19 Steps to becoming City Harvest Church member.
-
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
I am not sure why I am doing this but I have the proof that Pastor Kong is innocent. I love Pastor Kong above everything. I know you idiots fill any possible blog with your filth to satisfy your ego's.
How about some truth for a change?
The truth is: The real criminal is Mr. Wahju Hanafi.
Wahju Hanafi is portraited as a great father, businessman, Christian. I cannot elaborate but I know he is evil. Let me give you something tangible.Why did Hanafi's company receive 6 Million Dollar from CHC?
Why did he only returned 600,000 Dollar?
How much is 6,000,000 - 600,000?
How come there is no website for PT First National Glassware?Why is there no website for Super Value Stores?
Super Value Stores in Papua New Guinea? Ever been to Paua New Guinea? Who are you kidding?
Why is Pastor Kong's house in Hanafi's name?
Why would Hanafi give Pastor Kong a mansion?
Why is Hanafi's house next to Kong's?
Why does Pastor Kong continuously praise Hanafi?
How much do you all want to see Pastor Kong go down before you all wipe the shit out of your eyes?The only one laughing today is Hanafi...Coincidence?
God Bless
If what you said above is true, then why and what is the pastor doing with this guy whom you claim is a criminal.
-
Life is surreal.
-
Why?
Because Pastor Kong is being blackmailed by this criminal. Isn't it obvious?
-
Originally posted by Zeeleewong:
Why?
Because Pastor Kong is being blackmailed by this criminal. Isn't it obvious?
how come, he got your pastor's nude pic through web cam?
-
I read through this thread in one sitting and found the discussion amusing as well as thoughtful. I laughed, felt sad and learnt as I followed the discussion.
Now the “amusible” (no, there’s no such word) part got hold of me. Since the tread was started with "light" digging of practices of certain CHC members, I will attempt to bring this back to its lighter tone. I’m just having fun with this part and am not being serious. Please forgive if I have overstepped boundaries of propriety and have treated subjects that are deep and serious in your hearts with irreverence. I APOLOGISE in advance if I had been insensitive.
From the thread, I believe that the only person from CHC is Zeeleewong and so far her cell group leaders and others have not come onto the forum to comment at all. This is odd behavior from a church that is controlling minds and behavior. Now, from Zeeleewong’s postings, we can only conclude she is the stereotype of all that James_Tan_1983 and alize said of CHC members and members of cultish organisations respectively –what these members will say, how they response to questions. Example “Do not let them Hijack your Faith”. So far, zeeleewong’s responses have been, in a word, unbelievable.
If the argument is true that CHC strongly teaches and controls how their members respond to outsiders, then clearly Zeeleewong is out of sync with the church’s teaching. The logic works this way:
- If CHC advises their members not to engage with outsiders on matters on the church and their leaders integrity as clearly they do not have the right frame of mind to interpret and understand truth as CHC sees it. Zeeleewong is clearly violating that CHC rule even though she devoutly defends the church and all its practices and presumably follows all its dos and don’ts. This is definitely not possible.
- If CHC allows or does not disallow their members to debate with outsiders on matter relating to the church and its leaders practices. Then given the discussion here so far, Zeeleewong has not consulted with her cell leaders. This should also be a no-no as all engagement with outsiders needs to be reported within the cell group structure especially something as important as an outsider calling into disrepute, CHC leaders’ practices.
- My argument is that her cell leaders are well aware of her participation in this forum. The following are possible scenarios:
a. She is thinking that she is winning all the arguments so she doesn’t need help from her leaders. If this is the case, it is my belief that she would let her cell leaders know how she is doing such a good job so that other members can also be encouraged to put up a strong defence in public of their church and leaders. So her leaders would know about this forum.
b. She is not winning the arguments but continues to just state her point of view. She would share with her cell leaders on lessons on how to tackle such opposition. Her cell leaders encourage her to persevere but do not want to get involved, adopting a wait-and-see attitude. As long as you say it over and over and over, you will wear them down to your point of view. So they will know about this forum.
c. She is losing the arguments and surely would have approached her cell leaders but none have come to her rescue as none of them want to be on the “losing” side. They know about this forum.
- So Zeeleewong’s cell leaders are well aware of her arguments and discussions in this forum. They do not see it fit to join in but allow Zeeleewong to continue on her own. Aren’t they concerned about the “blasphamies” that could corrupt other fellow members. I think it is unlikely that they have not stepped into this discussion yet OR have not removed her participation yet.
