Wednesday, April 29, 2009

chatting in the secret chamber of FACEBOOK

seems that JJ's mix-up with SDP then made a left turn into RP was one of the causal factors that got his long lost father ng ah teck into trouble and ousted from RP CLAN which was like a "phoenix" club co-founded by ah teck and the late grandmaster JBJ.

ken must be well-informed about the notoriety of SDP and JJ. the following was an in chamber chat. a surprise revelation: lamui was involved too!! look like she was trying her F&D on ken. if she succeeded, stage 2 of the SDP's conspiracy could ignite more plots to come. stay tuned!

Ng is attending Monthly Pow Wow Gathering for FS. · Comment · LikeUnlike · Show Feedback (10)Hide Feedback (10)You like this.
Kenneth Jeyaretnam at 1:03pm April 17
Hi Teck Siong what is this POW Wow. I may have some problems w my gmail lately. I didn't get any notice that we the council shoudl attend? Pls let me know if you have aview on this?Kenneth Jeyaretnam at 1:04pm April 17
TECK SIONG. Hi, saw thsi posting. Is something happening tonite that we in RP should know about?

Hi there all in Friends Of SDP...
Hope to see all of you down at the meeting..
Its been the usual guys and gals that turn up..... Read More
Hope to see all friends and bring along your friends..

You will definitely miss out on something important if you miss out on this meet-up..
No need to ask me why or what... :)
You will know when you are there...

See you all this Friday...Kenneth Jeyaretnam at 1:06pm April 17
P.S. Don't be shy! Let us know why you are a memeber of friends of SDP. I presume that this is an expression of denmocracy. Still lsome public may be confused so share your thoughts please.Kenneth Jeyaretnam at 1:08pm April 17
P.S I notice that Ng E-Jay says he is not attending but he set up and spearheaded the friends of SDP page. So good of you to support them when he doesn't.Jaslyn Go at 1:24pm April 19
Hi Kenneth..

Chance upon your wall post when I stop by TS FB to wish him Happy Birthday..

Allowed me to correct you please..... Read More

E-Jay did not set up or spearhead the FS of SDP. It was me all along.

E-Jay is still a member of FS, same goes for TS..

As you yourself mentioned in the RP group, that there are other members of the opposition joining RP group, so what is wrong with having E-Jay and Teck Siong joining in FS group?

Pow Wow is a once a month informal get together that FS arrange, anyone can come irregardless of which ever party they belong to.Anna Ismail at 1:29pm April 19
I think there is no problem of being who's friend to whom...

To me it is no problem for politicians :)

Cheers.Kenneth Jeyaretnam at 6:52pm April 19
Hi ts hAPPY BIRTHDAYKenneth Jeyaretnam at 6:54pm April 19
Hi Jaslyn- you seem to have misread my comments . I'll clarify on the RP FB page. This is TS's pageNg E-Jay at 1:59am April 21
Hi Kenneth,

I did not spearhead the Friends of SDP page. The credit should go to Jaslyn Go, Vincent Liaw and a couple of others. I don't know how to set up my own group yet! -- but will get down to it someday (I hope!)

E-JayKenneth Jeyaretnam at 2:15am April 22
But you were one of the earlier members right?

Tuesday, April 28, 2009


hypocrisy of JJ


from what was happening in RP CLAN now, it seem that JJ had also done an "AWARE" drama. he had ousted his longlost aiya father, ng ah teck. and now for some very happening wayang from the leading dragqueen himself singing his opera blues.

How come Ng E-jay writting style and wayan party author sama sama??


Written by Ng E-Jay
29 April 2009

Dear Ms Josie Lau,

In your letter to AWARE members dated 28 April 2009, you wrote of your wish to “honour and celebrate the achievements of first generation Singapore women and to emulate their spirit of perseverance and to learn from their experience and vision”. You also put forward your rhetoric that “AWARE belongs to you”.

Yet all your actions thus far have been in contradiction to your supposed ideals. You used stealth and subversion to invade AWARE, you got your supporters to vote your team into office despite not having made any contribution towards women in Singapore, you unceremoniously displaced the Old Guard, and you spread vicious lies about AWARE’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) programme. Your contradictions have been exposed one after another, yet you persist on your sordid path, pretending to bury your head in the sand.

You tell readers that you wish to honour those who had served before you. Yet you sacked Braema Mathi in the rudest way possible and removed the subcommittee chairs the moment you took office. You say that AWARE belongs to all, yet on the other hand you attempt to impose your own values and beliefs upon others, and ostracized the Old Guard at your press meetings. If this is your definition of inclusiveness, you are making a mockery of the English language.

You claimed in your letter that you want to make a positive difference and help women in distress. Yet your abrupt and disruptive actions over the past few weeks have caused many genuine seekers of help to be neglected, due to the organization being caught up in the conflict that you have engendered.

You claimed that you are seeking to serve other women in Singapore, but all I can see is that you are serving your own bigoted cause. Your resume posted on AWARE’s website lists an impressive array of corporate credentials, but unfortunately it also reveals that you have never been involved in feminism or helping women. In the absence of any track record of feminist work, we have to judge you based on your words and deeds over the past few weeks. Your behaviour speaks for itself.

It is interesting you spent two full paragraphs of your letter discussing CEDAW, but mentioned nothing about the CSE programme that you and your motley crew have raved and ranted about. Perhaps you finally came to your senses when even the Ministry of Education had to step in to rebut your lies concerning CSE. Or perhaps after having laid your hands on the data and research that AWARE has painstakingly accumulated over the past decade, you are now ready to take over the work which rightfully belongs to others.

