因為她相信，因為她的信心有行動，把朱紅線繩繫在窗戶上，使她這樣一位從前遠離神的人，如今得親近。
喇合的故事很美，是不是？
4. 但約書亞記第九章基遍人的故事卻令人懷疑，這樣的人，使用欺騙的方法，也蒙恩？「基遍人」「欺騙人」！這樣遠離神「當滅」的人，竟然得以親近！而且還是靠得那麽近？靠的是以色列輕信沒有求問神的錯誤？得以脱離死亡，安居在應許之地？這究竟是什麼一回事？
一、欺騙是不對的，神卻願意接納罪人的尋求
1. 基遍是迦南希未人四個城邑之一（九 17），位於迦南中部的山區，在耶路撒冷西北九哩的地方，距離艾城只有七哩路，「基遍是一座大城」「並且城內的人都是勇士。」（十 2）。
2. 但「基遍的居民聽見約書亞向耶利哥和艾城所行的事」（九 3），他們的反應與其他「當滅」的迦南諸王卻不同，他們「就設詭計，假充使者」，去吉甲向約書亞求和（九 4）；
- 拿舊口袋和
- 破裂縫補的舊皮酒袋馱在驢上，
- 將補過的舊鞋穿在腳上，
- 把舊衣服穿在身上；
- 他們所帶的餅都是乾的，長了霉了。
「詭計」（cunning）在希伯來文是女性的名詞，舊約出現五次，三次在箴言（1:4；8:5, 12）譯為「靈明」，是正面的用法，明智、謹慎、謀略的意思；兩次出現在犘西五經，這裡（書九 4）與出埃及記廿一 4，卻是負面的用法，詭計、狡猾、詭詐的意思。
3. 欺騙是不對的，基遍人欺騙人是錯的！假裝不是附近的迦南人，不是「當滅」的民之一，欺騙撒謊永遠是不對的。
我知道有丈夫因為怕妻子不高興就騙妻子，撒謊！或妻子因為怕衝突而欺騙丈夫，這都是不對的！
4. 但求和卻是神一般的心意！
「滅絕淨盡」（herem）的七個民族，神特別吩咐以色列人「不可和他們結盟，不可憐恤他們！」七個不可，但除了這七個民族之外，求和卻是神的心意！申命記廿 10-12 神吩咐犘西說：「你臨近一座城、要攻打的時候，先要對城裡的民宣告和睦的話。他們若以和睦的話回答你，給你開了城，城裡所有的人都要給你效勞，服事你；若不肯與你和好，反要與你打仗，你就要圍困那城。」
「要照耶和華你神所吩咐的將這赫人、亞摩利人、迦南人、比利洗人、希未人、耶布斯人都滅絕淨盡，免得他們教導你們學習一切可憎惡的事，就是他們向自己神所行的，以致你們得罪耶和華你們的神。」（申廿 17-18）
求和是神一般的心意，迦南七個國卻要滅絕的原因，除了因為他們的罪惡滔天之外，更因為他們會影響以色列人學習可憎的事，以致以色列人得罪神，所以要滅絕他們，但神一般的心意是先求和睦，讓城裡的人效勞，服事以色列人，不肯和好的，才打仗。
5. 基遍人與其他「當滅」的七民不同的地方在那裡？
第一、他們甘心情願做以色列人的僕人，三次重複地說：「我們是你們的僕人。」（九 8, 11, 24），願意付出作奴僕的代價去求和。
第二、基遍人聽見耶和華的名聲和祂在埃及所行的一切事，以及在約但河東所行的一切事，他們不像迦南其他的諸王一樣，聯盟抵抗約書亞，基遍人選擇求和，約書亞記第十一章給我們一些基遍人蒙恩的指示，經文更說：「除了基遍的希未人之外，沒有一城與以色列講和的」（十一 19）。
第三、歷史更告訴我們，基遍人沒有將迦南可憎的事與罪惡帶給以色列人，沒有引導他們遠離神，反而長年在聖殿服待，跟隨猶太人被擄巴比倫，七十年後與猶太人歸回耶路撒冷，幫助尼希米建造城牆。
6. 是不是因為這些原因，神沒有像其他迦南諸王一樣，「使他們心裡剛硬，來與以色列人爭戰，好叫他們盡被殺滅，不蒙憐憫」（十一 20）？
基遍人欺騙以色列人是不對的，但神憐憫基遍人，沒有使他們像迦南諸王一樣心裡剛硬，他們願意求和，最終得以親近。
7. 基遍人故事的重點不是基遍人成功地欺騙了以色列人，重點是告訴我們神是可以尋求的，祂有恩惠也有憐憫，救恩的門還沒有完全關閉，還有一線的隙縫，遠離的人，被標籤的人，只要你願意尋求，離開惡行，你是可以親近神的。
8. 我不知道我們當中是否有人心很剛硬，要和神鬥，經文說是耶和華「使迦南諸王心裡剛硬」（十一 20），可是也是迦南人硬著心，「同心合意來與以色列人爭戰」（九 1-2）。