Here comes the “amusible” part: What if Zeeleewong is not a real person, much less a CHC member but someone who is an outsider. He/she posts just like the stereotype described by James_Tan_1983 / alize accentuating the clichéd behavior and nuances. Then we are made to believe that CHC is really full of these stereotypical simplistic believers. You see, I have read my share of Agatha Christie….
If the “amusible” part is true, and Zeeleewong is really the disguise of …… then we need our usual suspects.
My list is as follows:
- James_Tan_1983
The protagonist with the sad story, typically innocent, good looking with sad eyes :leading man who can tug at the heartstrings of the audience. Very likeable and sincere. Normally not suspected but usually turns out to be the dastardly culprit in the end. His possible motive is to have a go at CHC and make their members look silly.
- alize
The brainaic who works out elaborate schemes and methods – the most “scheming” of the lot. He can take the time to plan out attacks in detail and executes with patience and precision. He will leave no clues and covers all his tracks. He is almost impossible to be found out. The only chance to catch him is to equally patient and wait until he makes a mistake. His possible motivation is just to see how this whole debacle plays out in accordance with his plan and how accurately he can forecast players’ reactions.
- Dalforce 1941
The one who rejects many things. By projection, he probably will reject more than he accepts. He thinks that there are many wrongs in the world and if he drums up sentiments, he may get more people to reject what is bad in the world, the world can become a less badder place.
- Pinknutri
Not a young person and probably has seen much in life. He understands constraints in life and wants CHC and outsiders to understand that although many permutations are possible, God’s answers to prayers need to be optimised against constraints like government laws, physical limitations (which God also can ultimately also override). His motivation will be to teach the young lessons.
- JoeRaj
Obviously very frustrated by answers. And sometimes can get emotional. If he is Zeeleewong, he must have created the character so that he can kill the character in a fit of internet rage. That could be very cathartic indeed.
- Aneslayer
The person who quotes the Bible most. He reads and analyses the Bible deeply and seeks truth is what is being written. If he is guilty, he probably created Zeeleewong’s character unconsciously as a sparing opponent to juice up different angles to tackling Biblical knowledge.
- Laurence82
Laurence82 zooms in and out quickly. He does a drive by shoot out and is gone before you could even respond. He’s probably the one everyone wants to be the guilty one but normally ends up being innocent but he rarely wins over the audience’s sympathies. If he is the one, no,no, no he can’t be “THE ONE”.
- Charlize
This suspect probably commits her crimes in her dreams. She lives in a very surreal world and may have difficulties reconciling that with the real world. Zeeleewong may only have existed only in her own world but she must have successfully placed an “inception” in all our minds that Zeeleewong indeed responds to the forum.
Hmm... Others have since become active inthis thread and I have yet to analyse their behaviour. But normally the culprit is already part of the scene right from the beginning so the later members are not on my list.... yet.
I had my fun. I submit myself humbly to your scoldings, ridicule and insults. I do deserve them. Hopefully there will not be any painful under-the-belt punches and no one had been harmed.
“Amusible” phlxgm
-
My word phlxgm, you should be a playwright!
Or an author, your sense of imagination beats mine anyday, and I who day dream, imagine funny stuff, still no fight with you!
-
Lol @ the usual suspects. It's the internet.... trust no one...
-
How far can money get you in the music industry? Experts say:
Star quality still most important
REPORT: LEDIATI TAN
MADE my wish to be a superstar, sings Ms Ho Yeow Sun in her English single, Fancy Free.
Ten years ago, Ms Ho, 42, who goes by the stage name Sun Ho, embarked on her secular music career as part of the Crossover Project to reach out to non-Christians.
Now, her music career is part of the focus in the investigations against individuals from the City Harvest Church.
The Commissioner of Charities had found financial irregularities of at least $23 million from the church's funds which were allegedly used with the purported intention of bankrolling Ms Ho 's career.
On Wednesday, her husband Kong Hee and four church office-bearers were charged in court with the alleged misuse of the funds.
Notwithstanding the case before the courts, can someone buy his or her way to stardom? And how far can money get you in the music industry?
Industry insiders here and in the US told The New Paper that while money is important in gaining a foothold, talent will be the decisive factor in carving out a successful long-term career.
Money helps, but...
Mr Ngiam Kwang Hwa, managing director of Mandarin music label Rock Records, said: "Money can definitely bring you in, but money can't sustain you. You won't go far if you don't have talent.
