Public wants Ming Yi to disrobe before going to jail
November 23rd, 2009 | 
Author: Written by Our Correspondent
Most Singaporeans want Ming Yi to disrobe before serving his jail sentence to prevent bringing disrepute and shame to the Buddhism.
Buddhist monk Ming Yi, the former CEO of Ren Ci Hospital was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment on Saturday for misappropriating $50,000 from the charity. He had since returned the money.
Some suggested that Ming Yi should disrobe first and re-enter monkhood again after he finished his sentence to accept personal responsibility for his mistake and to draw a clear boundary with Buddhism.
Mr Lin said that Ming Yi should not enter prison as a monk and should disrobe to be an ordinary prisoner like everybody else.
However, retiree Mr Chen urged Singaporeans to give Ming Yi another chance and don’t coerce him to disrobe to reflect the magnanimity of Buddhism.
The president of the Singapore Buddhist Federation Venerable Kwang Sheng had earlier said that Ming Yi has to make the decision on his own whether to disrobe.
Ming Yi had declined to be interviewed by the media after the sentencing claiming that he was “exhausted”.
Despite the guilty verdict, some are of the view that a jail sentence was too tough as Ming Yi did not profited from the misappropriation and a fine would suffice.
More than 9,000 followers from Singapore, Taiwan and China had signed on a petition to appeal for a lighter sentence for Ming Yi who had indicated that he would appeal against his imprisonment.
An alumni of Raffles Institution, Ming Yi entered monkhood at the age of 22 in 1982.
He built up Ren Ci Hospital from scratch and was involved in many charitable work and overseas humanitarian missions himself.
Before the scandal broke out, Ming Yi was a highly revered figure in Singapore’s Buddhist community.
He had performed several dangerous stunts on the Ren Ci Charity TV Show to raise funds for the hospital.
Though Ming Yi was judged to have committed a crime, it is apparent from the sentiments on the ground that public sympathy is still with him unlike the beleaguered T.T. Durai of NKF who was jailed 3 months for falsifying an invoice during his tenure as its CEO.
Some Singaporeans have expressed hope that Ming Yi would continue serving the community after his release from prison if his appeal were to fail.
News source: Lianhe Wanbao, 22 November 2009
Posted in Headlines
23 Responses to “Public wants Ming Yi to disrobe before going to jail”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
He can serve his sentence and be a spokesman for Yellow Ribbon Project.
However, it remains to be seen if public/TR/SPH/readers be magnanimous to an ex offender…
Allowing Goh to occupy any position of authority where he handles money, knowing what we now know about his avarice and taste for high living, would be like knowlingly allowing an alcoholic to be kept in charge of a brewery.
Those who are in the know, know that nobody should force a monk to disrobe. Not even his own Master, the one who ordained him.
According to the Buddha’s Teachings, forcing a monk to disrobe is a one of the great “sins”, a negative karma that will result in serious repercussions.
Whether to disrobe or not is Min Yi’s sole discretion. As long he did not violate the five heinous crimes, and as long as the main bulk of his monk’s precepts are intact, there is no need to disrobe.
In addition, as long as he did not do it for selfish interest, he did not need to disrobe.
Morever, as long as Min Yi’s conscience is clear, that he did not do it for selfish reasons, then he did not need to disrobe.
If a ruler of the land, through his courts, orders a fully ordained monk to be imprisoned, it is the misfortune of the ruler and his courts, who have committed a negative karma, the retribution of which will come at a later date/life.
If Min Yi were to have committed the same ‘offences’ in a Buddhist country, he would not even have to be brought to court, charged and convicted, because no lay persons can judge and sentence a fully ordained monk. Only the Sangha of Monks judge and dish out penalties to a fully ordained monk, and that is only after they have collectively sat down as a group to hear all sides of the case.
Finally, there is no difference whether he disrobe or not before he goes into the prison. In the prison, he would have to wear the standard prison clothes, not his own clothes which is the robe.
No big deal for his wrong doing “misappropriating $50,000 from the charity”. He is punished for his wrongs. Hello, wake up wat about those that is swept under the carpet and not exposed. Get over it guys, 50k is not even a peanut.
I don’t think this is a Public Voice, order Ming Yi to disrode.
This is the voice of the PAP member. In Charity work Ming Yi has over populated other Charity even the President Charity.
In Chinese provers said: “Kong Gao Kai Choo”.So they have to condem U Ming Yi. Next time don’t over populated the Authority.
In the 1st place, he shouldn’t even wear the robe to court. It is a disgrace.