我們當中或者有人是硬著心，剛愎自用，自以為是，強硬固執，我懇求你不要硬著心，你若願意尋求神，神也願意施恩。你若不願意，硬著心，神會使你的心硬下去，結局就是滅亡！
諸王剛硬的人與喇合見光就來就光的心剛剛相反，諸王剛硬的人也與基遍人求和的態度剛剛相反，你願意尋求神嗎？神願意接納你的尋求！
9. 應用：
最近我在研究教會對 LGBT （L：女同性戀者；G：男同性戀者；B；雙性戀者；T：變性者）的立場，教會一般都不能接受這個群體，聖經很清楚說神憎惡同性戀的行為，「男和男行可羞恥的事」（羅一 27），他們卻認為教會是歧視他們，逼迫他們。同性戀的行為是錯的，變性是不對的，以個人主義去定我是誰是錯誤的想法，但神是可以尋求的，遠離神的人是可以靠基督得以親近的，不要硬著心，與神鬥，遠離的人是可以親近神的，神是願意被尋求的。
家庭的不和，夫妻相鬥，不要硬著心，剛愎自用，結果只有後悔終身，離神很遠。
二、輕信是愚昧的，神卻願意守約讓罪人靠近
1. 英文有一個字，Gullible 輕信或是「容易受騙」的意思，我是一個容易受騙的人（gullible 的人），你對我好一點，我願意為你做任何事情，你說得好聽一點，你賣什麽我都會買。
若別人說你是 gullible 的人，這絕對不是好事！他是說你愚昧！
2. 「以色列人受了他們些食物，並沒有求問耶和華。」（九 14），就和基遍人「講和與他們立約，容他們活著... 也向他們起誓。」（九 15），「過了三天才」知道受騙了，原來基遍人是近鄰（九 16）。
為什麽三天？原來基遍離吉甲只有三天的路程，以色列人走到那裡看見基遍人才知道，「怎麽是你們？」因為輕信而受騙，真的愚昧！
3. 輕信是屬靈的問題！以色列人沒有求問神，當年神吩咐犘西「你要用巧匠的手工做一個決斷的胸牌... 就是刻著以色列兒子名字的，帶在（大祭司）胸前...又要將烏陵和土明（兩塊石頭）放在決斷的胸牌裡。」（出廿八 15-30）決斷胸牌與烏陵和土明兩塊石頭就是求問神用的，約書亞若求問神，是有方法的，而且約書亞在吉甲，那裡有神的祭壇，但以色列人卻沒有求問神。
輕信是屬靈的問題，不求問神輕信的原因可能有三種的情況：
1）自我的欺騙（self-deception）
2）誤導的信心（misplaced confidence）
3）過份的自信（over-confidence）
以色列人的輕信可能三種情況都有。
第一、以色列人聽了基遍人的話，簡單問了幾個問題，他們是有疑惑的，心中是知道不對勁的，卻自我欺騙，把疑惑壓了下去，輕易地相信了。
第二、約書亞相信了基遍人的話，他是不會錯的，誤導的信心，但人都會有錯，怎可能不會犯錯的呢？
第三、以色列人剛剛打了勝仗，又從亞干的事上學了功課，充滿了信心，過份的自信，基遍人求和，簡單的事，不用求問神。
這三種的情況背後都是屬靈的問題。
4. 例子：
新加波城市豐收教會（City Harvest Church, CHC），創辦牧師主任牧師康希，上個月，十月廿一日，與其他五位教會的領袖被判行騙的罪，盗用教會建堂基金三千五百萬美元，去資助妻子何麗珊去美國荷里活發展她歌星的事業，追求成功。
我仔細地看了大法官 See Kee Oon 的宣判文件，他說得很好，很到位，我不知道他是不是基督徒，但他的判決，一語中的，我口服心服。
第一、這些人選擇相信他們所做不合法的事是合法的，是為了福音的好處與 CHC 的好處，但証據確實，他們深知他們欺騙的行為是犯法的，而且極力隠藏，一切的批評與反對的聲音都被列為撒但的攻擊，這是正牌的自欺欺人，自我欺騙的行為。
第二、這些人都絕對相信康希，相信康希所做的一切，相信康希所說一切的話，相信康希追求成功、財富、名利是神的旨意，相信康希說貧窮是罪，爬上世界最成功的事業才是神的旨意，這就是誤導的信心，導致這些人以身犯法，教會的人還盲目地支持康希，Gullible。
第三、這些人行騙的行為以為是沒有人會知道的，他們想盡各種的方法去隠藏真相，以為可以隻手遮天，瞞天過海，新加波第二大的教會，二萬多人，富有、高帥、成功，過份自信，夜狼自大。
宣判的時候，大批 CHC 的會友在法庭外抗議，相信康希是被魔鬼所害，Gullible!
