David on Sat, 21st Nov 2009 8:06 pm 

A crime is a crime. If LKY one day found to have fraud to our country reserves, will he be spared punishments? We do not want to have laws that spare criminal of all his crimes even of his past work. Many Singaporeans worked hard for this country and we were called LESSER MORTAL and we do not wish to see “Higher Mortal” escape punishment for doiing something wrong to the people.

disappointed on Sat, 21st Nov 2009 8:51 pm 

I simply cannot believe this. Are these 9000 people living on the same planet as the rest of us, or perhaps they have not been following the scandalous disclosures revealed during the trial? However let us be absolutely clear about one thing, Goh is not being sent to prison because of his life style. He is being sent to prison because he is a criminal. The life style merely serves as an indicator of the man’s character and value system, no matter how inappropriate that life style might be for a member of the Sangha. It does not matter even if Goh was Mother Theresa, no one is above the law and there can be no special pleading. If Goh at the outset had simply acknowledged his guilt and thrown himself on the mercy of the court then it might have cast a slightly different light on the whole sordid affair. However he appears to be quite unrepentant for his actions and gives the impression he believes that he has done nothing wrong in betraying the trust placed in him. If he can get away with this and avoid the legal consequences of his illegal actions then let us simply forget the future of charities in Singapore, because the law of the jungle prevails.

Crap on Sat, 21st Nov 2009 9:38 pm 

Can anyone tell me where I can be the 9001 buddhist to sign on the petition in support of Ming Yi? By the way ‘disppointed’, I am from the planet called Earth.

People Power on Sat, 21st Nov 2009 11:20 pm 

I suspect people power may help a bit.
But the number of people must be a lot.

cy on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 12:27 am 

if the law can be easily swayed by 9000 devotees, then the integrity of the law is questioned. does it mean that anyone who does charity acts can break the law w/o any consequences?

If the devotees want to help Mingyi, it is better they let justice be served, because this will help mingyi to reduce his bad karma. By obstructing justice, they may add to his bad karma.

Ark on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 3:44 am 

Next time if some pastor from CHC gets charged for molestation, should they also round up their devotees? They certainly have more than 9000 of them

one man on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 4:44 am 

1 man alone to build such a huge hospital like Ren Ci and with sole executive power will certainly collapse sooner or later.

Has to stop him at 9,000 b4 he reaches 90,000.

Peter Su on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 4:57 am 

To cushion the blow to Buddhist believers or Ming Yi’s followers, immediately NKF announced that it has faced the worst time and is digging into its reserve. Distraction strategy.

Double Standard Kangaroos on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 6:19 am 

Why nobody pleaded for TT Durai, except his daughter’s email to our Multi-Millionaire PM Lee and read out in Parliament by our Multi-Millionaire Mini$ter Khaw Boob Wan?

Then TT Durai is still a free man, can work overseas.

Why the double standard?

Donor on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 7:12 am 

Would you think twice to donate?
If you want the charity organisation’s CEO to go to jail, please go ahead and donate.

Peter Su on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 7:16 am 

Ming Yi steps on a dog’s tail.

Crap on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 10:41 am 

Nobody is expecting him to go scot-free for his wrongdoing. Far from it. What his supporters is pleading for, is for the court to take into account of the contributions he have given over the years to society especially his help for the sick and needy and hopefully his sentence can be reduced.

By the way cy, how does pleading for him going to add to his bad karma? and how does justice being served on him manage to redued his bad karma? Beyond my understanding.

Tua Kee Long on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 12:20 pm 

I have decided never to donate.
If i want to help the needy,
I WOULD GIVE HELP DIRECTLY TO THEIR POCKETS only.

cy on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 12:25 pm 

to crap,

if pleading for him succeeds in overturning the jail sentence, it means Mingyi will not get a chance to repent and thus he may repeat his mistakes another time,another place. this will add to his bad karma.