You said in your letter that “we should not be passive where we can band together to work for positive change”. On May 2, I am quietly confident that concerned members of AWARE will band together to reclaim the organization and the values that they cherish.

To use your own words, that is something worth protecting and fighting for.

Yours truly,

Ng E-Jay

the main problem facing the county of the bitches was centred on HOMOSEXUALITY - probably lesbianism which was grossly misrepresented by the recent takeover by another group of xtian hooleey bitches led by JOSIE and her wild pussycats on heat.

JJ was revealed as the mysterious geylang cheongster from his episodes of bonkings and cummings rampage through all the geylang lorongs.

in the cyberforum world, JJ had shapeshifted into unlimited clones which he deployed to attack and ostracise gays. as his first display of prowess after his access into RP CLAN, he pretended to fight for gay rights and took on the new bitchqueen JOSIE from the all-sheman county of AWARE.

so as we continue to listen, watch and be mesmerised by dragqueen fa-tan JJ singing his opera blues and wayanging away with his flowing water sleeves, a solemn cloud of hypocrisy began to set in and overwhelm the entire martial arts world of politics.

hi, i m benny

singapore is a warped world which unabashfully dare declares itself "FIRST WORLD" country.

homosexuals especially the men are frowned upon and ostracised and even victimised. terminal diseases such as cancer which could be caused from habitual bad lifestyle living like drinking, smoking, unhealthy eating pattern etc could be conveniently accepted.

lesbianism is also growing here except that lesbians are more easily tolerated. what about the bisexuals? those who have wives and then hunt for other gay men for sexual pleasures? when the wife gets infected unwittingly and ignorant about the husband's altered-life, does she as an innocent victim get ostracised too? what about unborn infected children?

it boils down to a simple virtue that most singaporeans may not have. it's called GRACIOUSNESS, MAGNAMINITY AND ACCEPTANCE of your fellow man - straight, gay or bi.

if religion plays a part in our lives, then obviously most of the believers have failed miserably in their practices of LOVE, COMPASSION and FORGIVENESS. in another word, most are just unexposed hypocrites behaving like holier than thou fashion.

if AIDS could be a test from God to check on HUMANITY, then many do not qualify as human beings. why? it proves that the healthy and strong shunning the weak and sick which is a natural feature in the animal world where the strong feast on the weak and sick.

if one's perception of aids victim is only prejudices, ask yourself this: are u any different from the animal kingdom who feasts on the weak?

HI, I M BENNY is very real not only in singapore. it's everywhere in the world. AIDS is not really that scary. it's the human mind that turns it into a nightmare for the aids sufferers.

when shall humans finally realise their precious lost god-given compassion? maybe until one day, he faces the same predicament, then he realises vividly the wrongs he has done to his aids stricken brothers or sisters.

remember this: nobody can choose his/her own sexuality. given a choice, everyone would want to live a normal typical life. again, nobody is given that rights to ostracise another. we all flow the same colored blood. we are one way or another, brothers and sisters. we are the same in the eyes of GOD.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

beware about AWARE?

From: FreshBread 10:17 am


Pirates ahoy! Gay netizens and the AWARE hijacking

When lesbian and gay bloggers cried foul over the takeover of the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) at the end of March 2009 because some of the new leaders were known anti-gay campaigners, other netizens wondered why the gay community was so invested in AWARE. A few even wondered: Had AWARE under the old guard "lost its focus" and become a campaigner for "gay rights"? Was that why gay people were so upset that the supposedly women's organisation had been snatched away from them?

Each time I saw those comments, I chuckled. The truth is quite the opposite.

Just last year, Constance Singam, then President of AWARE, gave a talk about feminism to a full house of lesbian and bisexual women. It must have been one of the most difficult audiences she ever faced. The women machine-gunned her with questions expressing their grievances -– that in over twenty years of its existence, AWARE had paid virtually no attention to lesbian and bisexual women's issues; that AWARE had never spoken up for them.

Singam explained the various factors that might have figured in that history, not least among which was the "off-the-record" warnings from the authorities (Registrar of Societies?) to AWARE not to support gay equality. Despite her best efforts, I had the sense, watching from the back row, that the audience was largely unconvinced.

That said, a distinction should be made between AWARE's track record and the values held by many of AWARE's old guard -– Constance Singam, Dana Lam, Braema Mathi, Lena Lim, Tan Joo Hymn, and others. As so eloquently put by Singam to the media recently, "Our values are based on the fundamental rights and responsibilities of women as women. These include being treated as informed individuals capable of choice, being deserving of opportunities equal to those of men in education, marriage and employment; and being able to control their own bodies, particularly with regard to sexual and reproductive health." [1]

Braema Mathi told Channel NewsAsia: "AWARE is simply an organisation that will always, I hope, stand up for any form of anti-discrimination - whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, transgender, transvestite, divorced or a single mum." [2]

In 2007, AWARE broke its silence on a gay issue, to my knowledge for the first time, when it said it supported the repeal of Section 377A of the Penal Code. This was when the government was proposing to revise the Penal Code, yet retaining Section 377A which made male-male sex an offence. Although the law referred only to men, I believe AWARE's view was that the state's perpetuation of stigma and prejudice against gay men indirectly impacted gay women. This, in addition to their stance that any discrimination, against anyone, is wrong in itself.

I doubt very much, however, if many gay men or women even knew that AWARE had taken this stand over Section 377A, certainly fewer than those who knew that the Law Society also called for the repeal of 377A.

Thus, to imagine that the gay community saw old AWARE as a gay-rights campaigner would be far off the mark.

* * * * *

So why is the gay community interested in what happened at AWARE's last Annual General Meeting (AGM)? Because the new guard who captured the executive committee are even worse.

