The Prosperity Gospel angel named Dr Phil

The Final Hearing for Kong Hee and the five City Harvest Church Singapore leaders convicted of misappropriation of charity (in this case- church) funds and multiple frauds is on today in Singapore.

Singapore’s time is nine hours behind Australia, so we in Australia wont know the results until late today.

In 2015, Phil Pringle head pastor of C3 Global Church based in Sydney, which has over 1000 churches linked to it globally, prophesied over Kong Hee that “your fair head will not spend one day behind bars”.

Will Phil Pringle be a false prophet if Kong Hee is found guilty again on appeal and led away to spend eight to twelve years in Changi Prison Hell-Hole?




The answer to my rhetorical question is this?

Phil Pringle is already a false prophet because hundreds of his prophesies have fallen like rotten pineapples to the ground.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if Dr Phil Pringle has a pineapple for a brain.

Dr Phil Pringle is a false prophet because he preaches the false and heretical Prosperity Gospel.

Phil Pringle is no more a prophet than a witch peering into a crystal ball or reading tea-leaves in her palm.


Dr Phil “lying” (in his bed). Doctor Phil: “Lucifer you really are a bad ole devil possessing the whole of the Singaporean legal system and those bad-ass Singaporean judges who sentenced my dear spiritual son Kong Hee and his five CHC church leaders to eight years in Changi Prison Complex. But tell me Lucifer, when did you learn to sing and play music as bad a Kong Hee’s wife Sun Yeow Ho? And please can you stop playing that fiddle so loud. I’m suffering from one of my severe migraines and that screeching sound your making is sending me to hell”


In 2015, before the guilty verdict delivered to Kong Hee in a Singapore Court, Phil Pringle was getting very emo outside the court on video, and he was ranting and raving like the prophets of Baal and accusing the Singapore Courts of being “agents of Satan”.


Dr Phi Pringle head pastor of C3 Global Church spouting off outside Singapore Courts last November after Kong Hee was sentenced to eight years in Changi Prison Hell-Hole: “Rave…Rave… Rave…The Singapore Courts are agents of Satan”.


Since then Dr Phil Pringle the false prophet has retreated into his conga-hole with egg all over his face, and said hardly anything.

The trouble with people and preachers like Dr Phil is that they live in a cushy bubble of their own creation; demi-gods in their own little spiritual universe.


Kong Hee. Soon to be behind bars in Changi Prison Hell-hole, Having lived a pampered honoured life, Kong wont know what hit him when he starts his sentence in Changi Prison Hell-Hole


What if Kong Hee receives Dr Phil Pringle’s miracle and is miraculously cleared on all charges.

My assessment is that it’s not going to happen. Even if the judges find Kong Hee and the five other CHC convicted leaders were somehow innocent in taking USD$30 million from the CHC Building Fund and blowing it on Kong Hee’s wife Ho Sun’s pop-star career “for the Christian gospel”, there’s still the sticky problem of multiple frauds.

If a miracle happens, Phil Pringle will emerge from his conga-hole at Oxford Falls Sydney and rant and rave and gloat again.


DR PHIL CAN SWIM UNDER WATER BUT HE CAN’T WALK ON WATER.”The Singapore Courts and Authorities are agents of satan”


Straits Times Singapore

City Harvest appeal: 4 possible scenarios facing Kong Hee and church leaders

(Clockwise from left) Chew Eng Han, Kong Hee, John Lam, Sharon Tan, Tan Ye Peng and Serina Wee.
(Clockwise from left) Chew Eng Han, Kong Hee, John Lam, Sharon Tan, Tan Ye Peng and Serina Wee.PHOTOS: ST FILE

A three-judge High Court panel will deliver its decision on the appeals by the defence against conviction and sentences, and also appeals by the prosecution for harsher punishment.

In November 2015, the six, including church founder Kong Hee, were handed jail terms ranging from 21 months to eight years in the largest case of misuse of charitable funds in Singapore history.

The six were found guilty, after a marathon trial that started in 2013, of misappropriating millions in church funds to fuel the pop music career of Kong’s wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, in a church mission known as the Crossover Project.

The entrance to the Supreme Court at 9pm on Thursday (April 6). A three-judge High Court panel will deliver its decision on Friday morning. ST PHOTO: LIM YAOHUI

A district court found that they had channelled $24 million from CHC’s building fund into sham bonds in music production company Xtron and glass-maker Firna.

This money was in fact used to fund the Crossover Project. Later, another $26 million was used to cover up the initial misdeed.

The prosecution has appealed for longer jail terms for all six: Kong, 52; deputy senior pastor Tan Ye Peng, 44; former finance managers Serina Wee, 40, and Sharon Tan, 41; former finance committee member John Lam, 49; and former fund manager Chew Eng Han, 56.

The six have appealed against their conviction and sentences on varying charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts.

In September last year, five days were set aside for three judges – Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin, and Justices Woo Bih Li and Chan Seng Onn – to hear the appeals.

Given the cross-appeals, a range of possible scenarios can materialise on Friday.

On one end of the spectrum, the six may be acquitted and walk out free men and women if the court agrees with them that no crime has been committed as no wrongful loss was caused to the church.

But they may end up spending a much longer time behind bars, if the court is persuaded by prosecutors that they deserve a harsher punishment for betraying the trust of church members .

Prosecutors have proposed 11 to 12 years’ jail for Kong, Tan Ye Peng, Chew and Wee; eight to nine years’ jail for Lam; and five to six years’ jail for Sharon Tan.

It is also possible for the court to reduce their sentences if it finds that their original sentences were too harsh for what they had done.

Finally, the High Court may uphold the lower court’s decision entirely and dismiss all appeals.

But even after the verdict is delivered, both sides have further legal recourse in what is known as a criminal reference. The procedure allows either side to bring the case higher by asking the Court of Appeal to make a ruling on a question of law of public interest.

However, the court can decline to make a ruling if it finds that the question submitted is not a question of law of public interest.”