5. 輕信是愚昧的！
（pause）但神是守約的神，「我們已經指著耶和華以色列的神向他們起誓，現在我們不能害他們。我們要如此待他們，容他們活著，免得有忿怒因我們所起的誓臨到我們身上。」（九 19-20）
應許始終都是應許（A promise is a promise.），以色列人要做一個守信的人，我相信以色列人守約有神的默許，雖然經文沒有說，但我相信這是神的心意。輕信是愚昧的，但神卻願意守約讓罪人親近。
6. 基遍人本來是「該滅」之民（herem），卻成了為耶和華的壇作劈柴挑水的人（九 27），請注意經文由遠而近的漸進靠近的描寫：
- 被咒詛的斷不了作奴僕（九 23 下）；
- 為神的殿作劈柴挑水的人（九 23 下）；
- 為神耶和華的壇作劈柴挑水的人（九 27）。
我想到保羅的話：我們「本為可怒之子」，「與基督無關，在以色列國民之外，在所應許的諸約上是局外人，並且活在世上沒有指望，沒有神」，可是「從前遠離神的人，如今卻已經得親近了。」（弗二 3, 12-13）
結論
1. 約書亞記第九章的重點不是基遍人欺騙人，欺騙是不對的，重點也不是以色列人的輕信，輕信是愚昧的，焦點是我們的神，祂是給人活路的神，凡願意尋求祂的必尋見，祂是守約的神，因耶穌用血立的新約，我們得以親近神，進入至聖所。
2. 我們或許是被標籤的黑五類，我們或許是做過錯事，沒法翻身的人，我們或許甚至是「當滅」的名單上的人，但我們若願意尋求神，遠離惡行，不剛愎自用，我們的神是願意接納罪人的尋求，願意守約讓罪人親近。
基遍人是活的見証人，他們本是「該滅」的人，但現得以在神的祭壇邊上服待，一直至聖殿被毁，猶太人被擄歸回，參與聖殿重建的工作，這是令人難以相信的故事。
3. 上週我在普林斯頓安靜三天，為將來的日子等候神，我花了一整天的時間默想基遍人的故事，我感覺自已是一個基遍人，我舉目觀看神的作為，我是何等樣的人，如今蒙了憐憫，得以在祭壇邊上服待，劈柴挑水，我不再是被定罪的人，不再是被標籤的人，前面的日子，我願意尋求神，我相信祂是守約的神，讓我這遠離神的人，得以親近神。
你呢？
4. 行動建議：
1）我們當中有遠離感覺的人，不要放棄尋求神，來參加禱告會一同來尋求神，參加小組，打開自己，讓神透過屬靈的群體去改變你，使你得以親近。
2）讀經親近神，在我認識親近神的人，沒有一個是不讀聖經的人，神透過神的話去使我們認識祂，親近祂，不是單單用頭腦去讀，而是用心去讀，讓神的話對你講話，這是遠離神的人，得以親近的行動建議。
3）基督是我們親近神唯一的通路，只有耶穌使我們得以親近神，讓我們一同來敬拜耶穌，以基督為我們信仰的中心追求，親近基督就是親近神。
討論問題
1. 為什麽欺騙是不對的？有沒有例外？
2. 基遍人欺騙人，為什麽神卻願意接納他們的尋求？
3. 基遍人是「該死」的名單上的人，你認同基遍人的情況嗎？你若是基遍人，你的感受如何？你會做什麽？
4. 以色列人輕信是屬靈的問題，為什麽？
5. 輕信的原因何在？
6. 輕信是愚昧的，為什麽神卻願意守約讓罪人親近？
7. 從「該滅」的人成為祭壇服待的人，你驚奇嗎？你有何感想？
8. 請從基遍人的故事，形容你對神的了解。約書亞記第九章的神是一位什麽樣的神？
寫這篇講章的過程與一些的考量：
林永健
1. 這一章經文可以從基督徒與文化關係的角度去講（Christian and culture）。基督徒與文化的關係可以有三種的模式：
1) 耶利哥模式（Jericho Model）：No co-existence. The opposite culture is completely destroyed.
2) 艾城模式（Ali Model）：Accepting the benefits while rejecting the alliance.
3) 基遍模式（Gibeon Model）: Living side-by-side for mutual benefits.
2. 一般來說，「欺騙與輕信」是經文兩大主題，問題是如何把它們合成一體，二者的關連是什麽？
1) Deception (the Gibeon Deception) only pays temporary but never ultimately. The Gibeonites is a local Canaanite people on the herem hit-list. But unlike Rahab, they came into the covenant with Israel by deception.