If I have to use an analogy, it'll be like this: Old AWARE and the various LGBT groups were like ships sailing on the high seas. The LGBT ships were sailing towards one destination; AWARE was sailing towards its own destination. Then suddenly we see pirates seizing the AWARE ship, pirates whom we suspect would be gunning for us next, given their track record (anti-gay letters to the press). Wouldn't raising the alarm be the natural thing to do?

* * * * *

Inevitably, some readers will think that the pirate analogy is overblown. Here again, they may say, the militant gays are suffering from a persecution complex imagining threats where none exist. Give the benefit of the doubt to new AWARE. What's wrong with Christians being part of civil society, etc, etc...

Frankly, I have nothing against Christianity per se. For heaven's sake, there's even a gay-affirmative Christian church here in Singapore, and Reverend Yap Kim Hao, the former head of the Methodist Church, has been outspoken in his support for gay equality. What I am disgusted with is unchristian behaviour by those who claim to be Christian: the promotion of prejudice and discrimination and the use of stealth, just like pirates.

I also stand firm, like the great majority of Singaporeans, against any attempt to mix religion with politics, which agenda partly explains why the new guard at AWARE have to resort to stealth.

* * * * *

It begins with the new guard's claim that their religion is irrelevant to why they mounted a coup at AWARE, now further embellished by a suggestion that they were not even a group acting in concert.

From the beginning it was belied by the fact that the new guard leaders and their supporters joined within the same three-month period. They had not been active in AWARE before. If ever they had spoken up publicly, it was not on women's issues. It was -– always -– on homosexuality, where the same anti-gay stance, informed by fundamentalist Christianity, was preached.

The blog alicecheong pointed out that:

There is a lot of press coverage from Straits Times [3] today. The most interest of all, is that

"it appears that some of the newcomers in its leadership are familiar faces at the Anglican Church of Our Saviour at Margaret Drive."

Based on the Straits TImes article, that means, the following are all attending Anglican Church of Our Saviour.

1. Josie Lau (President) and husband Alan Chin
2. Charlotte Wong (Vice-president)
3. Irene Yee (Committee member)
4. Jenica Chua (Honorary secretary)
5. Maureen Ong (Honorary treasurer)
6. Sally Ang (Assistant honorary secretary)

That is 6 posts out of the 11 posts ... where all the 5 decision posts - President, Vice-president, Honorary secretary, Honorary treasurer and Assistant honorary secretary are taken by the same clique.

Now, the Church of our Saviour (COOS) is not a particularly large church. Its notoriety exceeds its size because it is the home of Choices –- the ministry that promotes the shibboleth that homosexuals can change to become heterosexuals, an idea long debunked by professional psychologists. The leader of the rabidly anti-gay Focus on the Family is also a member of COOS.

18 April 2009
Straits Times

Some attend the same church

Even as the Aware saga continues to unfold, it appears that some of the newcomers in its leadership are familiar faces at the Anglican Church Of Our Saviour at Margaret Drive.

Aside from new Aware president Josie Lau and her husband Alan Chin, the others are believed to be Ms Charlotte Wong, Ms Irene Yee, Ms Jenica Chua, Ms Maureen Ong and Ms Sally Ang.

So far, the new Aware leaders have refused to answer questions about whether they knew each other before sweeping the elections three weeks ago.

According to a long-time friend, Dr Chin is related to former law dean Dr Thio Su Mien and her daughter, Nominated Member of Parliament Professor Thio Li-Ann.

When contacted, the NMP declined to answer any questions. Dr Chin did not respond to questions e-mailed to him.

But checks yesterday showed that Dr Thio Su Mien and her husband, Mr Thio Gim Hock, the chief executive officer of property investor Overseas Union Enterprise, attend the church and also hold regular faith-healing sessions at their home.

Senior pastor Derek Hong was not answering any questions about his church members or Aware yesterday.

Asked if any of the new Aware exco members attended his church, he replied: 'No comment.'

Housed in a renovated former cinema near Commonwealth, the church has a congregation of about 4,000.

It takes a strong stand against homosexuality and states so on its website.

'Homosexual practice is contrary to God's Word. So we stand against that and the active and aggressive promotion of such behaviour,' it states.

It believes homosexuals can change, and has a programme to counsel and help those who want to give up 'homosexual thoughts, tendencies and practices'.

In her first interview with Channel NewsAsia, Talking Point, 18 April 2009, Josie Lau came very close to denying that she even knew Maureen Ong, the treasurer, prior to being elected into the executive committee (exco) of AWARE.

P N Balji, the interviewer: Can I ask a question? This was not a well-organised, well-thought-through constitutional coup?

Maureen Ong: No, not that I know of.

Josie Lau, referring to Maureen: I didn't know her until I was...

Laughter, for no apparent reason, led her not to complete her sentence.

Yet, as comment #49 appended to the Youtube clippings of the interview on The Online Citizen pointed out:

49) concerned on April 20th, 2009 6.54 pm

The Church Of Our Saviour is a small Anglican community church and does not have sizeable membership numbers compared to the mega churches. The claim made that these women did not know each other before ending up in AWARE’s exco beggars belief.

A person trained in the actuarial sciences should calculate the remote odds for the outcome of 6 attendees of a neighbourhood church running for office for 11 postions in a secular national women’s group by sheer coincidence without any prior communication amongst themselves.

Why is it so difficult to come clean about a pre-planned effort to take leadership roles in AWARE ? The need to deny gives greater credence to some undisclosed agenda that the persons involved are not prepared to be forthcoming about.