"I don't believe that you can groom anyone without any star quality or talent. It depends on what you can offer to the consumer to sustain your music career."
American Robert A Case, a music career consultant who owns two music publishing companies, said: "I know of people who have millions and millions of dollars, who throw money in as entertainers. And they've failed."
Asked how much it would cost to break into the US market, Mr Gingio Muehlbauer, founder of intenational music consultancy MC-Input.com, said that in the pop music scene, it would cost close to US$3 million (S$3.8 million) for the full works, from producing an album to marketing the singer.
Then, there are also the costs of collaborating with top names in the industry to draw more eyeballs and gain recognition.
Mr Jerry Lembo, president of Jerry Lembo Elltertainment Group, said that most notable producers are represented by an agent or manager, and their time, availability and fees would be negotiated by them. The costs of hiring these producers, he added, would most likely be included in the record label 's recording budget.
Mr Muehlbauer said that hiring a top artiste, producer or musicians can cost anything from US$10,000 up to "hundreds of thousands", depending on how well-known they are.
And there are additional costs if you want a collaborating artiste to appear on the video or perform as a guest in concerts, he added.
Besides having talent and financial backing. success in the music industry also often depends on who you know and the relationships you build.
Mr Peng Chi Sheng, a local musician and director of Intune Music School, said: "One of the most important things is who you know.
"Just a call from the right person and you could get linked up to other people."
Mr Muehlbauer said that attending major conferences or events such as the Grammy Awards and big private parties is a great way to get noticed.
He added: "You can pay to get into some of these events. But most of them are by invitation only, so it always comes down to who you know."
Mr Case had this piece of advice for foreign artists who want to break into the US market. "It doesn't matter if you are from a foreign country. The key to success is to be successful in your own country first," he said.
"Create a buzz in own country or region first, then other countries will take you seriously."
SUN UNDER FIRE
2007: After the release of China Wine, a collaboration with Wyclef Jean (above left), Ms Ho come under fire for her dressing in the music video (left).
The China Wine single was her sixth track since she went over to the US in 2003 to work on her album, which was never released. The first five singles made it to the top 10 of Billboard's Hot Dance Club Songs.
While in the US, Ms Ho also collaborated extensively with big names from the music industry such as producer David Foster, and Grammy award-winner Olivia Newton-John.
2010: In February, she attends the Grammys in a black dress (above) which netizens said showed too much skin.
In June, she returns to Singapore to help police with investigations on the alleged misuse of church funds.
PICTURES: TNP FILE, UNIVERSAL MUSIC, REUTERS, XTRON
News, The New Paper, Friday June 29 2012, Pg 4
-
Read this guys articles about the CHC saga, where he explains certain issues. I found it very eye-opening, if not entertaining.
It's a bit in your face, but I would like to see anyone offer (or be able to offer) a rebuttal to the points he raised about the music industry and Sun's moves, round tripping etc.
-
Originally posted by JoeRaj:
Read this guys articles about the CHC saga, where he explains certain issues. I found it very eye-opening, if not entertaining.
It's a bit in your face, but I would like to see anyone offer (or be able to offer) a rebuttal to the points he raised about the music industry and Sun's moves, round tripping etc.
-
Originally posted by phlxgm:
I read through this thread in one sitting and found the discussion amusing as well as thoughtful. I laughed, felt sad and learnt as I followed the discussion.
Now the “amusible” (no, there’s no such word) part got hold of me. Since the tread was started with "light" digging of practices of certain CHC members, I will attempt to bring this back to its lighter tone. I’m just having fun with this part and am not being serious. Please forgive if I have overstepped boundaries of propriety and have treated subjects that are deep and serious in your hearts with irreverence. I APOLOGISE in advance if I had been insensitive.
From the thread, I believe that the only person from CHC is Zeeleewong and so far her cell group leaders and others have not come onto the forum to comment at all. This is odd behavior from a church that is controlling minds and behavior. Now, from Zeeleewong’s postings, we can only conclude she is the stereotype of all that James_Tan_1983 and alize said of CHC members and members of cultish organisations respectively –what these members will say, how they response to questions. Example “Do not let them Hijack your Faith”. So far, zeeleewong’s responses have been, in a word, unbelievable.