2) Gullibility is a deep spiritual problem (Joshua). Make decision before knowing all the facts. It may be self-deception, misplaced confidence, or over-confidence. We can be sincerely but sincerely wrong.
我從基遍人得救成為以色列的盟友的角度來為串連，救贖是更大聖經的主題，比欺騙與輕信更是約書亞的主題。雖然基遍人用欺騙的方法進入與以色列的盟約，雖然以色列沒有求問神，輕信了基遍人的欺騙，但結果是基遍人的救贖，神的心意是什麼呢？
以救贖為講章的主題似乎是超越了道德教導的有限性。欺騙與輕信都可以有很好直接的應用，我如何才能講以基督為中心的釋經講道？這是這一篇講章的考量！
3. 找 A' （現代的情景）去應用這一段的經文，像基遍人一樣，我們都有被定罪的經歷，被定罪是非常不好的感覺。
目的：被定罪的人若明白在基督耶穌裡就不定罪了，我們就可以坦然無懼的來到施恩的寶座前，得憐恤，蒙恩惠，作隨時的幫助。（希四 16）
4. I know one area in preaching which I need to improve on is to preach without notes so that I can fully engage with the congregation.
But like one who is addicted to drug or is walking with a crutch for 35 years, I have a very difficult and fearful time to "Kick the habit." I know it is the right thing to do, but I just couldn't do it. After repeatedly working on memorizing the sermon, I had tremendous fear walking up to the pulpit without the usual notes in my hands--my crutches for 35 years. What if I don't remember, what if it goes blank, what if...
It went well the first 20 minutes. I was exactly following the script. 2/3 into the sermon I began to mess up the order of sentences and miss some phrases. But the fear had gone. I was much more into the sermon and I felt more engage with the audience. I was more aware of the Holy Spirit than before. The flow actually was better.
I felt relief. And hopefully I would be able to continue kicking the habit. God be glorified in everything that we do.
- 林牧师，平安！
我会继续为您祷告，旅途平安！
- 林牧师，
- Hi Dear Pastor Brian,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to share your break-through experience with us. I admire your audacity to become a better communicator by taking the next step. Your model of truth and grace has made an indelible impact on me and my wife all these years. Prayer is on for you as you continue to look for ways to connect and deliver God’s Word in an effective way.
- 林牧师，
我从信息中听到：神对罪人的心意，纵然人起初来到神面前寻求的动机与方法各有不同、动机不纯，但神却是那么的宽广，以祂的恩慈接纳并改变罪人，真是恩典。为此信息感谢神！
- Dear Pastor Brian,
Praise the Lord, He was with you in your sermon. I admire your courage to broaden your boundary and whatever pleases God, He is with you. Have a very fruitful trip to Asia. We are praying that God be with you for everything you do and bring His blessing to Asia.
5. 「滅絶盡淨」（Herem），對等譯字是 devote, 名詞在聖經中出現有38次。中文和合本譯作：當滅的物十一次、網七次、咒詛六次、永獻的四次、當毁滅的三次、以及網羅二次。字義及字源追溯是：滅盡。在《古典希伯來文字典》內的翻譯為：要獻給耶和華去毁滅的，或者是有宗教理由的獻祭。（"herem", in David J. A. Cline ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew vol. 3, Sheffield; Sheffield Academic Press, 1996, p. 319.）
動詞 haram 出現五十二次，和合本譯為殺盡三次、盡行毁絕十六次、滅盡八次、滅絕四次。英文聖經欽定本翻譯為：utterly destroy 40 次。其字義及字源追溯是：隔離（seclude）、為宗教獻身。
「滅絶盡淨」的目的：
1）針對過去：迦南人罪惡滿盈，需要除滅
申命記七章 2-6 節指出迦南地居民膜拜偶像的狀況，而利未記十八章 3 節以及申命記十八 9-10 節等處都記載他們的生活充滿邪惡且不正當的內容：「「你到了耶和華你神所賜之地，那些國民所行可憎惡的事，你不可學著行。你們中間不可有人使兒女經火，也不可有占卜的、觀兆的、用法術的、行邪術的、用迷術的、交鬼的、行巫術的、過陰的。凡行這些事的都為耶和華所憎惡；因那些國民行這可憎惡的事，所以耶和華你的神將他們從你面前趕出。你要在耶和華你的神面前作完全人。」（申十八 9-13）