Furthermore, in another part of the interview, Josie Lau spoke of a "we" in terms highly suggestive of a cabal with a pre-defined agenda "coming in" to pursue their aims. Referring to the values of the old guard versus the new guard, she said:

Josie Lau: ... at the broad level it's still the same but we are coming in with new ideas. we had earlier said we are pro-family, pro-women, pro-Singapore.

And what a slip it was. "Pro-family" is Christian fundie-speak for anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality.

And there's more. At the AGM, Claire Nazar, who had been an AWARE member "for only a little over a year herself" [4] was the one who nominated Josie Lau for the exco. But Nazar soon became horrified at what she called the new guard's "Stormtrooper tactics" and quit within 11 days. [5]

Reliable sources told me that at the meeting when she quit, the new guard accused her of not doing what she had promised to do. Over what, I'm not sure, but it may have to do with the mass sackings of all subcommittee chairs, something which Nazar later told the Straits Times she opposed. According to my sources, Josie Lau said to Nazar, "But you said you would support me."

Does that expectation not suggest a prior conspiracy?

* * * * *

Many other parts of the interview also reeked of evasion and contradiction.

For example, during the interview, after Maureen Ong explained that according to the society's constitution, a vacant presidency had to be filled from among the non-office-bearing exco members,

Maureen Ong: ...we had six elected ordinary committee members... we went around the table on the night of 15 April and she [Josie Lau] was the last "man" standing....

Josie Lau: That evening.... I was the last woman standing, and I felt that I had to pick up the baton to run and continue to lead this organisation...

You can see Youtube recordings of this interview on:

The Online Citizen - Parts 1 and 2

WayangParty - Parts 1 and 2.

One would get the impression that Josie Lau reluctantly became president by default. Yet her employer, DBS Bank had earlier said in a public statement that prior to the exco meeting of 15 April 2009,

... Josie broached the subject of her intent to run for President of AWARE. We reviewed her request and subsequently informed her that while the Bank continues to support her involvement in AWARE, we could not support her intent to run for President,

-- DBS Bank, 17 April 2009.

Here's another contradiction: On TV, Josie Lau said,

Josie Lau: My priority right now is to reconcile the team which clearly has fissured.

Now, here's something the public does not yet know: The television station's original plan was for a member each of the old guard and the new guard to be in the interview. Josie Lau objected vehemently and insisted they would not share the interview room and program with anyone from the old guard. So much for reconciliation.

There's also the extremely curt email (so much for reconciliation, again) they sent to Braema Mathi telling her she's been relieved of her position as chair of the subcommittee preparing AWARE's report to be submitted to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). Without even a customary word of thanks, the email said:

Kindly note that your term of office as chairman of the CEDAW Committee has ceased at the date of the AGM on the 28 March 2009.

Kindly submit all the work in progess by Friday 17 April 2009 without fail.

Sally Ang

I'm not even certain that the reason set out there -- that Braema's appointment ceased automatically with the AGM -- is fully accurate. The Sunday Times, reporting what Claire Nazar said to them [6], reported that a vote had to be taken:

[Claire Nazar] was also troubled by how at the first exco meeting -- a 3 1/2-hour session -- about a week after the AGM on March 28, the committee replaced almost all the appointed chairpersons of sub-committees based only on a majority vote.

That broke with Aware's tradition of allowing chairpersons who were doing a good job to continue their work.

* * * * *

As a final note, I will draw attention to the hypothetical scenario put by P N Balji to Josie Lau touching on sexual orientation.

P N Balji: As one possible example, if Aware finds that a member, a women in Singapore, has been discriminated against in her company because of her sexuality, what will be your stand on that?

Six seconds would pass as Josie Lau looked uncomfortable while gathering her thoughts, before she replied,

Josie Lau: Aware is a secular organisation. We're not there to push our personal beliefs or personal religious affiliations. We are all an inclusive... we don't discriminate people of any race, religion, or, you know, whether you're a man or woman coming in.

So far, all motherhood statements, though you'd notice that she hasn't come around to sexual orientation yet.

Josie Lau continuing: Now, talking about sexual discrimination, it is going to be a very controversial topic. and the new exco will have to take a look at this and see what is the direction we want to take. We haven't even had a chance to discuss individual ideas yet. Just give us a chance....

Firstly, it's an utterly incompetent reply. For three weeks, accusations of the new guard being a homophobic bunch hijacking AWARE to push their agenda have been circulating. Yet, they don't even have a spin-ready answer to this? I'm not expecting them to give us an answer we agree with; I'm saying that at the very least, they should have got their spin ready. Being tongue-tied for six seconds, almost shocked that Balji would ask such a question, is about the worst impression they can give of themselves.

Secondly, unlike how easy it was for her to mention equality on the grounds of race, religion and male/female gender, she was stunningly incapable of saying the same of sexual orientation, describing it only as a "controversial topic". Please. Gay equality is only problematic if you don't believe in non-discrimination and equality. If you did, it would roll off your tongue as easily as race, religion, etc.

That she tripped over this told us everything we needed to know about the direction of AWARE under the new leadership.

story of the flower monk

the story of our famed flower monk can now be read at

Sunday, April 19, 2009

to tell or not to tell.....that is the confusion

the storyteller is very confused now after reading this posting....
#20 Today, 01:14 AM
Alfrescian (S) Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 389
My Reputation:Points: 40 / Power: 11

Re: Is Ming yi a Guy?



