Random Discourse – A Personal Reaction to the City Harvest “Scandal”

4 comments

I have to admit, when I first read the official response from City Harvest Church [CHC], my reaction has been anger and disappointment. The picture to the right summarizes how incredulous I felt when I first read CHC’s response. Why is the church still standing by Kong Hee and the other 4 accused by saying that no money has been lost? Even though they are innocent until proven guilty, the church seems to suggest that it is wrong to even charge the accused in the first place.

By the way, I am under the impression that it is inappropriate to comment on cases sub judice – i.e. under judgment. When a member of the CHC alleged that the Commissioner of Charities’ statement on the misconduct and mismanagement in the administration of the charity is defamatory, I had mentioned to some friends that can be considered an offence in itself which may lead to contempt of court proceedings. Thus, I am further puzzled by the high profile official response from the church. It makes me wondered what is the agenda behind it. I would assume that the main purpose is to assure the congregation that no one has defrauded the church of a large amount of money.

I made the effort to re-read some of the news on CHC on the media so far, and I noticed there has been no mention whatsoever that someone has taken the S$24 million for their own benefit. However, CHC’s official response did not address the other matters – such as the allegation of attempts made to avoid disclosing related party transactions involving S$770,000, and also the S$338,000 “refund”.

Anyway, let’s all be patient here as everything will be explained when the defendants take the stand. To be fair, I would say that none of those contradict the official statement of the church which only mentioned only the S$24 million. From this perspective, I can understand (although I do not necessarily agree with) where the executive pastor, Aries Zulkarnain, is coming from when he said “The church did not lose any funds in the relevant transactions, and no personal profit was gained by the individuals concerned”.

However, it revealed some other details – i.e. S$24 million in investment bonds. What is obvious now is that the church has too much money, and just like a lot of other charities it no longer know what to do with that money. Instead, CHC turned itself into a investment company, emulating our town councils and to a larger extent how the government uses the country’s reserves in Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Company. It is all well if these so-called investments made profit. But what happens when money is lost? Is the church sufficiently protected against the risks? I recalled that when the Commissioner of Charities [COC] questioned CHC about its $310 million stake in Suntec Singapore, questions surfaced among the public about whether religious organisations – which are registered as charities – should be allowed to go into business using what are essentially donor funds. It is high time the COC and MCYS take a closer look at the matter of charity going into business or investments.

Next, there is the matter of the “Crossover Project”. Let me just say that the matter of Sun Ho’s raunchy music videos is a dead horse that everyone (including myself) should stop flogging. Whether it has anything to do with Christianity and how it helped to reach out to non-believers is a moot point. Instead, let’s all scruntinise this project in another way.

It is said that the members of the church spoke about the success of this project. But what exactly is the point of building a case to show that the church “unanimously” supports the project because of its success? That would be obfuscating the real issue! The real issue is that the level of support for, or the success of this project should not be a basis for the congregation to “sign a blank cheque” allowing funds to be allocated to it without accountability or transparency, or in ways that befuddles the mind of those trying to get a clear picture of it. There’s also the question who should set the criteria used to measure success. After all, I could justify spending an astronomical amount of money even when there were just one person converting to Christianity because that soul is worth to God more than any amount of money. Meanwhile, others might argue that the numbers would be the only objective measure of its success.

When the congregation has been asked to give without end, it is puzzling that they rose fervently to the defense of the accused when they have never asked for a projection of how much fund is needed for the “Crossover Project” nor a breakdown how the funds allocated to it. Would it not be logical that every project should have a projected figure or budget, and whether funds collected is meeting projection or even beyond? Is it not true that if a CEO keep asking investors to ceaselessly throw money in to finance his project without a cost breakdown and details on how that money is spent, the investors (and shareholders) would have sent him packing?

Some CHC members would scoff, saying that I have no right to teach them how to run their church since I am not a member and has given nothing to them. While it is true that I should just mind my own bl**dy business, does it change the fact that when someone keeps asking for money, the giver can and should ask where is that money going to prevent putting money into a bottomless pit? In fact, had CHC been open to its members about its finances all along, it will be easy for the members to hold their chin high and stand up for the leaders as men of integrity. Furthermore, when Scripture is quoted to justify the giving, then logically anyone can ask whether the spending is according to scriptural principles too. For e.g. when one is asked to tithe, then shouldn’t they look into exactly whether the tithes are used strictly for those very purpose? God gave His believers a sound mind to reason. Why begrudge those who pointed out the obvious?