If the argument is true that CHC strongly teaches and controls how their members respond to outsiders, then clearly Zeeleewong is out of sync with the church’s teaching. The logic works this way:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->If CHC advises their members not to engage with outsiders on matters on the church and their leaders integrity as clearly they do not have the right frame of mind to interpret and understand truth as CHC sees it. Zeeleewong is clearly violating that CHC rule even though she devoutly defends the church and all its practices and presumably follows all its dos and don’ts. This is definitely not possible.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->If CHC allows or does not disallow their members to debate with outsiders on matter relating to the church and its leaders practices. Then given the discussion here so far, Zeeleewong has not consulted with her cell leaders. This should also be a no-no as all engagement with outsiders needs to be reported within the cell group structure especially something as important as an outsider calling into disrepute, CHC leaders’ practices.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->My argument is that her cell leaders are well aware of her participation in this forum. The following are possible scenarios:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->a. <!--[endif]-->She is thinking that she is winning all the arguments so she doesn’t need help from her leaders. If this is the case, it is my belief that she would let her cell leaders know how she is doing such a good job so that other members can also be encouraged to put up a strong defence in public of their church and leaders. So her leaders would know about this forum.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->b. <!--[endif]-->She is not winning the arguments but continues to just state her point of view. She would share with her cell leaders on lessons on how to tackle such opposition. Her cell leaders encourage her to persevere but do not want to get involved, adopting a wait-and-see attitude. As long as you say it over and over and over, you will wear them down to your point of view. So they will know about this forum.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->c. <!--[endif]-->She is losing the arguments and surely would have approached her cell leaders but none have come to her rescue as none of them want to be on the “losing” side. They know about this forum.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->So Zeeleewong’s cell leaders are well aware of her arguments and discussions in this forum. They do not see it fit to join in but allow Zeeleewong to continue on her own. Aren’t they concerned about the “blasphamies” that could corrupt other fellow members. I think it is unlikely that they have not stepped into this discussion yet OR have not removed her participation yet.
Here comes the “amusible” part: What if Zeeleewong is not a real person, much less a CHC member but someone who is an outsider. He/she posts just like the stereotype described by James_Tan_1983 / alize accentuating the clichéd behavior and nuances. Then we are made to believe that CHC is really full of these stereotypical simplistic believers. You see, I have read my share of Agatha Christie….
If the “amusible” part is true, and Zeeleewong is really the disguise of …… then we need our usual suspects.
My list is as follows:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->James_Tan_1983
The protagonist with the sad story, typically innocent, good looking with sad eyes :leading man who can tug at the heartstrings of the audience. Very likeable and sincere. Normally not suspected but usually turns out to be the dastardly culprit in the end. His possible motive is to have a go at CHC and make their members look silly.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->alize
The brainaic who works out elaborate schemes and methods – the most “scheming” of the lot. He can take the time to plan out attacks in detail and executes with patience and precision. He will leave no clues and covers all his tracks. He is almost impossible to be found out. The only chance to catch him is to equally patient and wait until he makes a mistake. His possible motivation is just to see how this whole debacle plays out in accordance with his plan and how accurately he can forecast players’ reactions.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->Dalforce 1941
The one who rejects many things. By projection, he probably will reject more than he accepts. He thinks that there are many wrongs in the world and if he drums up sentiments, he may get more people to reject what is bad in the world, the world can become a less badder place.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->Pinknutri
Not a young person and probably has seen much in life. He understands constraints in life and wants CHC and outsiders to understand that although many permutations are possible, God’s answers to prayers need to be optimised against constraints like government laws, physical limitations (which God also can ultimately also override). His motivation will be to teach the young lessons.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->JoeRaj
Obviously very frustrated by answers. And sometimes can get emotional. If he is Zeeleewong, he must have created the character so that he can kill the character in a fit of internet rage. That could be very cathartic indeed.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->Aneslayer
The person who quotes the Bible most. He reads and analyses the Bible deeply and seeks truth is what is being written. If he is guilty, he probably created Zeeleewong’s character unconsciously as a sparing opponent to juice up different angles to tackling Biblical knowledge.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->Laurence82
Laurence82 zooms in and out quickly. He does a drive by shoot out and is gone before you could even respond. He’s probably the one everyone wants to be the guilty one but normally ends up being innocent but he rarely wins over the audience’s sympathies. If he is the one, no,no, no he can’t be “THE ONE”.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->- <!--[endif]-->Charlize
This suspect probably commits her crimes in her dreams. She lives in a very surreal world and may have difficulties reconciling that with the real world. Zeeleewong may only have existed only in her own world but she must have successfully placed an “inception” in all our minds that Zeeleewong indeed responds to the forum.