答:你最好把這件事忘記,就是無量功德,會得清淨心。若放在心裡,你想一次他犯戒,就是自己犯 一次戒;想他 造一次業,就是自己造一次業。他在身口上造業,你在意地上造業。惠能大師言:「若真修道人,不 見世間過。」 如果能做到這一句,這一生道業會成就;常將別人的過失放在心上,就毀了自己的前途,來生決定墮 三惡道。你心 不清淨,沒有什麼掩飾不掩飾,這是自己嚴重的過失。

so whether to tell or not to tell, let him clear up his confusion first

JJ is interested in the flower monk


Re: Defrock the monk


Originally Posted by NgEjay
Hi Dogtracker,

3whitetiger = Leetahbar?

Explains everything I guess.

His large red fonts almost made me think he was Clinton8888/Jefferson888 of the old sammyboy forum, but I guess even Clinton888 was a credible forummer compared to him.



hahaha! the guilty will always be conscious about his shadowy deeds.

now tell us what about the correct behaviour of a "NUS SCHOLAR" should be? walk about naked in holland V or regularly cheonging geylang? or get himself wank by transvestite camp-mate?

i think the best is to get exploited by more FLIRTS & DESTROYS. please continue to write more prejudices when FLIRTED to do so so that everyone would side her bangalas instead of local sgporean workers.

Flower monk of shafthim temple


there was upheavaling from the once famous SHAFTHIM TEMPLE where the abbot RUAN CHAK once famed for charitable daredevil stunts had now fallen from grace.

more insider stories about this famous-turned-notorious flower monk RUAN CHAK of SHAFTHIM TEMPLE coming soon

an enlightening chat

#20 Today, 01:14 AM
Alfrescian (S) Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 389
My Reputation:Points: 40 / Power: 11

Re: Is Ming yi a Guy?



答:你最好把這件事忘記,就是無量功德,會得清淨心。若放在心裡,你想一次他犯戒,就是自己犯一次戒;想他 造一次業,就是自己造一次業。他在身口上造業,你在意地上造業。惠能大師言:「若真修道人,不見世間過。」 如果能做到這一句,這一生道業會成就;常將別人的過失放在心上,就毀了自己的前途,來生決定墮三惡道。你心 不清淨,沒有什麼掩飾不掩飾,這是自己嚴重的過失。

Saturday, April 18, 2009


Who is Raymond Yeung?

Man linked to Ming Yi's court case over a $50,000 loan is given to extravagant tastes
By Carolyn Quek

Raymond Yeung got a job despite not having a work pass, a major loan and even a supplementary credit card, thanks to the generosity of his friend and former employer Ming Yi.

When Raymond Yeung, 33, was released after a police interview on March 26 last year, it was Ming Yi who met him and took him back to Cornwall Gardens, where the Buddhist monk has an apartment.
Yeung was crying, Ming Yi said. He wanted to apologise for the mess surrounding a $50,000 loan, now the subject of a court case.
That night, Ming Yi stayed in the apartment off Holland Road. A few art pieces hung on its walls, pieces that both men had bought together from a Raffles City shop.
It is not known how Ming Yi got to know Yeung, an Australian citizen who last lived in Hong Kong.
Yeung spent his primary and secondary school years in Macau, then went to Melbourne for a year of high school before taking up a year-long course in hotel operations there.
He returned to Hong Kong, where he worked as a front-desk officer at a hotel and a flight steward. He moved to Singapore in 2001 to become personal executive to Ming Yi, then Ren Ci Hospital's chief executive officer.
It has since emerged, from court testimony, that Yeung did not initially have an employment pass to work here. His applications for the pass had been turned down several times.
He eventually obtained a pass in November 2004 and was granted permanent residency in 2006.

a modern monk & BUDDHISM

A modern-day monk

In the run-up to his trial, former Ren Ci chief Ming Yi was interviewed by auditors and the police. The Sunday Times looks at the documents tendered in court to piece together this insight into his lifestyle.
By Ben Nadarajan

He had so many credit cards, he could not keep track of them. He gave supplementary cards to three men but could not remember how many each had.
What is known is that Ming Yi, 47, former chief executive of the Ren Ci Hospital, had at least nine gold credit cards to his name from different banks, and that the three people who had the supplementary cards included two of his former personal aides.
Didn't keep track of what he was owed
'I don't say 'Oh, I will come to you, after debts'. After all, it's not the hospital's money, it's not the monastery's money. It's my money, so I will just take it, OK, you pay me back and that's it.'
MING YI, on whether the three men he gave supplementary credit cards to had paid him back

No total self-sacrifice
'I still help people, but at the same time, I suppose, at times I still have to look after myself a bit.'
MING YI, when asked about the importance of putting money to good use

Raymond Yeung, 34, 'had quite a few of my supplementary credit cards', Ming Yi told police, adding that some had been returned.
Mr Kendrick Pang, 27, used to hold two but had returned one.
The third man who held supplementary cards is a Buddhist monk, Mr Koh Boon Seng. Ming Yi said he believed Mr Koh had his cards from United Overseas Bank and Diners Club.
The transcript gave no information of Mr Koh's relationship with the monk except that he is based in Hong Kong.
Information about Ming Yi's credit cards surfaced in interviews with auditors from Ernst & Young conducted with the monk on Dec 18, 2007. They had been hired by the Health Ministry to conduct a probe into the medical charity's financial affairs.
The following year, on March 27, he was interviewed by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) as part of its investigations into a possible criminal breach of trust.
The last 20 pages of the auditor's 120-page report reveal details of how the man had managed his personal finances.
He was quizzed about his 'quite substantial expenditures', especially on brand-name goods from labels such as Montblanc and Louis Vuitton. His choice of hotels included top-end names such as St Regis, The Regent, Four Seasons and Banyan Tree.
Ming Yi's explanation for his lifestyle was: 'I think we are living in a modern world.'
When asked what he meant by that, he replied: 'The modern world. I think the world is different, right? The world has changed. It's different.'
He added: 'A lot of religious people, not only myself, are very different now.'
He referred to the perception some people have that Buddhist monks should be garbed in torn clothes, remain in the temple and not 'go anywhere'.

