• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Head of Ren Ci Hospital arrested

even an holy monk also cannot resist the temptation of cash $$$$$$$$$,let alone ordinary people like us.

i believe there will be more of those so called charities' people to bring to justice for misuse of those funds and CBT. :(
 
I just cannot understand why in the hell would some ppl still cannot stop to support him. Even his god almighty patron, our health minister also kept minimal comments on the whole episode. I just feel sorry for majority of us who are conned by all these so called leaders of charitable organisations. Moreover these organisations are patronised by someone in the govt.

Come on lah, I believed all patrons would be kept update of the organistions they support. Some more Mrs Goh claimed innocence over Durai and said that its peanuts.

What I cannot stand is pls dont make those needy stand in front of camera and glorify their leadership. If we believe in our draconian punitive law, then its time to set the record straight and dish the worst punishment for elites and their accomplices.
 
Some still don't get scale of public outrage


Mon, Jul 21, 2008
The Straits Times



IT IS appalling that recent comments from board members and representatives of Institutions of Public Character (IPCs) show they have not fully grasped the seriousness of public outrage and disappointment. IPCs should be thankful the Commissioner of Charities (COC) has instituted regulatory procedures to shore up public confidence to ensure continued public support. If a 'sledgehammer' is needed to 'swat a fly', so be it as we are dealing with hard-earned public funds. When a charity is 'presumed guilty' by the public while suspended under investigation, it only shows public trust in the COC to protect public funds.
CEOs and board members of charitable and religious organisations should be held equally responsible for the proper management of funds. They have a moral obligation to ensure that funds raised for a said purpose are used for that purpose and that alone. It is outrageous to witness misappropriation of public funds by a CEO, despite the presence of board members.

Board members of IPCs are not there to scratch one another's back. Their position calls for active participation as overseer of overall operations, and, with the CEO, they must be given the responsibility to account for every cent donated by the public. The public has a right to expect such accountability as its absence defeats the purpose of the board's appointment in the first place. The COC should investigate thoroughly the reasons for the Ren Ci board members' apparent failure to curb the alleged misappropriation of public funds that began a decade ago.

The public expects full transparency from all IPCs. This should include, among other disclosures, the salaries of CEOs, business interests (if any) of board members with IPCs, organisations that are subsidiaries or related to the IPC in any way. IPCs should be made to declare existing funds in bank accounts before they raise more funds from the public.

Lastly, remind board members of IPCs that funds raised for IPCs are to help the needy and underprivileged. They are not to generate more funds via investments in any form (other than fixed deposits) as investments carry risk and are not the original intended purpose. The best people to 'watch the watchers' are the charitable and religious organisations themselves - tighten financial controls, build in operational checks and balances, and ensure full transparency - to keep the 'watchers' at bay or in check.

Yuen Kwong Chow


Yes it is really time to hang these ppl by their ball for arm kaming public hard earned fund. :mad:
 
acer.. err....u mean.....

the bird says dnat is actually a bird? or
dnat says he is actually a bird? or
the guy says dnat is a bird? or
the bird says dnat is a bird? or
the bird and the guy says dnat is a bird? or
the bird and dnat says dnat is a bird? or
the guy says he is dnat the bird? or
the bird says he is dnat the bird? or
or dnat says he is the guy's bird?

which one lay???? why so confusing one:confused:???:D:D

the bird told me that guy was actually Dnat :eek:
 
the bird told me that guy was actually Dnat you know:eek:

Huh?? Which bird?? And the guy who was NatNat... Which one?? The young young handsome one or the old old no hair one? :confused::D
 
I just cannot understand why in the hell would some ppl still cannot stop to support him......

This is because the people are of blind faith and has already ignored the teaching of Buddha. They become the followers of the monk rather than the followers of the religion. Here they will consider monk = the religion, everyone will do what the monk says.

The fact that pissed me off most is that they are trying to be in denial that there is wrong doing in the whole matter. "Yes, he did break the law but out of good intention". This is bullshit and only tells that he is not taking responsibility of the matter at all. When you break the law, you break the law no matter what reason you gives. Should one not be prosecuted for murder if he did this in good intention?

The attitude is exactly the same when the whole incident started, " I won't be too worried about the issue" was the comment given by Ming Yi when they were first investigated. If he is really that good a Buddhist practitioner, I am not seeing any.

Probably he has forgotten that he is a monk and where ever he goes, he represents the Buddhist society, it is not only the Buddhists who look up to him as an example, he is also judged by non-buddhist. What he does reflects the image of Buddhist in the society.

You may argue with me that Buddhists do not care about image as they tends to emptiness, now empty this, you are not here to practise Buddhism to liberate yourself, but also to influence others to follow the same path. That is the insttruction given by Buddha. How are you going to do that when you show people how suck the Buddhists' attitude is to the society?

I think the most important thing is for the Buddhists to wake up and smell the coffee. If you want to argue about selflessness, dick this, it is not what you think, it is what others think that matters.
 
ms u mean dnat is nat nat?? or
dnat is the ugly bird? or
the ugly bird is dnat? or
the handsome bird is not dnat? or
the handsome bird is actually ugly dnat? or
the young bird is dnat? or
the old bird is dnat? or
the old and ugly bird is dnat?

wowlau.. what the fish...why u make me so confuse??????:mad::D just tell me whether dnat is a bird can already what....wowlau..

btw very long also never see RC here liao.. maybe must chak him then he will appear..:D

Huh?? Which bird?? And the guy who was NatNat... Which one?? The young young handsome one or the old old no hair one? :confused
 
Back
Top