Hmm... Others have since become active inthis thread and I have yet to analyse their behaviour. But normally the culprit is already part of the scene right from the beginning so the later members are not on my list.... yet.
I had my fun. I submit myself humbly to your scoldings, ridicule and insults. I do deserve them. Hopefully there will not be any painful under-the-belt punches and no one had been harmed.
“Amusible” phlxgm
Two points.
Firstly the church does not bar members from debating its practices with outsiders. They encourage you to do so. They only don't allow you to befriend critics. If you are a leader, you can use either rule when it suits you and your people will accept you without questioning. Chances are you are not a bright spark and will also fool yourself.
Also you may debate but cannot question the practices. ie you may debate them in a positive light. :)
Secondly zeeleewong's cell leaders are not purposely avoiding making fools of themselves. They have no idea how stupid zeeleewong is because she is painting her participation in the most positive light, perhaps by outright lying about the extent of her stupidity. Likely she said nothing about the argument itself, only: "these poor misguided people are irritating me so please pray for me" and the sheep start mumbling in agreement.
A high chance they are no mensa members themselves and see nothing but brilliance in zeeleewong's line of reasoning. They share beliefs. To question her is to question themselves.
-
Also the standard reply to my above sentence is:
"So what if we are not mensa members? You are also not super intelligent and able to tell me everything about the universe or that prosperity gospel is wrong. If you are smarter than Kong Hee why are you not so successful?"
My reply would be his success is built not on his smarts but your idiocy.
-
What's so bad about charisma?
Trouble happens when followers cede independence
Politics 360
BY JEREMY AU YONG
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTTHERE was an interesting study on charisma conducted in 1998, just after Steve Jobs returned to Apple but before he built his reputation as a messianic chief executive.
Then, researchers asked 150 students to allocate $10,000 across three possible investments: a mutual fund, money market certificates or Apple shares.
The students were given similar sets of financial information with one big difference. Half the students were shown a video of Jobs making a presentation at a trade show with his trademark flair, while the rest were not.
Researchers wanted to see if the simple addition of Jobs' charisma would have any impact on the investment decisions. The results shed some light on the impact charisma can have.
The arrest of Kong Hee and four other leaders of the City Harvest Church last week for alleged financial wrongdoings has once again drawn scrutiny to the notion of charismatic leadership.
Without commenting on his innocence or guilt - that is now a matter before the courts - his case does reignite debate over the potential dangers of charismatic leaders.
It is a conversation Singapore society has had before. After the cases involving former National Kidney Foundation (NKF) chief T.T. Durai or former Ren Ci head Ming Yi, some concluded that there was a need to be warier of the charismatic among us, because charisma is like a super power that is deadly in the wrong hands.
But if people are aware of the risk, why do they leave themselves vulnerable? Why do they not learn their lesson? And what exactly is it about charisma that seems to disable even the best defences?
Like any super power, there is nothing intrinsically bad about charisma. The ability to attract people and inspire them to follow you is actually very valuable.
For every Jim Jones, the charismatic leader responsible for the mass suicide of over 900 people, there is a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson.
In fact, an argument could be made that charismatic leaders actually saved many companies because they pushed through change that was needed.
The problem with charisma does not lie with just the charismatic leader. Rather, the trouble tends to stem from how charisma changes the way the followers relate to the leader and the organisation.
Political scientist Marty Linsky once wrote that effective leadership meant "disappointing followers at a rate they can absorb".
He reasoned that a leader who disappointed his followers too much would be turfed out while one who did not disappoint at all was not leading anyone anywhere.
The idea implies a sort of social contract between a leader and a follower. In the absence of charisma, this contract has to include a shared sense of mission. The follower goes along with the leader because he believes the leader is taking him where he wants to go.
If the leader then starts to head off in a different direction, that social contract is violated and the leader may find he has lost his followers.
This arrangement, however, can be eroded by the presence of a a magnetic personality. A very charismatic leader does not have the same social contract. He does not need to be on the same page as his followers.
In this situation, people follow not because of some aligned sense of purpose. They are there because they are drawn to this outgoing, dynamic, passionate person.
One clear sign that an organisation has come under the spell of a charismatic leader is a sharp distinction between the way he is viewed inside and outside the organisation.
Many outside the NKF seethed when Mr Durai's lavish lifestyle came to light, so much so that the building was vandalised.
Yet, when he resigned shortly after, NKF staff members gave him a grand, emotional send-off. At the end of his farewell speech, they gave him a standing ovation.