'But as I said, it's a modern world now.'

=> Then why not wear a western suit?

He said that some of his spending was personal but he also bought things for friends, who would reimburse him.
Justifying his preference for brand-name goods, Ming Yi said: 'You may say some of these things really last for a long time.'

=> But why need to buy so many?

In any case, there were others who 'travel on first class all the time', he said, and added: 'Well, I don't do that.'
He was quick to make clear to the auditors that his personal expenses were not paid for from Ren Ci's coffers or from his Foo Hai Ch'an monastery's funds.
Instead, he used money from red packets given to him personally by devotees, although he did not keep a log of the cash he was given.
'I think whatever hongbao or whatever you do (with money from) devotees, people do not care, right? I don't think they really care in that sense.'
Ming Yi said he spent within his limits. 'I always don't look upon money as important... what I can, I spend and that's it; what I don't have, I don't spend.'

=> Then why jerk tears to raise millions on state TV?

But one of the auditors pointed out that Ming Yi had problems repaying his credit card bills between 2000 and 2002, and asked how he had managed to repay his debt to the banks.
Ming Yi again insisted that he did not take any money from Ren Ci or the monastery. Instead, the money came from saving up the red packets from devotees.
In the CAD interview, he said he also cleared his debts with the money paid to him by the supplementary card holders and reimbursements from overseas hosts for hotel expenses.
He also depended on money from his family members and a couple in Malaysia who had been instructed by an old monk (MM or SM?) to take care of him.
When asked to explain why he needed so many credit cards, he blamed it on his youth. 'If you asked me a few years ago, I'm young, just like anybody, right? I'm young... so sometimes you may not be thinking so carefully.'

He went on: 'That's why now, a lot of times, you will see that, oh, only things that I think are really... that I want, that I'll buy.'
He tried to downplay the number of cards he had by saying that he used them far less often now; he had thought of cancelling some just last year. He had stopped using most of them, and they were 'just there'.
He told the same thing to the police, and that he had terminated two cards from American Express and Citibank.
'Basically, I will be terminating more cards because nowadays, I do not have a personal executive to travel with me and my expenses are much less. Therefore, I would not need so many cards.'
He said he had given supplementary cards to Yeung and Pang because they were his travelling companions. 'Sometimes, it is easier for a lay person to go and pay the bills.'
Whatever a supplementary card holder spends is credited to the main account holder's bill.
Yeung and Pang would pay for hotel stays and food, he said, although they also used the cards for personal expenses.
He admitted that he did not set a limit on any of their spending and noted it only when the monthly bills arrived.

Nor did he query expensive purchases, saying: 'These are their personal purchases and since they are paying me back, I do not ask them.'
He maintained that the men repaid him either in Hong Kong dollars, by cheque or fund transfers into his bank accounts. But he was not clear about whether they repaid him in full or in instalments every month as he did not keep track of what he was owed.
'There is no arrangement, but somehow they would pay,' he told police.
Asked if he would 'chase' them for payments if huge amounts were racked up, incurring high interest rates, he replied: 'Like I said, I am not calculative. I would always think of how they had helped me in my job without complaints.'

Thursday, April 16, 2009

human life is cheaper than pussy

meow! what a pussy charmed life i m having!!

3 cans of FRISKIES cost $3.65. 2 bags of 5pkts ea MYOJO instant noodles cost $3.65,

a pussy eats $1.21 FRISKIES a meal while a human eats only 36c instant noodle each meal.

next life better a pussy than a human!

one pal of mine feeds his fat pussy FRISKIES. at the special offer price of 3 cans for $3.65, it lasts the most 3 days.

another retrenched pal feeds himself with instant noodles, at 2bags (total 10 pkts) offered price of $3.85, it can provide him with 10 meals.

compare 10 meals for a human to 3 meals to a pussy. 36c vs 1.21. pussy life is definitely better than a human.

has singapore deteriorated to such a state? this is our SWISS standard? perhaps it's SWISS for pussy. what irony!

if we are going to measure human life vs pussy with bread - yes, roti, then human fare even worst than pussy. cost of roti fr NTUC $1.10 cheapest version and suppose to last for about 5 days. and sorry, pussy doesn't eat bread. it will eat however if u plaster the bread lavishly with canned goose liver. now go check the price of a can of goose liver probably french foi gras.

Susan Boyle moves millions!

Susan Boyle moves millions!

she proves to the world NEVER TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER. watch this videoclip which got 11M+ hits in a short time!

Thursday, April 9, 2009

sgp pussy follows swedes dingdong

a sidetrack to an unique naked happening. what a surprise, the pussy was a grade A*star calibre and the dingdong, a phD category.!! woah wow wee!!

uniquely singapore!! u r charged for peeping at people naked and u r charged again for allowing yourself being peeped naked! it's a crime to look at naked bodies and it's also a crime if u allow your naked body to be looked at. very anal retentive!! infringement of human rights?? where are those jokers now??

A*STAR scholar, Swede charged with appearing nude in public
By Zul Othman, TODAY | Posted: 10 April 2009 0630 hrs

Photos 1 of 1

SINGAPORE: She is a PhD scholar with A*STAR, the Agency for Science, Technology and Research, who is studying at the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden, and he, a Swedish student on an exchange programme.

The young couple who caused a stir when they walked down Holland Village in the buff on January 24, were charged in court on Thursday with appearing nude in public.

Jan Philip, a 21-year-old Swede, and 24-year-old Eng Kai Er, a Singaporean, remained silent when they appeared before District Judge Shaiffudin Saruwan.