It has always been crystal clear to almost everyone I talked with that this has nothing to do with religious persecution or jealousy, neither is it some kind of trial or tribulation. This is simply a matter of governance. In Singapore there are rules that says what agents of charity should not be doing. When those rules aren’t followed, then those people who are suspected to flout the rules will be officially charged and they have to (unfortunately) explain themselves in a court of law to the satisfaction of the judge. God commands His believers to submit themselves to earthly authorities too!

As a Christian, instead of feeling hurt or persecuted, I thank God that this has come to light. God in His mercy and love has revealed all these so that in the future all elements of His church will stand up to scrutiny.

Praise to be to God, Amen!

Current Affairs – City Harvest Probe, more than 2 years later…

4 comments

After more than 2 years, there’s finally an outcome to the City Harvest Church investigations conducted by the Commissioner of Charities [COC] and the Commercial Affairs Department [CAD]. According to the press release on the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports [MCYS] website:

“Financial irregularities of at least $23 million from the Charity’s funds have been discovered. These funds were used with the purported intention to finance Ho Yeow Sun’s secular music career to connect with people. There was a concerted effort to conceal this movement of funds from its stakeholders.“. (emphasis mine)

The diagram on the right is a graphical representation of irregularities discovered during the investigations. Five individuals will be charged in court, namely:

Kong Hee;

Lam Leng Hung John;

Tan Ye Peng;

Tan Shao Yuen Sharon; and

Chew Eng Han

From what I have gathered, the charges against the five include criminal breach of trust, and falsification of accounts. However, it will only be after the hearing that we will know what each of the five will be charged with. The media reports that criminal breach of trust offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and fine, while each falsification of accounts offence carries jail for up to 10 years, or a fine, or both.

On top of this, the COC has suspended the above and three other individuals from the exercise of their office or employment as governing board members, officers, agents or employees of City Harvest Church with immediate effect. They are:

Ho Yeow Sun;

Kelvin Teo Meng How; and

Tan Su Pheng Jacqueline

Regardless whether the charges have merit or not, the diagram here indicates that some form of “layering” has been attempted to camouflage the ultimate destination of those funds. (That is in contrast to money laundering where the “layering” is done to conceal the source of the funds.)

The funds are first moved to City Harvest Church Kuala Lumpur before being moved into the “Crossover Project”. Only after that are they used to fund Ho Yeow Sun’s secular singing career. Remember, this is her secular singing career. Even if one wants to argue that this was part of her “ministry” to allow her to reach out to non-Christians, one has to take a look at the songs that she has been singing. Take for example China Wine, and Lady Saw. Just look up those song names up on Youtube along with the keyword “Sun Ho”. Take a look at the music videos and try and fathom how these songs reach out to non-Christians and tell them about the Gospel and the Salvation that comes through Christ Jesus. Furthermore, if I am not wrong, Ho Yeow Sun (aka Sun Ho) resigned as a pastoral member of the church so which pastor is overseeing this “ministry”?

As to the donations from Wahju Hanafi, there were also allegations of document forgeries and also attempts to mask the ultimate destination of the funds using a “multi-purpose account”. All of these seem rather elaborate. In my personal opinion it demonstrates planning and conspiracy and clearly not a procedural oversight. However, it is up to the judge to decide whether there is any wrong being done here regardless of my personal opinion.

As for the remaining irregularities were more straight forward. Refunding the church of S$770,000 to avoid disclosing related party transactions and then getting reimbursed that same amount from the “multi-purpose account” is as far as I am concerned a blatant attempt of siphoning money from the church and to deceive the congregation into believing that everything is above board. It’s like putting the cookies back into the cookie jar to avoid the accusation of theft, only that there’s this little trap door below where the cookies goes right back into a bag in the pants.

Last but not least, is the refunding of S$338,000 to Chew Eng Han because he was facing financial difficulties. Where is Chew’s faith in what Kong Hee preaches? Maybe his rewards would have been 10 times, 100 times or even a 1000 times if he didn’t take that refund! This is rather interesting because I am interested to know whether the same privilege is accorded to all church members who are in similar financial straits. If not, this clearly smacks of cronyism, collusion and nepotism. So much for giving until it hurts.