"I've seen him work. It's his passion. He works seven days a week, by choice, for a larger cause," a manager was reported as saying that day.
All this despite the court proceeding just days earlier showing that Mr Durai had, among other things, travelled on first class flights and had a gold-plated tap installed in his office toilet.
The results of the Steve Jobs survey give an insight into how powerful the effect can be. The group that watched a 20-minute video of Jobs invested on average three times more in Apple shares than the group that did not.
They all had the same facts, but the sheer force of personality coloured their perceptions of those facts.
The charismatic leader can thus disempower his followers. They do things not because they have reasoned that it is the right thing to do but because they have ceded a lot of independence to the person asking them to do it.
Suddenly, there is no amount of disappointment they cannot absorb.
And often, not enough attention is paid to this supporting cast. When we look back on the NKF now, we tell the story of how Mr Durai compromised the organisation. But the story is not complete without including the role of his close associates.
Even if we argue that he put them there, he could not have achieved that manoeuvre without others watching it and choosing to look the other way.
To understand that is to see that no amount of new safeguards against a leader will ever be sufficient if the followers are weak. The bars of the cell may be thick but they are useless if the inmates hold all the keys.
And it is in the very nature of charisma to create weak followers.
Thus, in trying to protect organisations from abuse, what is needed may not just be more regulations or more procedures.
Instead, it is about making sure we never turn a blind eye to our own reasoning just because a flashy leader passionately and articulately tells us to.
Part D, insight, The Straits Times, Saturday, July 9 2012, Pg D4
-
Give until tears roll down.
-
City Harvest church must end.
-
fireice sucks
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
fireice sucks
Wei.
-
Originally posted by M the name:
What's so bad about charisma?
Trouble happens when followers cede independence
Politics 360
BY JEREMY AU YONG
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENTTHERE was an interesting study on charisma conducted in 1998, just after Steve Jobs returned to Apple but before he built his reputation as a messianic chief executive.
Then, researchers asked 150 students to allocate $10,000 across three possible investments: a mutual fund, money market certificates or Apple shares.
The students were given similar sets of financial information with one big difference. Half the students were shown a video of Jobs making a presentation at a trade show with his trademark flair, while the rest were not.
Researchers wanted to see if the simple addition of Jobs' charisma would have any impact on the investment decisions. The results shed some light on the impact charisma can have.
The arrest of Kong Hee and four other leaders of the City Harvest Church last week for alleged financial wrongdoings has once again drawn scrutiny to the notion of charismatic leadership.
Without commenting on his innocence or guilt - that is now a matter before the courts - his case does reignite debate over the potential dangers of charismatic leaders.
It is a conversation Singapore society has had before. After the cases involving former National Kidney Foundation (NKF) chief T.T. Durai or former Ren Ci head Ming Yi, some concluded that there was a need to be warier of the charismatic among us, because charisma is like a super power that is deadly in the wrong hands.
But if people are aware of the risk, why do they leave themselves vulnerable? Why do they not learn their lesson? And what exactly is it about charisma that seems to disable even the best defences?
Like any super power, there is nothing intrinsically bad about charisma. The ability to attract people and inspire them to follow you is actually very valuable.
For every Jim Jones, the charismatic leader responsible for the mass suicide of over 900 people, there is a Steve Jobs or a Richard Branson.
In fact, an argument could be made that charismatic leaders actually saved many companies because they pushed through change that was needed.
The problem with charisma does not lie with just the charismatic leader. Rather, the trouble tends to stem from how charisma changes the way the followers relate to the leader and the organisation.
Political scientist Marty Linsky once wrote that effective leadership meant "disappointing followers at a rate they can absorb".
He reasoned that a leader who disappointed his followers too much would be turfed out while one who did not disappoint at all was not leading anyone anywhere.
The idea implies a sort of social contract between a leader and a follower. In the absence of charisma, this contract has to include a shared sense of mission. The follower goes along with the leader because he believes the leader is taking him where he wants to go.
If the leader then starts to head off in a different direction, that social contract is violated and the leader may find he has lost his followers.
This arrangement, however, can be eroded by the presence of a a magnetic personality. A very charismatic leader does not have the same social contract. He does not need to be on the same page as his followers.
In this situation, people follow not because of some aligned sense of purpose. They are there because they are drawn to this outgoing, dynamic, passionate person.
One clear sign that an organisation has come under the spell of a charismatic leader is a sharp distinction between the way he is viewed inside and outside the organisation.
