If a S$10Mil Home in Sentosa Cove Isn’t Luxury, Then What Is, Pastor Kong?

Posted on Jul 6 2015 - 8:58pm by Redwire Singapore

redwire-singapore-kong-hee-fatt-choy

UPDATE: The court has since found a new home for Kong Hee: prison. The good pastor is waiting to move in.

RONALD LEE: Pastor Kong, Pastor Kong, where did everything go wrong?

Forget the yacht lah, staying in a Sentosa Cove house is already “luxury” enough, no?

Even if you say that the place is co-owned, and your family is “allowed” to stay there… yes it sounds pathetic, but aren’t we HDB dwellers in the same boat?

Except, we have a “Temporary Occupation Permit” to stay in a HDB flat on a 99 years lease.

We don’t even co-own the damn house, we loan it!

And our home isn’t worth S$10 million bucks and situated at Sentosa – the island of partying and ang mo bikini-clad babes.

Minus the damn yacht you keep harping about not owning, is this not luxurious enough to be considered luxury?

Maybe if City Harvest sponsored some cheerleaders in tutus and coconut bras, you might be more satisfied.

Maybe you could offered to splurge a little on them if your self-founded and managed church didn’t rush to buy up thousands of your wife’s CDs and lock them away because nobody else would have the sanity to listen to that garbage passing off as music.

The papers might be state-run, but the court runs on law and facts are facts.

People might say that the law is blind, but even with my eyes closed, I know when I’m being taken for a ride.

And if Kong Hee ever steps down as a pastor, he’s got a great career ahead as a comedian.

 

 

This commentary was written by Ronald Lee.
Send us your commentaries at mail@redwiretimes.com
Find us on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/redwire.singapore
This is Kong Hee’s reply to the Straits Times:

Today (2 July 2015) an article appeared in the Straits Times titled “City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee puts Sentosa Cove home for sale for $10m” by Joyce Lim.

I was surprised and saddened by the contents of the article because significant portions of it are misleading and exaggerated.

To begin with, the “investor” quoted in the article is unnamed and anonymous.

The property that my family and I have been living in is co-owned with another family. We have been living at this property with the co-owner’s kind permission after we had to sell our properties in order to pay the legal expenses for the ongoing trial.

 The article quotes the “investor” using superlative terms to describe the property, implying that its furnishings are grand and luxurious. I don’t know the intentions and motives of this “investor”, but my family and I would respectfully disagree with what he is trying to suggest.

 There is no denying that we are blessed and privileged to be staying at Sentosa Cove. However, we are under no illusion that this is only our temporary home, until the property is sold. The article has given the impression that this unit was only just put up for sale. In reality, the co-owner and I have been trying to sell this property for some time.

 I am particularly surprised that the “investor” reportedly said he had “the impression that the owner sure knows how to enjoy the high life”. Suffice to say that those who know and are around me, my family and friends, know perfectly well what we have gone through over the past 5 years, and what we continue to go through today can hardly be called “the high life”.

 Lastly, I am shocked by the alleged offer made by the agent to take the “investor” out on the owner’s “yacht”. I do not, and have never owned a yacht. As far as I am aware, the co-owner, who does not live in Singapore, also does not own a yacht.

 The agent contacted my staff today to apologize. Her message reads:

 “Please be reassured I was totally unaware of the intentions of the viewers and believed them to be potential buyers only. I am totally upset that it has caused such adverse publicity for Pastor and his family. The yacht story is also untrue. So sorry this happened.”

 KONG

Leave A Response