Now, I would be exceptionally interested to see how the accused explain themselves in court even though being indicted does not necessarily constitute guilt. If it is indeed a concerted effort to conceal the movement of S$23-million, then the members of the church should ponder upon whether this is a matter of religious persecution as some of them has so frequently write on forums and wall comments to defend their precious, beloved pastors. Many of them who defended the accused also called this a trial and tribulation. To me, that is utterly preposterous considering the seriousness and the amount of accusation leveled against them. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone even managed to concoct a Biblical comparison here to justify this.

Before I end, let me point out that God gave us a sound logical mind to reason and to rein in our emotions. God certainly also gave His followers a discerning spirit. My personal opinion is that the actions of these individuals are nothing more than personal misdemeanor and they have completely no religious context at all. We are considered sheep to God, but we only look up to Jesus as our shepherd. Followers should not allow others to treat them like sheep to be led to the slaughter.

After all, as my brother-in-Christ Terence reminded me, it is written in 2 Peter 2:3 (NIV):

“In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.”

Update: It was further reported that the accused allegedly misappropriated a further S$26.6 million from the church’s funds. This is related to a series of transactions that some of the accused created to clear the purported bond investments off the church’s accounts.

So does that mean it’s a total of S$49.6 million in all? Even Durai’s S$660,000 peanut and golden tap pales by comparison!

Recommended Reads:
In His Blood: How not to get drunk on China Wine
A Reformed Wretch: A Response to the Kong Hee Incident

Random Discourse – AIDS and homosexuality

Leave a comment

The following was posted on the Facebook page of The Online Citizen almost 2 weeks ago.

The highest rate of AIDS transmission is by STRAIGHT men. Get your facts right and stop launching biased attacks against the LGBT community.
http://www.unaids.org/en/dataanalysis/monitoringcountryprogress/progressreports/2010countries/singapore_2010_country_progress_report_en.pdf

Well, I am not sure who isn’t getting his facts right. Here’s a chart taken from the report in the link above (see below).

First of all, unless someone wants to assume a 50% heterosexual vs 50% homo-bisexual distribution, there are simply more straight men than homosexual which means it is not abnormal when you have more heterosexual cases diagnosed with AIDS / HIV. Next, I don’t know what has the lesbians got to do with this since the homosexual transmissions here simply referred to MSM (not Main Stream Media, but Men who have Sex with Men). That basically meant just the males who are homosexual, bisexuals and transgender. So what attack on the whole LGBT community is this chap talking about?

Anyway, based on the figures in the report (linked by the person who post the above comment), there were 423 total cases diagnosed in 2007, and there were 255 heterosexual cases (60.28%) and 145 cases of combined homosexual-bisexual transmissions (34.27%). In 2008, out of a total of 456 cases diagnosed, there were 248 heterosexual case (54.38%) with 185 cases of homosexual and bisexual combined (40.57%). When you separate the figures, homosexual cases have gone up by 21 cases (16.15%), and bisexual cases by 19 (126.6% !!!).

Of course, one report doesn’t show much. So I take a closer look at the site and found the 2012 progress report submitted by Singapore. The figures are shown in the charts below.

There were a total of 463 cases in 2009. Among those 284 were heterosexual cases (61.33%) and 166 homosexual and bisexual cases combined (35.85%). While the number of heterosexual cases have increased much compared to the previous year, homosexual and bisexual cases are still up compared to that of 2007. In 2010, the total number of cases fell to 441 and heterosexual cases also showed a remarkable decrease from 284 to 228. Heterosexual cases now made up 51.7% of the total number of case, while the combined homosexual and bisexual cases have gone up to 204 (46.25%). While it is true that heterosexual transmissions still made up the bulk of the cases, the trend indicates a continual increase in homosexual and bisexual figures since 2007.

Some would say that the figures in Singapore alone are not enough, and I agree with that. I looked through a few more reports (e.g. those of Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Israel and the United States). Many of them are lengthly and boring to read and many does not come with easy to read charts. In some cases they are in a language I do not understand (e.g. those of France, Spain and Italy). For those which are in English, I noticed that some of these reports followed a pretty standard template. They talked about the action plan taken to reach out the high risk groups, such as female sex workers and MSM, and their reduction targets for the AIDS / HIV infections in the next few years. I would consider it rather telling that MSM comes up repeatedly in most of these reports.