Many outside the NKF seethed when Mr Durai's lavish lifestyle came to light, so much so that the building was vandalised.
Yet, when he resigned shortly after, NKF staff members gave him a grand, emotional send-off. At the end of his farewell speech, they gave him a standing ovation.
"I've seen him work. It's his passion. He works seven days a week, by choice, for a larger cause," a manager was reported as saying that day.
All this despite the court proceeding just days earlier showing that Mr Durai had, among other things, travelled on first class flights and had a gold-plated tap installed in his office toilet.
The results of the Steve Jobs survey give an insight into how powerful the effect can be. The group that watched a 20-minute video of Jobs invested on average three times more in Apple shares than the group that did not.
They all had the same facts, but the sheer force of personality coloured their perceptions of those facts.
The charismatic leader can thus disempower his followers. They do things not because they have reasoned that it is the right thing to do but because they have ceded a lot of independence to the person asking them to do it.
Suddenly, there is no amount of disappointment they cannot absorb.
And often, not enough attention is paid to this supporting cast. When we look back on the NKF now, we tell the story of how Mr Durai compromised the organisation. But the story is not complete without including the role of his close associates.
Even if we argue that he put them there, he could not have achieved that manoeuvre without others watching it and choosing to look the other way.
To understand that is to see that no amount of new safeguards against a leader will ever be sufficient if the followers are weak. The bars of the cell may be thick but they are useless if the inmates hold all the keys.
And it is in the very nature of charisma to create weak followers.
Thus, in trying to protect organisations from abuse, what is needed may not just be more regulations or more procedures.
Instead, it is about making sure we never turn a blind eye to our own reasoning just because a flashy leader passionately and articulately tells us to.
Part D, insight, The Straits Times, Saturday, July 9 2012, Pg D4
That was a surprsingly good article from our much maligned ST. Even they can conjure up a winner from time to time.
-
Conjure up a winner from time to time?
Depending on the eye of the beholder some people consider LKY, Michael Jackson, Joseph Prince, Hugh Jackman, Jay chou,... charismatic. So how? Put all charismatics in prison?
Thanks to being charismatic, Pastor Kong and Pastor Sun would not have been able to do so much good in the world. With the money donated, Pastor Kong and Pastor Sun opened up hundreds of schools and shelters in Taiwan and China. But this does not matter to us. Even if Pastor Kong would have burned the money, we would still continue to give, because we trust him.
We know this is all a conspiracy. Take our dearest charismatic Chan Chun Sing: "...a governance review is not meant to discover fraud...". He made up his mind ordi. It was fraud. I ask you: "Is this fair or objective?"
It does not matter. Even if Pastor Kong goes to prison, we will be there waiting for him when he comes out.
God bless!
-
Self-Deprecating Narcissism among Christian Leaders
Edit by James Tan from Author James Watt - posted: 04/ 2/11 here
In light of the recent affairs with City Harvest Church, I like to address an issue avoided by most Christians.
The first time I entered a CHC Service in Suntec City I had no idea about what to expect. As a Christian, I was shocked and ill prepared by what I witnessed.Within a few minutes of my entrance, the City Harvest Saturday Afternoon Show commenced live, complete with 10 headed rockband, 6 singers and overzealous choir . It was a performance worthy of a Las Vegas or Broadway production: polished, professional, well-choreographed and upbeat, as well as disingenuous, pretentious and slick.
At the center of attention, amid all of the acclaim, were Pastor Kong Hee and his wife Sun Ho, both exquisitely dressed, well-manicured and perfectly coifed. My astonishment didn't end there, however. Not even close. The congregation was on their feet, more or less in trance, arms outstretched, some jumping up and down, others crying, a multitude uttering funny sounds.As I witnessed this display of pretension in stunned silence, I couldn't help but wonder if the Lord walked in, would He be carrying a whip just like He did when He cast the moneychangers out of the Temple, nearly two millennia earlier. I wondered what Christ -- who was born of humble means, never pursued affluence and died ignominiously on a cross -- would think about what was occurring in the exhibition hall of Suntec City convention center..
Even after the arrest of Kong Hee and his accomplishes, which came as a shock for the CHC flock, but to no surprise for the outside world, Kong Hee refuses to admit to the obvious, refuses to repent, continues to tweet, blog willy nilly bible versus, as if nothing happened. A strong undercurrent of self-deprecating narcissism remains within Kong Hee the anointed one, the lord of evangelicalism.