It is not known why it took so long before the duo was hauled before the judge. However, their long-awaited court date went by quickly after their lawyer, Mr William Chan, asked for an adjournment to write in to the Attorney-General's Chambers.

TODAY understands that by writing in, the lawyer would be appealing for the charges to be withdrawn and the accused be let off with a warning. The lawyer could also make an appeal to have the charges reduced.

If convicted under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, the couple could be fined up to $2,000 and/or jailed up to three months each.

Mr Philip was offered bail of $5,000 and had his passport impounded. Eng did not need to post bail as she is a Singaporean.

A National Science Scholar, Ms Eng is listed on the A*STAR website as pursuing a PhD in infection biology. The National Science Scholarship (PhD) prepares scholars for key leadership roles in Singapore's science and technology future.

When contacted, a spokesperson for A*STAR told TODAY the Agency is concerned that the woman charged in court for the offence is an A*STAR scholar. And she added: "However, as the matter is now before the courts, we would prefer not to make any further comment until the case is resolved."

In her teens, Ms Eng was a competitive ice skater who got to represent Singapore in Skate Asia, the largest ice-skating competition outside the United States. She was also a member of Mensa, an association whose members are defined by their high IQs.

Her father Mr Eng Weng Kiong told TODAY his daughter is a nice and lovely girl, and the family is standing by her.

During their 15-minute stroll down the popular hangout in January, the couple were said to have walked hand-in-hand and waved to patrons of the eateries along Lorong Mambong. They were also said to have stopped at a bar and chatted with its patrons.

Pictures of their jaunt were later posted on the Internet by a member of the public.The pair were arrested shortly after, but were released on bail. They will appear in court again on April 30. - TODAY

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

get holy, be rich and HOOLEEY!!

lai ya lai!! donate to me, i'll be your GOD OF FORTUNE. no donate, i'll be your DOG OF MISFORTUNE. dun pray pray, hor okie.

Pay issue over charity, religious heads: So what's new?
I REFER to the reports on March 30, "$500,000 pay for New Creation Church leader" and "Medical charities the best paymasters".

In the present bleak economic climate when belt-tightening is the general rule, these emoluments are likely to appear excessively high and stoke the politics of envy.

The letters, "Idealism v pragmatism" (April 1) and "Altruism comes first, not pay" (April 4), criticise the large take-home salaries of charity and religious heads as some amount of self-sacrifice in income is normally expected, at least in the area of religion.

I am afraid both writers, despite their good intentions, may have forgotten that, in Singapore, the culture that has evolved is that respect and/or prestige are in direct proportion to earnings and wealth.

In the mid-1990s, it became official policy that pay in the public sector should be comparable to that in the private sector to attract talent.

But the numerous cited examples of individuals who have in fact opted for social service work go a long way towards showing that there are indeed Singaporeans who are prepared to make meaningful sacrifices in their income.

The opinion that "it may be hard for them to continue to work in the charity sector despite their passion and enthusiasm if they are not paid well enough" merely reflects a more "money-minded" attitude.

The $500,000 paid to the New Creation Church chief has been defended on the grounds that "he is the key man responsible for bringing in about 95 per cent of the church's income".

This calls to mind the furore in the 1980s when it was brought to public notice that professional fund-raisers were being rewarded with up to 30 per cent for their efforts in collecting money for public charities.

The more pragmatic attitude of "quid pro quo" or more simply "what's in it for me?" had already then replaced any ideals of altruism.

More than 25 years on, it does not look as if much has changed.

Narayana Narayana

a case of warped mentality - goh kah heng, the botak

Management committee trusted monk to set what is 'fair' and knew little of his salary, says witness
By Carolyn Quek

Ming Yi, whose real name is Goh Kah Heng, faces 10 charges. The 47-year-old is accused of forgery, lying to the Commissioner of Charities (COC) and misappropriating $350,000, among other things. --ST PHOTO: ALBERT SIM
THE management committee of one of Singapore's largest charities did not know how much they were paying their chief executive.

They could have asked, admitted Ren Ci Hospital's committee member Chan Ching Oi, but they did not.

About the case
FORMER Ren Ci Hospital chief Ming Yi faces 10 charges in all but only four are the subject of this current trial.

Two are joint charges with his former personal assistant, Raymond Yeung, 34.
... more
Instead, they let its CEO and founder Ming Yi decide on what he deemed to be a 'fair' salary, Mrs Chan said on the witness stand on Tuesday, while testifying on the third day of a criminal trial against the Buddhist monk.

This revelation of how little Ren Ci's management knew of its CEO's salary came up after Deputy Public Prosecutor David Chew quizzed Mrs Chan, 70, about a sudden jump in Ming Yi's salary in 2001 - from $16,000 in May to $20,700 in June.

Mrs Chan, who has been Ren Ci's honorary secretary since it started in 1994, admitted she did not know how much Ming Yi's salary was and that the management did not pry into it.

When questioned later by Ming Yi's lawyer, Senior Counsel Andre Yeap, Mrs Chan said the committee trusted Ming Yi would give himself a reasonable salary, pegged to that of other hospital CEOs and also based on the scope of work undertaken by him for the hospital.

She agreed with Mr Yeap's point that Ming Yi sometimes donated part of his salary to the Foo Hai Ch'an monastery, where he was the abbot.

She also agreed that the committee could have asked how much Ming Yi was paid at any point in time. 'But we would not ask because we knew that he would not overcharge the hospital,' she said.

Mr Yeap also said Ming Yi had stopped drawing a salary from Ren Ci since sometime in 2005 until he was suspended from office in July last year, soon after he was arrested.