Fortunately, I still managed to extract some charts. I am linking all the reports I took them from so those who are interested can read the reports on their own. The chart on the right above is taken from Switzerland’s Progress Report for 2012. It is quite startling to note that MSM (i.e. homosexual cases) have actually overtaken that of heterosexuals in terms of those diagnosed with HIV.

The below charts are taken from Japan’s Progress Report for 2012:

The following chart is taken from Germany’s Progress Report for 2012:

This was stated in the United Kingdom’s report:

In 2010 just over half of HIV-diagnosed people were infected via heterosexual sex (of whom 65% were black African and 21% were white), 44% were men who have sex with men (MSM) (of whom 87% were white). 2% were infected via injecting drug use and a further 2% from mother-to-child transmission.

I have also heard the argument that there are more homosexual or bisexual cases reported because they are more conscious about the risks and thus are more willing to go for check ups on their own. However I must also point out that in Malaysia’s report it points out otherwise. If I am not wrong (since I mostly take a glance at all of these lengthly reports), in quite a number of reports the number of MSM reached to be educated about condom use and those among them professing to use a condom are way higher than those who have gone for HIV test and obtained a report. By the way, wouldn’t it mean that even some among the homosexual community also believe that their risks are higher than the rest (just like those who made the accusation) when one argued that they are conscious about the risks?

So what is exactly the point I am trying to make here? I am not making a biased accusation against the LGBT community but rather to point out that the sweeping statement made by “Yaoming” or whoever who posted that remark on The Online Citizen’s page in Facebook has no feet to stand on. In my opinion, other than those unfortunate cases whereby a victim caught AIDS / HIV from their regular sex partner, most of these cases are either promiscuous people who got what they deserved (regardless of their sexual preferences) or irresponsible / illegal sex workers.

In other words, if there is a statement I want to make here, it would simply be a statement pointing out that promiscuous homosexual males are potentially risker than their heterosexual counterparts. Since LGBT lobbyists have constantly bombarded the public with the message their cause is one about love and not gender, I would have expected them to distant themselves from these black sheep instead of making a fuss. After all, a couple (heterosexual or otherwise) have the least to fear from AIDS / HIV when both of them had they been faithful to one another. To even come out and defend against this accusation is self defeating. It is tantamount to admitting that their message that it’s all about love is nothing more than a fairy tale. Much like arguing that one should be married to stop him from going out to “play”. Call me a homophobe for all I cared. I don’t give a shit because I have completely no issues with having a drink with friends who are lesbians, or having dinner with an old classmate (and one of my oldest friend) who is openly homosexual. I simply have an issue with people who tries to make a point by accusing others of not getting their facts right when their argument is shakier than a building on a mudslide.

I’ll leave those who are reading this post to make a conclusion on their own. The figures speaks for themselves and the progress reports are all found here.

Random Discourse – Gratitude vs Contentment

One comment

The following is posted as a comment by my brother-in-Christ, Peter Ng in response to Canadian Eric Brook’s letter.

~ * ~

I suspect the (and many other Singaporeans) have confused gratitude with contentment and complacency. If we ever have the chance to have an objective and unloaded chat with any pro-opposition or anti-PAP Singaporean, I believe most, if not all, would be grateful to the nation builders (i.e. all who played a part in bringing Singapore to today’s state, including those whom PAP opposed and those who PAP opposed after PAP successfully got rid of their opposition status).

Even if we ask a hard-core opposition if there was something to be grateful to the PAP for, I believe most, if not all, would say yes. (Of course, there would be a need to make lots of qualifications, since the PAP that “grew the trees” is not exactly the same as the PAP today.)

However, does being grateful mean that we should be contented with our current situation even though we might be suffering? Does it mean that if I get second last in class, I should be grateful that I am not the last and not fight to improve my grades?

Imagine a person (let’s call him X) who has grown up with all the conveniences and luxuries of modern city life is captured by terrorists and subsequently rescued by local villagers in a very remote place without the comforts of city life.

Would he be grateful? I am sure.

Would he be contented with life in that remote village? Very difficult. It won’t be long before he starts finding his way back to where he is comfortable with.

A major difference between X and those of us in Singapore is that Singapore is our home where we were born and where we grew up. There is no home somewhere to go back to. In X’s case, the village was not his home and he had no right to ask them to change to suit him so he chose to leave.

In our case, do we have a right to say what kind of life I want? What kind of environment I want?