The concept of "self-deprecating narcissism" may seem like an oxymoron, but is it really?Yes it is, however, it requires defining. As a caveat, let me acknowledge that not all of the stars of charismatic Christianity have this character flaw, but a substantial number do. Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, John Avanzini, Phil Pringle, Joseph Prince, David Yonggi Cho, Todd Bentley, … to name a few. Within the prosperity movement, there are a few exceptions -- precious few.
Like others who have a narcissistic personality disorder, Kong Hee is self-centered but, unlike his secular counterparts, Kong hee is not outwardly boastful, at least not noticeable to the flock. People may be forgiving of narcissism in movie stars, beauty queens and exceptional athletes, but certainly not of Christian leaders.
This is where Kong Hee differs from the classic model of narcissism. Because Christ was humble, Kong Hee is expected to behave similarly. Outwardly, Kong Hee will, especially by the message he conveys to the CHC congregation. Kong hee’s demeanor is always that of a humble servant, eager to follow God's will. Kong Hee has taken self-deprecating humility and made it an art form, cleverly masking his compulsive craving for attention, approbation and admiration.
Many outside of the CHC indoctrination will recognize Kong Hee’s behavior for what and believe he is conning his followers, but that's not accurate.In fact, it's the exact opposite. A con knows what he or she is doing but chooses to do it anyway, despite the harm it causes. Kong Hee genuinely believes that what he is doing is right, which makes him far more dangerous. In his mind, he has a higher calling than others -- a closer relationship with God -- making whatever he does seen justifiable to him.
If someone gets in his way, especially someone employed by him, that person is perceived as thwarting God's will and fully deserving of the retribution they receive from the narcissistic leader. Ask Ronald Spoon. Because Kong Hee genuinely believes himself to be better than others, he will insist that each of the CHC members and employees fall in line, regardless of how outrageous or bizarre the superstar's demands become. Like sending 23 Million dollar to Sun Ho bank account.
To make matters worse, nearly all narcissists are hypersensitive to criticism. For insulation from disapproval, narcissists surround themselves with weak-willed sycophants who wouldn't dream of disagreeing. Instead, these well-paid non-entities consistently validate perceptions and behavior that deviate substantially from biblical standards. WithinCHC there are two sets of rules: those for the narcissist and those for everyone else.
Within CHC, a tacit "no-talk" rule has been and still is maintained, which keeps the eccentricities of Kong Hee a secret from the rest of the world. And this rule is aggressively enforced. Whenever an underling balks, that person is shamed, castigated and humiliated, while -- at the same time -- being told that their "bad attitude" is being prayed for. If that doesn't shame the person into submission, the verbal abuse is intensified and the person is eventually terminated. Wounded, the discarded person often abandons his or her beliefs, while blaming God for what happened, saying, "God should have done something to stop it." CHC refers to these as “backsliders”.Undeterred by hurting others in the process of building God's Kingdom on Earth, which just happens to be his kingdom as well, Kong Hee will regularly take advantage of others, routinely abusing those they are "called to serve." Reasoning that the ends justify the means, Kong hee will use God's name to wound others. Very often with a smile.
Whenever someone gets in his way, Kong Hee will misuse God's authority to enforce their will, which certainly takes His name in vain. Believing that he has a higher calling, Kong Hee is certain that God condones his behavior and methods, which the sycophants who surround them eagerly affirm.
The emotional carnage of wrecked lives left behind by Kong hee today is still hidden to the public. Several CHC members do know the Pastor Kong can be “cocky” and has a “Temper”. CHC members do know that Pastor Kong has a tendency to break down his direct employees, who eventually will quit their job. This behavior is translated as Pastor Kong preparing the employee for life, teaching him important lessons. So few are willing to call him to task, exposing his behavior to the light, reasoning that such whistle blowing would harm God's work.
Luckily, COC disagrees with that conclusion and is finally exposing him. Let’s all hope it will be a fair trial, without any interference of politics or money. -
What is taught in City Harvest Church by Pastor Kong on Family values?
Is this what children hear in church?
-
And another one - especially for BroInChrist...
Dear BroInChrist - just when you thought you knew everything about God...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y_vG8Clpi4&feature=youtu.be -
Times are bad.
-
Originally posted by JT1983:
And another one - especially for BroInChrist...
Dear BroInChrist - just when you thought you knew everything about God...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y_vG8Clpi4&feature=youtu.beWhere do you get all these gems?