Mrs Chan also said that when Ren Ci was set up in 1994, its financial position 'was challenging' and it would not have been able to take off without a critical $310,000 loan Ming Yi gave to the hospital then. Eight years later, he made another $300,000 loan to the hospital. Mrs Chan also agreed to Mr Yeap's point that the loans were interest-free.

it's better to use his natural name than his monk(e)y name. the latter is only an insult to the revered role of a monk and a humiliation to BUDDHISM.

a monk does not need that much money. only an average greedy man does. an abbot lives in a temple. an average sgporean stays in HDB. but a teetukong flower monk dwells in not one but a few pte luxurious condos.

what is a monk? one who's devoted to BUDDHA and spread the goodwill of buddhism. material wealth, mundane human feelings for love, fame and power are all forsaken.

does goh kah heng ever do that? in the past, it appears as YES. now everything is laid out into the open, the answer is quite obvious.

warped mentality begets more warped mentalities from blind followers, believers, supports, fans and worshippers. just read about this posting fr pirate kopitiam:

From: tansooku 12:41 pm
To: fishball22 unread (11 of 13)

26150.11 in reply to 26150.9

In the Shi Ming Yi case in court yesterday it was reported that they trusted him and let him determine his own salary. And they have good reasons to do so. Ren Ci is so successful today because of one man, I mean monk.

Shi Ming Yi is so talented and has a lot of followers and is able to raise the profile of Ren Ci and the multi million dollar donations that it received over the years. So, shouldn't people be grateful to his great contribution and talent and let him continue to run the organisation the way he knows best?

BUDDHISM sells by itself. goh kah heng's presence as monk only exploits it for personal privileges.

wolf in sheep's skin can never be better represented here.

more insider info about g k h:

emptiness is form...form is emptiness

wow!! la mei kena bashed up !!

He bashes her, slams her head into steering wheel
Despite her injuries, victim returns again and again to abusive manager boyfriend
By Chong Shin Yen
April 07, 2009 Print Ready Email Article

SHE became her boyfriend's punching bag every time they had a tiff.
Click to see larger image

He would punch and slap her, and slam her head against the car's steering wheel.

Once, he even tried to tear off her dress and bra.

Yet, Janet (not her real name), 41, stuck by her abusive boyfriend, 38, for more than a year.

Sure, she made police reports when he got violent. But every single time, she ended up going back to him.

On 25 Mar, Janet's boyfriend, Ben (not his real name), finally got his punishment - he was sentenced to 15 months' jail for voluntarily causing hurt and outrage of modesty

We are not using their real names as there is a court order against publishing any information that would reveal Janet's identity.

If Janet's story sounds familiar, you may have read about another abusive relationship in The New Paper - the report was published on the same day that Ben was sentenced.

Two days earlier, Jason John Porteous, 36, a project manager, was jailed 25 months for attempted manslaughter. He had flung his wife, Mrs Pimchanok Porteous, 33, out of their fourth-storey bedroom window.

But Mrs Porteous has forgiven her husband and has pledged to stand by him.

Why are these battered women so willing to forgive their abusive partners?

According to court documents obtained by The New Paper, Janet's boyfriend, a sales manager, first started abusing her on 20 Oct 2007.

It is not known how long the couple had been together.

Around 7.30pm that day, they were at Changi Jetty when Ben punched her on the head, neck and back.

On 6 Feb last year, they were driving along Upper Thomson Road when Ben turned violent again.

He punched her on the face, grabbed her hair and knocked her head against the steering wheel. Janet fractured her nasal bone as a result.

On yet another occasion, on 10 Jul last year, they were driving along Waterloo Street when they got into an argument.

During the scuffle, Ben punched her on her face, elbowed her back and slammed her head against the steering wheel.

He beat her up so badly that blood spurted out of her left ear. Janet was treated at the hospital on the same day.

Worst attack

The most violent attack came on 21 Aug last year. The court heard that Ben was driving her to her office that morning and they started quarrelling.

They were still fighting when they reached their destination. Ben refused to let her alight and instead drove off.

He parked at an isolated place on Sime Road, near Adam Road, where they continued arguing.

Then he slapped Janet on the mouth, pulled her hair, slammed her head on the car seat repeatedly, and hit her back with his elbow.

He then tried to tear off her dress and bra. When he failed to do so, he lifted her dress and pulled down her panties, causing them to tear.

Janet went to Tan Tock Seng Hospital for treatment the next day.

She had bruises on her face and left ear. There were also cuts on her chest and upper back. She was given one day of medical leave.

Ben was arrested after a police report was made and was charged on 23 Aug. He was later released on bail on condition that he was not to approach or speak to Janet.

But the court heard that Ben continued to contact Janet while on bail.

On 1 Mar this year, he turned violent again.

He went to her house and they fought over the charges that he was facing.

During the argument, Ben grabbed Janet's handphone and threw it at her. It hit her on the collarbone.

Ben also punched her on the upper body and arms.

In his mitigation, Ben, who was not represented by a lawyer, said he suspected Janet was still in contact with her ex-boyfriend. That was why he had lost his temper.

He added that he was remorseful and pleaded for a light sentence.

Three other charges of voluntarily causing hurt and voluntarily causing grievous hurt were taken into consideration during sentencing.

For outrage of modesty, Ben could have been jailed two years and caned. For voluntarily causing hurt, he could have been jailed two years and fined $5,000.

It is not known if the couple is still together.

it's funny. how certain uncompatible couples could end up as bf-gf then later husb-wifey and then the domestic violence begins and ends in bitter divorces.

every story of a domestic family issue of unhappiness hides a more disturbing tale.