As buffett says:”It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”

“Never do anything that you do not want to appear on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow”

knnbccb on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 12:48 pm 

Put on some religious robes/credentials and everything becomes pious. Doesn’t matter which religion it is.

It is useless to debate with these religious folks. I bet this bunch of Buddhist supporters of Min Yi would be the first to line up to donate after he comes out of prison and sets up a new charity show.

To be honest, 10 months is pretty lenient for crimes of such a magnitude. So stop mitigating the terms of the sentence already, bend over, and take it like a man/monk.

claude tnt on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 1:12 pm 

The 9000 are not as foolish as some of you are leading us to believe when I consider the jail terms of 2 ex-Mitsu execs slashed (halved) when they cover-up $113 million losses as reported in the ST 13/10/2009.

One had his jailed choped from 5 to 2 years and the other’s sliced from 3 to 11/2 years, not too bad for cheating in singapore!

To Forgive is Divine on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 2:02 pm 

Things have to be put in perspective. Ming Yi set up Renci with his own money, which amounted to several hundred thousands of dollars. What he does in his personal life with his own money should not be of concern.

Yes, he did something wrong, but the situation is simiar to an SME owner granting a personal loan to a loyal staff. Since the money has been returned and the Board of Directors have no issue with it, it should not even have been a criminal case in the first place. In those years, granting of personal loans by SMEs were rampant and not illegal.

The wrongness, if any, is of accounting procedures, not embezzlement. It is agreed by the courts that there is no personal gain on Ming Yi’s part.

Furthermore, at the time in which the alleged crime happened, the guidelines were also not in place nor enforced. So there should not even be retrospective application of these guidelines.

From a moralistic standpoint, if his contributions to societies and communities, of which many are deliberately kept low profie, can be quantified in dollar terms, giving him back $50,000 does not even cover 1% of interest.

His case has to be understood within the context of the nonprofit environment and its governance then.

What is more worrying would be if this hides a deeper consipracy of religious discrimination and abuse of authority.

Crap on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 2:27 pm 

knnbccb is right, I will be one of the first bunch of Buddhist that will be lining up to donate should Ming Yi decide to set up a new charity show and mind you, it would not matter whether he is in monk’s robe or not.

And really, no religious folks would want to carried out out any debate with you. It would be a total waste of time

admin on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 2:52 pm 

Hi To Forgive,

You have a point here. Are you keen to expand a bit more on your points into an article? We will publish it here. Email us at temasekreview@gmail.com

And Justice For All on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 5:12 pm 

I want to ask one very pertinent question on our justice system.

Catholic Priest Jaochim Kang was convicted of same offence a few years ago but yet his sentence was 4 or 5 times longer than that of Ming Yi. Why are there 2 sets of sentences – one for Christian offenders and another for Buddhist offenders ? A crime is a crime. It doesn’t matter how much money or how many people you have cheated. The punishment should have the same bearing and intensity, regardless of race and religion or social status.

What mitigating factor is there for Ming Yi? That he served the community ? Policemen who have been dishonest and brought to court have been sentenced to even harsher punishment than others for the reason that there are supposed to uphold the law. Similarly Ming Yi is supposed to uphold high moral values since he held a high position in the Buddhist heirarchy. A lot of people contributed to the Ren Ci Hospital charity because they were swayed by his religious and moral background. But alas he used this position and influence to indulge in self gratification. But the court is not there to chide him for his taking the Buddhist faith for a free ride (that is entirely up to the Buddhist Federation to defrock him, which unfortunately, they have not).

What I take issue with is that, on the day the court meted out the sentence to him our PM Lee was on the other side holding a candle to the Buddhist community by officiating the opening of its new premises? Just what is our government trying to prove here? That they don’t want to inflame the Buddhists? When the Catholic Priest Kang was sentenced no minister tried to appease the Catholics by officiating any Catholic events elsewhere.

And Justice For All on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 5:22 pm 

And to those stupid believers who still think that Ming Yi has high moral ground in Budhhism they ought to think again. Do not be misled by wolves in sheep’s skin.