考古學發現：迦南的男神或女神有淫亂行為，信奉的人有的要淫交才可認神祇的喜悅，所以神廟裡面有男妓和線妓的供應。至於其它自殘身體、巫朮問卜、同性戀、與獸苟合等事亦屬見不鮮，甚至提供專門的「聖所」，提供人獸交媾等等行為，可見當時道德敗壞的情況。（陳惠榮主編，《証主「聖經百科全書》，高陳寶蟬等譯，香港：福音証主協會，1995 年，1982 頁）。
考古學更發現孩童祭祀是十分常見的習俗，迦南地區許多膜拜巴力神的碑文和器物中找到証據，証明苟合淫自是當時十分普遍的儀式。（John Gary, The Canaanites, NY: Praeger, 1064, pp. 119-138.）
迦南人本身的罪惡就已經是處於無法挽回的狀態，更糟的是，他們這些行為很有可能影響到以色列人。以色列人從出埃及記當中就展現出他們容易受外族影響的特性，這種「滅絶淨盡」嚴厲且沒有退路的規定，是不斷地在提醒以色列人不可效法迦南人，避免他們沾染學習導致得罪神。
2）針對現在：維護對耶和華神聖潔神性的崇拜
《聖經》每次提到要滅盡迦南居民時，都是源自神的聖潔本性與迦南人的罪惡行為的衝突，以色列人滅盡迦南人，是維護神信仰的純正。「聖潔」一詞有「分別」的從屬意思，完全聖潔是神基本的屬性之一，這屬性把他自已與其它一切被造之物分別出來。以色列人不能被近東民族的種種罪惡行為所影響，正是符合神聖潔良善的屬性，「滅絶淨盡」是「分別」出來，符合神聖潔的屬性。所以當幾次「滅絶盡淨」的方式沒有成玏時，以色列人也算是犯了全民族的罪，除非以色列去除不潔的成分，神才重新與他們同在。
3）針對未來：彌賽亞將會降臨在信仰純正的民族之計畫
滅絕盡淨的焦點不僅限於對迦南人的打打殺殺，而有其信仰上特殊的目的，神藉用滅絕迦南人的滅絕戰爭作為比喻，使他的子民從戰爭中獲得勝利和潔淨，呼應神的公義、聖潔的神性，讓這樣的觀念流傳下去，確保未來彌賽亞將降臨在信仰純正的民族之中的計畫。（參劉少平、鮑會園主編，《天道「聖經」注釋：申命記（卷上）》，290 頁。）
「滅絶盡淨」的對象：
滅絕盡淨的發動，並不是千篇一律的把所有人都滅盡。
1）主要的對象：應許之地的七個民族
「赫人、革迦撒人、亞摩利人、迦南人、比利洗人、希未人、耶布斯人，共七國的民族」（申七 1），都列為當滅的，尤其亞瑪力人，他們在歷史上一再挑釁以色列人，因此申命記廿五章 17-19 節裡神以嚴肅的語氣囑咐以色列人「要將亞瑪力的名號，從天下塗抺了，不可忘記」。這些民族罪惡滿盈，不只污衊了聖潔的神，更破壞社會的家庭結構，影響以色列人的純潔信仰，所以這七國是 herem 主要的對象。
2）例外：遠處的其它地區
對於遠方的戰爭對象，首先要做的是嘗試和談（申廿 10-16），如果和平的方式不成功，才爭戰。
3）犯罪的以色列人本身
以色列人自己本身也而可能成為 herem 的對象，若以色列人不遵守滅絕盡的命令，同樣在相關規定上不潔淨，就會遭受到懲罰，亞干與掃羅王都是典型的例証，最終都招致了滅亡的命運。
5. Judge See Kee Oon has published material explaining his judgments and findings.
Judge See Kee Oon
IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
Between
Public Prosecutor
And
(1) Lam Leng Hung
(2) Kong Hee
(3) Tan Shao Yuen Sharon
(4) Chew Eng Han
(5) Tan Ye Peng
(6) Serina Wee Gek Yin
(2) Kong Hee
(3) Tan Shao Yuen Sharon
(4) Chew Eng Han
(5) Tan Ye Peng
(6) Serina Wee Gek Yin
ORAL JUDGMENT
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V
LAM LENG HUNG & 5 ORS
V
LAM LENG HUNG & 5 ORS
State Courts — District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon
21 Oct 2015 Judgment reserved.
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon:
Overview
1 This was a 140-day trial involving 43 charges against the 6 accused persons. They were tried primarily on charges of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to City Harvest Church (“CHC”) that had been entrusted to one or more of them. There are two broad groups of charges involving CBT. The first group comprises the first to third charges and pertains to what have been referred to in the course of the trial as the “sham bond investments”. The second group comprises the fourth to sixth charges, pertaining to what has been termed “round-tripping”. A third group of charges, the seventh to tenth, concerns falsification of accounts in CHC’s books relating to the “round-tripping” transactions.
2 I do not propose to set out the evidence as it is lengthy and voluminous. It suffices to note that the main background facts are largely undisputed or uncontroversial. I will set out my findings in relation to the elements of the offence of CBT first, leaving aside the issue of the mens rea of dishonesty. I will then focus primarily on the extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project (“the Crossover”) and on whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent.