Apparently, some people think that I should not say anything because we are already doing well in many areas. These people have not understood what contentment is.

Contentment is satisfaction with one’s possessions, status, or situation. While some may derive that satisfaction from how how they compare to others, many others find no satisfaction in that comparison. Almost every one of us is better than some and worse than some at the same time so it really means nothing when somebody says we should be grateful and contented because we are better than some.

Satisfaction is based on an internal set of standards and that standard differs from person to person and group to group. While someone may be contented to have a polytechnic diploma, someone else may only be contented with a PhD and some may be contented merely to have visited a school.

If I want to have a degree and I only have an ‘O’ Level certificate, then I will not be satisfied until I get a degree. Telling me to be grateful that I had the chance to study for ten years is not going to help me. Telling me that I should be grateful because someone had to drop out of primary school in another country is going to make even less sense to me.

To insist on my being contented when the situation has not met my standards is to insist on complacency. Merriam-Webster says that complacency is self-satisfaction, especially when accompanied by unawareness of actual dangers or deficiencies.

This is the danger that PAP has been warning us about for all these years and which they are trying to avoid. The moment we foolishly think that we are ok because we are ahead of somebody else is the moment we begin our decline.

Just because we’re better than some does not mean that we’re doing ok. To be satisfied because someone else is doing worse and not see the many dangers and deficiencies in our present success is the essence of hubris. People with hubris don’t decline. They fall, sharply.

Singapore succeeded because there was always a strong sense of discontentment and fear of future discontentment which led to the agitation for change and improvement. Ask any of our leaders whether we have “arrived” and I believe you none of them will dare to say we have “arrived” because it implies we can stop growing and they will not even consider taking a rest, much less stopping.

PAP is very keenly aware of many dangers and deficiencies and it doesn’t want to be complacent nor does it want Singaporeans to be complacent. I suspect this is why we are always kept on our toes, with the prices of everything kept within affordability but never low enough for us to even consider slowing down, much less retire. CPF grows our money a little more than banks but less than the rate they increase the minimum sum so we are never allowed to be complacent.

Likewise, we don’t ever want our government to be complacent. No country is perfect. There is always room for improvement and the feedback on what to improve and how to improve can and should come from the people. When we voice our discontentment, it is feedback to the government on what to improve on. It has nothing to do with whether we are grateful or not.

However, many people respond to complaints and criticisms by saying that Singapore is doing well and that we should be grateful. By implication, they are saying that grateful people should not give negative feedback.

Let me tell you. Those who only sing the praises of PAP but hide the complaints of the people or tell the people not to complain are the real enemies of PAP and Singapore.

LKY once complained to a foreign press that Singaporeans are a bunch of complain kings. I thought that was a very bad response. First, complaining about your people to outsiders is a sign of a bad leader. We may admit the faults of our people publicly but criticism should be kept private. More importantly, did he ever find out why people are complaining?

Complaints are manifestations of the disconnect between expectations and delivery. The job of the leader is to bridge that disconnect. He can

     1) change the delivery to meet the expectation; or
     2) negotiate to bring the expectation toward the delivery

but most likely it will be a combination of both.

The message I seem to be getting from the leaders is “This is what I deliver. Take it or leave it but I assure you that it is good for Singapore.” If you choose me then you take whatever I give you.

If this is true, then our unique form of democracy is such that all eligible voters in Singapore in non-walkover constituencies have a moment of democracy when we vote for the leaders and we accept the consequences of our choice after that.

Besides the disconnect between the people’s expectations and the leaders’ delivery, there is also a gap between the people’s standards and the leaders’ standards. While we have done well in many aspects as a country, and the statistics look very good, it may not be as rosy for the man in the street because a beautiful scorecard for the country may not translate to practical benefits for the him. Incidentally I just found out that while Singapore’s budget surplus is among the top few in the world, the spending on its people is ranked second last, just above Myanmar.

People like Eric J. Brooks may be responding out of their own discontentment with their own situation back in home and thus only saw the parts of Singapore that are better than Canada but neglected many other positive parts of the Canadian life that Singaporeans envy.

Toronto is one of the world’s most advanced cities and has been consistently rated as one of the most livable cities in the world. Many people in the world look upon it as their dream destination and migrate there in droves.

Be grateful, Canadian.