The main tenet of Buddhism is DETACHMENT. That means a strict and devout Buddhist should detach himself from lust – lust for money, lust for fame, lust for bodiliy gratification, lust for owning assets such as properties and shares,etc. (all of these characteristics were found in Ming Yi from evidences produced in court). And here you have a Buddhist monk who goes round in a limousine, flies first class, lives in a condo and owns a couple of properties, and watch blue dvd’s (his mate had to take the rap by saying those were his), and credit cards, etc. He never practised detachment, and his mind is “corrupted” by all these mortal and sentient cravings. How could he passed off as a Buddhist monk ? May Buddha have mercy on him.

Exposer on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 5:44 pm 

“Things have to be put in perspective. Ming Yi set up Renci with his own money, which amounted to several hundred thousands of dollars. What he does in his personal life with his own money should not be of concern.

Yes, he did something wrong, but the situation is simiar to an SME owner granting a personal loan to a loyal staff. Since the money has been returned and the Board of Directors have no issue with it, it should not even have been a criminal case in the first place. In those years, granting of personal loans by SMEs were rampant and not illegal.”

Are you so naive to think that the gov jail the worldly monk just become of some minor reason of so-called ‘mistaken’ “personal loan” ?

The ramification of jailing the world monk is taken seriously because the impact of a venerable and popular monk figure that donor and people trust as role model for Singapore and the world, end up abusing the his own religious belief and donor’s trust, and disdaining the reputation of so-called non-profitable and charitable organization. It is wider impact beyond the monk as it send a message to the world that even secular religious figure cannot be trusted to do the work in Singapore Inc where money, wealth and status are all it matter. It has nothing with the monk personally, it is to do with damaging the reputation of Singapore. In addition, he faces the wrath from Minister KHAW who all along support the monk until the moral corruption and indulgence are discovered.

Singapore has now become a place where people create the self-justification and self-conviction to cheat, to mislead and to exploit others as long as he believe that contribution of his sacrifice, hard work and service to the public more than make-up for any honest mistake he deliberately makes.

And Justice For All on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 5:47 pm 

To forgive Is divine

Do not be so naive to think that those few hundred thousand dollars which Ming Yi used as capital to set up Ren Ci came from his pocket. It came from initial donors who supported his cause in setting up Ren Ci. They were not his money. How could a monk have any money, and even at that, so much money ? One of his main sponsors who, time and again, came to answer his request for cash is the CEO of the Ho Bee Group, who had been his main beneficiary.

I know of a friend of mine who donated $50,000 together with 3 other Buddhists, to help set up a company to operate a Buddhist book shop at Fu Lou Shu Complex a few years back (in the 90’s) and Ming Yi recommended a monk friend of his to run this outlet. Within a few years the assets of this company was transferred lock, stock, and barrel into another company registered by the monk (and his girlfriend sales assistant). The original company became a shell, and all the $200,000 that was pumped into the original company disappeared.

Now, what did they say about birds of a feather flocking together ?

You should wake up from your slumber and not be deceived by wolves in sheep’s skin. There are many around, and they are not restricted to any one particular religious faith.

Back in the early years when I saw Ming Yi fronting the charity shows by stealing the limelight with all his meaningless stunts, I told many a colleague that this man cannot be a real Buddhist monk, for a real monk would not clamour for fame. If he had stood behind in the background in humility (making his presence felt as a humble representative of Ren Ci Hospital itself) he would have done Buddhism a great favour. But he was after fame (and possibly fortune – why buy a race horse ?)

SG Buddhist on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 6:22 pm 

@ To forgive is Divine,

Your analogy of SME loan is flawed. An SME’s money belongs to the owner businessman but in Ming Yi’s case, the $50,000 does not belong to Ming Yi but to Ren Ci hospital; it was meant to be ethically put to GOOD USE in the service of patients, not in the service of staff.