Criminal breach of trust – elements
3 In relation to the elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust by an agent, leaving aside the mens rea element, I shall state my conclusions briefly. First, I am satisfied that Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng (“Ye Peng”) and John Lam Leng Hung (“John Lam”) were, as members of CHC’s management board, each entrusted with dominion over CHC’s funds, whether in the Building Fund (“BF”) or the General Fund. Second, I am bound to hold that they were entrusted with such dominion in the way of their business as agents because, being board members, they were so entrusted in their capacities as agents of CHC. Third, I am satisfied that the various plans to use CHC’s funds amounted to putting these funds to unauthorised or wrong use.
“Wrong use” of CHC’s funds
4 The BF was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. I find that the Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were a wrong use of the BF. I find also that Tranches 10 and 11 of the Special Opportunities Fund (“SOF”) were not genuine investments but were transactions designed to create the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. I find, finally, that the payment under the Advance Rental Licence Agreement (“ARLA”) was not abuilding-related expense but was a transaction designed to perpetuate the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. They were therefore all wrong uses of CHC’s funds.
5 I turn next to the accused persons’ involvement and knowledge in the various plans to use CHC’s funds.
Funding the Crossover – being discreet
6 The accused persons understood that Kong Hee’s preference to be discreet about the funding for the Crossover was for the sake of ensuring the success of the Crossover, but being discreet was also synonymous with non-disclosure and mis-statements. Kong Hee had explained that it was his preference to avoid disclosure of CHC’s involvement in Xtron to avoid any misconception that Sun Ho’s secular music career was “not real” and that CHC was (still) using its money to promote her career. But in relation to both aspects, the evidence shows that it was true that her perceived success was inflated from rather more modest levels and Xtron and the Crossover team had to rely heavily on sponsorship from CHC members or supporters to help prop up her album sales and promote her career. When these sources of financial support which did not directly flow from CHC were insufficient, they had to come up with other means.
Xtron bonds
7 Xtron was CHC’s special purpose vehicle for the Crossover, and for this purpose Xtron was clearly under CHC’s control and not independent. The plan formulated in 2007 was that CHC’s funds, specifically funds from the BF, would be channelled through Xtron to be used for the Crossover, and the use of the funds was controlled entirely by Kong Hee and his team. In truth, this was analogous to an elaborate extension of a pattern of financial assistance via “sponsorship”, lending or prepayment to Xtron that had already either been taking place or been contemplated prior to 2007. These were seen as short-term measures to put Xtron in funds and support the Crossover. The mindset was thus that the Xtron bond issues were only yet another “temporary plan” albeit one which involved borrowing from CHC’s BF, and hoping that the funds would somehow find their way back to CHC at some unspecified future point.
8 Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han (“Eng Han”) and Serina Wee (“Serina”) each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s BF through Xtron for the Crossover. John Lam’s role was evidently less substantial, but I am satisfied that he had his own part to play as a board member and investment committee member. All of them knew that the BF was a restricted fund to be used only for specific purposes. They claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were genuine investments. They believed the Xtron bonds would bring CHC financial return. But on my evaluation of the evidence I consider that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not hold that belief.
9 I find that the accused persons were planning on the basis of Sun Ho’s planned US Crossover album being realistically capable of generating sales of
only 200,000 units, and although their projections showed that the bonds could not be redeemed by the maturity date, they were unconcerned since Eng Han assured them that the maturity date for the bonds could always be extended or fresh bonds could be issued. I am unconvinced that they could have had a genuine belief in Sun Ho’s prospects of success for the US Crossover given their consciousness that much of her earlier success was contrived and contributed to by CHC itself. Serina readily conceded that Sun Ho’s Asian Crossover albums all made losses and Xtron had thus incurred substantial accumulated net losses. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and John Lam also knew that CHC was involved in propping up her Mandarin album sales. I am unable to see how there can be any genuine or honest grounds for their claims that they expected far higher sales for her planned US album well in excess of the projection of 200,000 units. This was no more than an optimistic hope. It was definitely not a realistic expectation. All this strongly militates against their claims that the Xtron bonds were motivated by the realistic prospect of financial return and were genuine investments.
10 Further, the accused persons were all involved in making plans to put Xtron in funds to redeem the bonds. They knew that these plans would involve CHC paying money to Xtron under the guise of legitimate transactions, when in fact the real concern was Xtron’s cashflow difficulties and the purported transactions were mere excuses for CHC to channel money to Xtron. Thus they knew that there was a strong possibility that the apparent financial return under the Xtron bonds would come from CHC itself. This knowledge further undermines their claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.
