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.'
Saturday, April 18, 2009
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!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
she proves to the world NEVER TO JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER. watch this videoclip which got 11M+ hits in a short time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY
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
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: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/goh-kah-heng/
emptiness is form...form is emptiness
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: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/goh-kah-heng/
emptiness is form...form is emptiness
wow!! la mei kena bashed up !!
WHEN WOMEN RETURN TO MEN WHO TREAT THEM LIKE PUNCHING BAGS
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
ST FILE PICTURE
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.
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
ST FILE PICTURE
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