You may argue that the MP also got a loan from Ren Ci. But two wrongs doesn’t make a right; the loan by Ren Ci to the MP is also ethically wrong because it does not directly benefit patients.

A non-profit organisation, and a hospital to boot, simply shouldn’t be in the business of dishing out loans to ensure staff loyalty and to grease official goodwill. That is bad ethics and bad manegement practice.

If it is not criminal breach of (public donor)trust, then what is it ? After people has donated the money to a monk, a monk is free to do what he likes with this money since it is now his. But the $50,000 was not donated to Ming Yi, but to Ren Ci, we have to be clear on this.

Ming Yi was mainly convicted not because he broke the Charity Act guidelines, but because he has committed fraud/criminal breach of trust by lending money to someone who wasn’t even a Ren Ci employee.

Sure, he has no personal monetary gain from helping Raymond Yeung, but what about other types of non material gain ?

You scratch my back and I scratch your back? You help me buy joint-name apartment in Melbourne by using your Aussie residency paper and I help you with your home loan needs? We do not know and guessing doesn’t help.

But whatever reason Ming Yi has for helping and loaning it to his assistant, it is ethically and legally wrong of him to dip into the funds of Ren Ci to “loan” to another person.

To forgive is divine; to truly repent is even more godly. For starters, not appealing, serving the time, not wasting more money on legal fees for the appeal, that would sound like a man walking the talk on repenting.

Go take a street poll of SG’s Buddhists and ask if they feel that this thing “hides a deeper conspiracy of religious discrimination and abuse of authority”, as you assert.

I am sure most of them would agree on the “abuse of authority” charge that you levelled, but abuse of authority by whom ? By the government, per your unsaid implication ? Or by Ming Yi ?

The prosecution rests its case. ( TR admin’s invitation to you to expand your points leave me perplexed about their journalistic nous or lack of. )

Budamaxx1952 on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 7:31 pm 

Buddhism, the highest and supreme teaching on earth, now and forever, has been badly tarnished by this robe-wearing fake.
Using Buddhism, in which man, without the help of God or gods aspires to the level of the perfect man (the ARAHANT)this fake monk’s 10months is nothing compared to the KARMIC retributions he is in for, in this life and his future lives.

This is a warning to all and sundry that ‘misusing’ Buddhism is going to bring you a long time of suffering.
So don’t even think of it!!!

Aik on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 7:40 pm 

This ‘And Justice For All’ seem to have an intolerable and unforgiving attitude. Does he realised that it is not a nice way to called people ’stupid’ just because they have a different view points from his?

By the way, the main tenet of Buddhism is not Detachment. Detachment is the result of the understanding of the dotrine of impermanence and also the understanding, realisation and practises of the noble 8 fold path in the Tharavada tradition. The practice to achieve detachment in the Mahayanist tradition is slightly different.

SME on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 8:41 pm 

“From a moralistic standpoint, if his contributions to societies and communities, of which many are deliberately kept low profie, can be quantified in dollar terms, giving him back $50,000 does not even cover 1% of interest.”

The moment public money in the form of donation is involved, you reasoning does not bite any more.

You reasoning is fine for SME with all owners being informed & having approved of any outflow of funds from the business unit.

If you want a free hand, set up a SME or small business unit not a charitable organization where one of your selling points is to capitalize on the compassion and kind hearts of donors who have an implicit trust that you manage it properly, at most times with no tangible goods changing hands except with the good thought that they are helping the unfortunates.

And Justice For All on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 10:34 pm 

Aik

It is not that I have an intolerable and unforgiving attitude. You are grossly mistaken because of your prejudice. I have an impartial perspective of looking at things which you obviously do not share.

The law must be seen to be justly administered regardless of the bearing of the criminal, whether he holds high office or is just another digit in the community. Every person in our society, regardless of race, language, position in society, educational status, or political bearing, must be given a fair
trial and same due process of law. The punishment meted out must be fair, or at least, seen to be fair. One yardstick used to calibrate an offence that is committed must be the same one used for another similar offence.