11 In addition, the accused persons hid or obscured material information from others. Eng Han and John Lam kept the truth about the Xtron bonds from Charlie Lay. All of them at various times gave the auditors the impression that CHC and Xtron were independent of each other, when they knew that Kong Hee in fact made all decisions on Xtron’s behalf in relation to the Crossover without reference to the Xtron directors, who were mere figureheads. The auditors were not told that Xtron was in fact controlled by Kong Hee and Ye Peng and that they together with their co-accused would exercise control over the use of the bond proceeds. There is no doubt that they knew that they had something to hide.
12 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the accused persons knew that the Xtron bonds were conceived first and foremost to support the Crossover and not for financial return. The prospect of any financial return was a secondary consideration at best and even then I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho’s music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return. They knew that any financial return to CHC might be illusory in the sense that it was CHC’s own money that might need to be channelled to Xtron to redeem the bonds. Given their knowledge, I cannot accept their claims that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment. Accordingly, they caused CHC to subscribe to $13 million in Xtron bonds knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so. Thus they acted dishonestly, and I find that the first and second charges have been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.
Firna bonds
13 In respect of the Firna bonds, the accused persons all knew that the primary purpose of the bonds was also to channel money from CHC’s BF to the Crossover. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and Serina knew that they, and not Wahju, were the ones controlling the Firna bond proceeds and deciding how the proceeds should be applied towards the Crossover. Yet they took the inaccurate position that Wahju was somehow “independently” supporting the Crossover using his “personal monies”, and this was what they told the auditors and lawyers. They knew that the financial return under the Firna bonds would not come from the profits of Firna’s glass factory business but depended entirely on the success of the Crossover. If the revenue from Sun Ho’s albums was not adequate, they would find alternative sources of funds for Firna, and that might include channelling CHC’s own money into Firna through various means. Given this knowledge, I do not think Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina could have believed that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, and so they could not have believed that the bonds were a genuine investment.
14 John Lam was further removed from the Firna bonds than the other accused persons. But he signed the “secret letter” that secured the signature of Wahju’s father-in-law on the Firna BSA. I am satisfied that he knew that the prospect of financial return for CHC did not depend on the success of Firna’s glass factory business. He knew that it was a very real possibility that the Crossover would not be profitable. Thus I find that he too did not believe that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, meaning that he did not think the bonds were a genuine investment.
15 Therefore, in causing CHC to subscribe to $11 million in Firna bonds, the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to do so. They thus acted dishonestly. As such, I find that the third charge has been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.
16 At the centre of the first to third charges is how the BF came to be applied for the Crossover when it was a restricted fund for specific purposes – either for building or investment. In my judgment, the Crossover was not one of these purposes. It was not an investment since by their own characterisation, it was meant to serve a “missions” purpose all along. I am not convinced that there was any “mixed motive”, “dual purpose” or “hybrid” intent behind the use of the BF. These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word “investment”. They were plainly fabricated in an attempt to justify their past conduct and misuse of the BF. I do not see how they can be said to have acted in good faith in relation to the charges they face.
17 The accused persons have of course pointed to the fact that the money did come back to CHC with interest. However, this is patently due to their efforts to put Xtron, Firna and AMAC in funds to facilitate these repayments through the round-tripping transactions. It does not confirm that there was any actual intention at the outset to invest for the purpose of maximising returns. What is more telling is that it was consistently represented to CHC’s Executive Members that investing the BF in this fashion was meant to maximise returns. There was no mention at all that the investment was in the Crossover, let alone that it was for “spiritual returns” or for both spiritual and financial return from the Crossover. The failure to mention those facts buttresses my conclusion that the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into the Xtron and Firna bonds.
Round-tripping and falsification of accounts
18 As revealed by the evidence adduced at trial, there was never any financial “return” derived from any of Xtron’s and Firna’s Crossover-related activities. Instead, when the time came to deal with the auditors’ queries and to address Sim Guan Seng’s concerns, they resorted to removing more funds from the BF and also the General Fund under the pretext of making further “investments” into Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF and purportedly for a building purchase by Xtron through the ARLA. The round-tripping transactions were crafted to create the appearance that these were genuine transactions involving the redemption of bonds when they were not. They were not genuine transactions because the accused persons controlled these transactions every step of the way, and the substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself.
19 Given that Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon Tan (“Sharon”) were fully aware of the whole series of transactions, they could not have believed that Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF were genuine investments, or that the payment under ARLA was a building-related expense. They say that they viewed all this as “restructuring”, but that to my mind is fundamentally inconsistent with a belief that the transactions were genuine investments or building-related expenses, and this inability to provide a coherent explanation for their conduct strongly suggests that they knew they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into these transactions. They may have apprised the CHC board of an earlier version of the transactions, but they kept that knowledge from the lawyers and the auditors. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the fourth to sixth charges have been made out against them.