Peter Ng

~ * ~

To add on, when Eric Brook complains about the rubbish collectors’ strike, he should be glad that there is a real union out there looking after the welfare of the rubbish collectors even when I couldn’t say whether the strike was justifiable. In fact, Eric Brook should be glad if those rubbish collectors are his fellow Canadians and not foreigners. Face it, if wages of the rubbish collectors do not keep up with cost of living, then none of his fellow Canadians will take up those jobs and some of Eric Brook’s countrymen will be whining about too many foreign workers destroying his beautiful Canada.

As my old classmate Mun Chong said, Eric should keep abreast of current events before keeping forward to deliver a lecture not of his home turf – he should heed the proverb about going where angels fear to tread. We are indeed grateful to the old PAP so there is no need to ride the high horse all the way from Canada to Singapore. One should realize that the reasons behind the general unhappiness that has overwhelmed this contentment must be gigantic indeed!

So Eric Brooks, zip up. Or risk being called the thing we shoot at to zero our M-16s – the “Canadian Bull”. If anyone wonders why… that’s because my sergeant during my BMT called it the “kan ni na boo” (fxxk your mother).

New Smartphones:
Xinyun: Thoughts: Xperia go, tested.

Random Discourse – Sticker Lady

Leave a comment

When news broke that the police have arrested “Sticker Lady” and that she maybe charged under the Vandalism to Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance), my first reaction was outrage. The reason for that outrage was that the maximum sentence is 3 years. Even though she may not be given the maximum sentence, I would have considered a 6-month sentence excessive. After all, a scumbag like Mingyi was only sentenced to 8 months and served only 6 months in jail. It is not the amount of funds that was misappropriated that is the issue, but rather the fact that what he did (along with Durai in the NKF case) caused a collapse in confidence in all charity organisations. The end result is that the charities will find it harder to raise money to help those people in need. I personally find that way more heinous than what “Sticker Lady”did.

As far as I am concerned, those stickers are actually witty, funny and pretty harmless. At most I would consider it a minor nuisance much like those advertisements for tuition, locksmith and plumbing services, or someone’s lost dog etc found at lift lobbies, overhead bridges, bus stops and even on the bezel of my door bell button. To be frank, I find brochures from property agents that regularly gets ‘planted’ onto my steel gate a even greater nuisance. If the police took action against “Sticker Lady” because of these stickers, then I expect them to step up their enforcement efforts on the other examples I have mentioned above as well. That’s not forgetting the loan shark runners which are still at large.

That said, it doesn’t mean I am completely opposed to charging her for the offense. After all it is not just about the stickers. “Sticker Lady” has also painted on roads and that’s whole a different level entirely. If we were to let her go unscathed, it may give loan shark runners ideas or even encourage copycat vandals to do the same in other parts of Singapore. We should not forget the amount of effort required to clean up her handiwork as well. At Maxwell Road, part of road surface has been scraped off and it probably needs to be repaved in the near future. From the two photos, I noticed that this stretch of road may actually have been repaved not long ago since the side away from the Ministry of National Development is actually darker. In other words, public money will be wasted to clean up “Sticker Lady’s” little prank.

In short, she would have to face the charges and accept whatever the judge dish out even though I remain opposed to an excessive jail term. I personally don’t expect her to get a jail term any more than Oliver Fricker, the Swiss national who broke into the Changi Depot and spray an SMRT train with graffiti. But then again it might actually depend on whether the judge had a good breakfast that day.

Even so, I wouldn’t sign any of the petitions though I believe it is necessary to review the penalties for such offenses. The reason being that it isn’t just this particular law that needs to be reviewed. In my opinion, the penalties for a lot of “white collar” or “brain crimes” are too mild. There is certainly a disparity between those and “blue collar crimes” which often involve physical violence. Mingyi’s case was just one example, and i shuddered when I compared his 8 months jail term to the maid who was sentenced to 3 years in jail for having sex with an underage boy.

In other words, if a person commit fraud and that fraud resulted in the suicide of another person, he is only charged for fraud and a judge may be lenient on him if it is his first offense or simply because he could afford a good lawyer to defend him. While I am not suggesting that the fraudster be charged for murder, I would have expected a stiffer punishment for what he did. Basically, it is not all about the money he has defrauded but also the “collateral damage” that is done. In which case, the same goes for “Sticker Lady”.

Related Articles:
Toadjuice: Sticker Vandal ought to be treated like what she is, a vandal.

1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 186