Of course the courts have the discretionary power to take into consideration mitigating factors. Mitigating factors only come into play in relation to the circumstances prevalent when the crime was committed, e.g. the frame of mind of the offender, whether he was provoked into committing the offence, etc. In Ming Yi’s case, this was not the factor brought into play, but rather his contribution to society and the community, etc. He had committed several offences but only the least severe of them was brought up out in court (the others were stood down), the object of which was to prevent him from having to suffer numerous sentences, which could run consecutively to his detriment. In other words, his mitigating circumstances were already accorded to him before the trial. So it is really shocking that, at the 11th hour, his lawyer submitted further plea for mitigation, which the court, very surprisingly, accepted.

There was nothing intolerable or unforgiving on my part. I was just raising the issue of operation of law here, that the same law that is used on Ah Beng should be applied similarly on Ming Yi. The same goes for the punishment. Mr Aik, perhaps you are suggesting that if Ah Beng the notorious gangster, committed that offence he should be jailed for 3 years (because he is a gangster and he is notorious and has not contributed to society) and Ming Yi should only be jailed 10 months because he had runned a charitable hospital? Worst still, let’s say Ming Yi, took that $50k for some noble cause, e.g. to save someone’s life, would you then say he should be acquitted because we have to be tolerant and forgiving?

On my point of saying that those who still believe in him are “stupid” (after all the weaknesses in his character have been disclosed in court and are now public knowledge), that was a very pertinent comment. It was blunt, but it was the truth. To put your belief system on a particular faith is perfectly alright. But to put your faith on a particular person is another thing. What would you call a person who can’t distinguish between the religion (Buddhism) and the person (Ming Yi)? I certainly wouldn’t call them intelligent. Unfortunately I do not know of any other word that is the opposite of intelligent. So if Mr Aik can give me another word for it I’ll be glad to do the necessary substitution.

As to your supposition that detachment is not the main tenet of Buddhism, it goes to show that you do not really understand the religion. That is the crux and very basis of this religion. If you cannot practise detachment Buddhism has got no meaning for you. Detachment does not come from practise of doctrines. Detachment is a pre-condition before you are able to practise any doctrine. If the mind is not free of worldly distraction meditation cannot occur. Practising of (Buddhist) doctrines is only a vehicle for the devotee to reach his aspiration of acquiring nirvana as the ultimate goal (to achieve enlightenment and hence escape the wheel of re-incarnation). I shall not delve further into this religion because we have a multi-cultural audience out there.

cy on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 11:09 pm 

当僧侣集体堕落之时，将导致佛法传承整体中断，也就是佛教中所说的末法时代

末法时代，妖魔鬼怪到处兴风作浪，搞得人心败坏，世界不得安宁，而这些妖魔鬼怪一般凡夫的肉眼是辨别不出的，除非你开五眼六通

释迦世尊住世的时代，称为正法；世尊涅盘之后，称为像法，此时，只有形像做为代表；再过一段时间之后，称为末法。末法时代，信仰佛教的人数渐渐稀少，修行的人更少，修行而证圣道的人则已没有了，到最后佛法也就被世间的邪说和物欲所淹没，纵然尚有佛经存在，也没有人去信受奉行。因此，希望众生在佛法还住世的时代，众生还愿意接受佛法而信仰的阶段，要赶快努力，护持三宝，维持慧命于不堕，则可将佛法住世的时代，无限止地往后延伸，为人类带来前景和希望。所以，末法的思想，并不像基督教所说的世界末日那么可怕。

如果你的善根深厚，或者继续培养你的福德和智慧，纵然是处于末法时代，而又面临了世界将坏的开始，也不必绝望。你可以藉你的善根而转生他方世界，继续修行。如果你的愿力坚定，信心坚固，也可以往生他方佛国净土。所以，此一世界的坏灭，并不等于走投无路，山穷水尽，这跟基督教的世界末日观，又是另一点大不相同之处。

cy on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 11:17 pm 

to mingyi

男子汉敢作敢当

Brandon on Sun, 22nd Nov 2009 11:43 pm 

Where can I go to sign a petition to denounce the 9000 supporters’ petition and ask for a higher deterrence sentence of more than 10 months instead?