20 I am also satisfied that there was falsification of CHC’s accounts following from the attempts to disguise the SOF and ARLA transactions as genuine transactions. In relation to the ninth charge, the accounting entry recording a redemption of Xtron bonds in the form of a set-off against advance rental was false, because it was not a case of CHC and Xtron making independent decisions to pay advance rental on one hand and redeem bonds on the other. I find that the accused persons knew that false accounting entries would have to be made pursuant to their plan to create the appearance of redemption of bonds, and hence I find that they each had intent to defraud. I am therefore satisfied that the seventh to tenth charges have been made out against Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon.
Objective evidence and inferences
21 I note that there was an extensive record which comprised an elaborate patchwork of emails, Blackberry messages, phone SMSs, hard copy documents and numerous other documented exchanges in some form or other. The fact that there was a mass of available evidence which when woven together amounted to a paper trail is not necessarily indicative of innocence. In my view insofar as much of it was incriminating, it is more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness, demonstrating that the accused persons were overconfident in their belief that they could replace the funds in time before suspicions were aroused.
22 The case against the accused persons depended heavily on inferences to be drawn from the objective evidence. Much of these inferences can be readily drawn as the tenor and language in the communications adduced at trial strongly point to their dishonest intent. In short, the documentary evidence goes a long way in demonstrating their subjectively guilty knowledge. I am not convinced that they have raised any reasonable doubt in this regard.
23 I find that the accused persons were variously inextricably entangled in two conspiracies to misuse CHC’s funds. One conspiracy consisted of misusing BF monies for the Crossover, and the other involved misusing CHC’s funds, a substantial portion of which comprised BF monies, to create the appearance of bond redemptions and to defraud the auditors via falsified accounts through the various roles they played. Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery. Although there are distinctions in their respective levels of knowledge and participation, I am unable to discern any rational basis to exclude any of them from being implicated and characterised as conspirators.
Beliefs, motives and mindsets
24 Much of the defence centred on the beliefs and motivations of the accused persons. If it can be shown that they genuinely, honestly and reasonably held the view that what they were doing was legitimate in the sense that they were legally entitled to do it, and they went ahead to act in good faith as a result, I think there may well be room for doubt as to whether they had acted dishonestly. The weight of the evidence however points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise.
25 Where professional advice was sought, this was really mainly an attempt to seek out self-supporting confirmatory advice based on selectively-
disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief confirmation and support from only those advisors whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any disconfirming information.
disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief confirmation and support from only those advisors whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any disconfirming information.
26 The accused persons chose to support the Crossover vision and to act and participate in acts in support of it. The Crossover became a comprehensive logic for justifying their beliefs and actions, and for doing whatever was expedient for its advancement. The pervasive mindset seemed to be one of short-term expediency; the use of means involving dubious methods was worth the risk to them if there was some hope of longer-term gain.
Conclusion
27 In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect: they love CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposals with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC Board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC’s funds. Ultimately the funds which were removed were for Church purposes and were returned to CHC.
28 The crux of their defence was that there was no conspiracy and no dishonesty. All six would never intend to cause harm or loss to CHC and the ultimate objectives were in furtherance of the Great Commission. It may be arguable that all of them thought they were not acting dishonestly to cause wrongful loss since no permanent loss was intended, but this was premised on their unquestioning trust and belief in Kong Hee and their confidence that the Crossover would succeed. Thus they convinced themselves that it was both morally and legally permissible to temporarily use the money from CHC’s funds when they knew it was not.
29 The accused persons chose to engage in covert operations and conspiratorial cover-ups. They contrived to create cover stories and clever round-trips concealing their unlawful conduct. They chose to participate in the conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds, which included siphoning off large amounts from the BF for Sun Ho’s music career and eventually for the round-tripping transactions to enable the bond redemptions. They chose to defraud the auditors with falsified accounts suggesting a series of genuine transactions for the redemption of bonds and advance rental. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a finding that they had all acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them and they played their respective roles in a conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors.
30 I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the six accused persons are guilty of all the charges that have been brought against them. I note that all of them believed that they had acted in what they considered to be the best interests of CHC. There is no evidence of any wrongful gain – that was never the prosecution’s case in any event as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC’s funds.
31 I consider that John Lam, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon were all acting in accordance with the instructions of people they considered to be their spiritual leaders deserving of their trust and deference, and Ye Peng, although a leader in his own right, similarly trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee. But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one’s leaders, regardless of the context in which that trust operates, these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out. In my judgment all the elements of the relevant offences have indeed been made out. Accordingly, the accused persons stand convicted as follows:
(a) John Lam is convicted on the first to third charges;
(b) Kong Hee is convicted on the first to third charges;
(c) Sharon is convicted on the fourth to tenth charges;
(d) Eng Han is convicted on the first to tenth charges;
(e) Ye Peng is convicted on the first to tenth charges; and
(f) Serina is convicted on the first to tenth charges.