I was one of those who donated thousands to Renci Hospital. When the NKF scandal broke, I called Renci Hospital and spoke to Alison Hack from Corporate Affairs & Resource Development. She assured me that Mingyi was not paid a single cent and even emailed me on 28 Jul 2005 as follows, “Ven Shi Ming Yi is NOT getting a salary from Ren Ci.” I still have that email.

So when news later broke that Mingyi was in fact paid by Renci Hospital, can you imagine what went through my mind? Lies, all lies!

Sad to say, I had since stopped donating to anyone, except Ms Teresa Hsu from Heart to Heart. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that she doesn’t break my heart.

Exposer on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 1:03 am 

Brandon,
you should pass the letter to TR for publish.

The worst thing is not that Ming Yi get jailed, the worst part is that he cause the reputation of Buddhism to go down in Singapore in history. His act has caused distrust and very likely, like NKF, the disappointment of donors who will not longer donate any money to charity and non-profit org anymore because “once bitten, twice shy”. On top of that, it show that the whole Ren-Ci org is corrupted by management who cover-up each other’s backside and lie for sake of self-interest.

Even now, this fake worldly monk still refuse to admit his mistake and guilt. If he want to be rich, wealthy and famous as Emperor Lee, he should start growing his hair and wear business-suit, or MIW’s attire.

VOTEWISE on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 1:12 am 

No one is above the LAW….that is if the LAW is apllied
equitably to one and sundry…no matter who breaks it!
trouble is that at certain times the LAW is apllied
contradcitory to its ideals.
Lawmakers should not be above the law,for instance and the LAW
shouldn’t favour one group of people against another.
No one is above the LAW indeed,neither a priest nor a monk for that matter.
Even BUDDHA himself propound some kind of law…KARMA.

disappointed on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 7:00 am 

“And Justice for All”,

You asked for another word that might be used instead of “stupid”. Well, in the context of this thread and knowing all we now know about Goh’s actions and activities, I would suggest that the word “naive” might be more appropriate than “stupid”.

Budamaxx1952 on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 9:11 am 

And Justice For All ///the main tenet of Buddhism is Detachment ///

Hi ‘And Justice For All’,
Although there is a pretty strong place for “Detachment” in Buddhism, however, this concept is much misunderstood because detachment implies a sense of withdrawal.

I would prefer the term “Non-attachment” which simply implies not holding on.

However IMHO the main tenet of Buddhism is RENUNCIATION.This in short means renouncing what is worldly, transient, relative and limited and seeking what is transcendental, unchanging, absolute and unlimited–which the Lord Buddha called NIRVANA.

As for the ignorant fake-monk, he should have learnt long ago what the philosopher Seneca said “It is not the man who has little, but the man who craves more, that is poor”–which is also a basic teaching of Buddhism. CHEERS.

And Justice For All on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 9:14 am 

Disappointed

That was a very good word you suggested. Yes, I would say “naive” is a good substitute. It is more neutral, and hence, less offending. I thank you for your interjection.

Aik on Mon, 23rd Nov 2009 10:30 am 

Hi ‘And Justice For All’ You certainly have a big ego.

gong tua tai on Wed, 25th Nov 2009 12:34 am 

In my view , being a buddhist , he is being too kind and is trying to help to loan to someone that need help by taking that amount from the organisation that he built.He got the intention to put back.I actually see nothing wrong with that.Some people keep bird,some cat,why can’t he keep horse?

karma on Wed, 25th Nov 2009 8:42 am 

MingYi ot Goh Kah Hong should learn from the local Banks DBS or from Koh Boon Wee how to cheat people in a legal manner. These are very smart cheater. They do not go to jail for their evil deeds!