Follower of Buddha Dharma
You mentioned “as long as he did not do it for selfish reasons”. How do you define “selfish reasons” if I may ask? His actions benefited his “friend” or companion (whatever way you may call the other guy). If one’s action is for the benefit of his friend, and thereby, preserving the status of their relationship, and that is not construed to be a selfish act I wonder what is. Any a course of action which benefits, whether directly or indirectly, the person who takes that action, his family members or loved ones, or his friends, etc., is one that is a selfish one because the effects of it revolves around him.
Let me elaborate. If the principal of a school intervenes and gives a favourable pass mark to ensure that his neighbour’s son passes the examinations which otherwise he would not have done so, isn’t that a selfish act? He did it to benefit his neighbour. There are probably other students in the school who had the same predicament, but they did not enjoy this privilege of the principal. Similarly, there are a lot of Singaporeans out there who require renovation assistance too, but only Raymond got his attention. In law, we say he has an interest in Raymond through his friendship.
It was a selfish act, there is no doubt there.
However, I agree with you that it is up to him to decide whether he should disrobe and go into repentance. No one can do that for him. It is a path he must take himself.
And on the point of “disrobing”, I think you have misunderstood the point put forth by most of the readers here. It’s not the physical material of the robe that is being referred (of course in prison he has to adorn clothes designated for inmates, everybody knows that so it was superfluous of you to even mention it). It’s the high office of his religious order that his robes represents. That’s the issue at stake, not his personal wear.
Is is wise not to escalate this case into a religious issue.
Let us look at it from the proper perspective – as a normal case of people making mistakes and getting punished for their mistakes, since the matter was heard in a civil court.
Where is this “Public”? Who is this “Public” who wants Min Yi to disrobe?
Is there a petition of 30,000 to 40,000 signatures to demand Min Yi to disrobe?
In the NKF case, there was a petition of more than 45,000 signatures to demand TT Durai to step down as CEO of NKF.
Where is the evidence to support that the “PUBLIC” who wants Min Yi to disrobe? Who are these people? Do they dare to stand out to be counted? Or are they cowards hiding behind the computer screen simply to work this case into a religious issue. (Be careful, otherwise someone may be charged for sedition!)
If anyone is going to demand Min Yi to disrobe, then why didn’t he be allowed to be judge by the Sangha of Monks, but instead by the civil courts?
If Muslims are allowed to be judged by the Sharia Courts, why wasn’t Min Yi been given the same treatment in the Buddhist context? Why the obvious double standard?
So, let us not pull religion into it. Don’t play with fire!
Alas… if he has confess to this misunderstanding in the first place, it would not have been made such a big case in the eyes of the public. He has wasted the Public Prosecutor time to dig up proof and therefore Tax-payer money. His private life would not been revealed in order to prove him guilty of covering up. He could have just admit that he has made a mistake in covering up it in the first place and faced it like a man who should be truthful. Only the guilty has things to hide.
Ming Yi’s case is “peanuts” compared to T.T. Durai, and “sesame seeds” compared to Ho Ching. If Ho Ching can still managed to get a Mayday award, who wants Ming Yi to disrobe?
What MING YI “MAKAN” is less than what SINGTEL sucked from us
by those expensive “charity” shows special phone-lines!!!
you see,they ask us to mkae more calls for the cause of “charity”…they have their(singtel) own self-interest.
i say.forget about insisting ming yi’s dirobing…it’s a small
problem and on top of that,he is,like us,just human.
let him made amends after his imprisonment…
go catch the “big fish” Durai instead…this is mere chicken feet!!!
“As long he did not violate the five heinous crimes”
五戒，是一不杀生，二不偷盗，三不邪淫，四不妄语，五不饮酒
杀生戒：佛教的基本观念是众生平等。佛说众生皆具佛性，皆可成佛。佛所说的众生，不单是指人，而是胎卵湿化，四生之属皆包括在内。因此杀生戒不单是不伤害人的性命，进而亦不得伤害畜生虫蚁的性命。不但戒直接的杀害，而且戒杀因杀缘；如渔猎者为直接杀害，而贩卖猎具渔网者亦为间接的助杀. 佛戒以一已私欲而伤害生命
偷盗戒：社会上的偷盗，有直接、有间接，有有形、有无形。例如小偷窃取、强盗抢劫，是直接的盗，贪官污吏的贪污舞弊是间接的盗，勒索诈欺、抵赖债务，是有形的盗，假公济私、浑水摸鱼是无形的盗。总之，不与而取，或以不正当的手段获得的财物，都叫做盗。
邪淫戒：佛门四众弟子，有出家在家之分，出家者根本戒淫，在家者只是戒邪淫。所谓邪淫，是指正式配偶之外的交合，及非时、非处的交合。此外凡足以为邪淫因缘的如舞榭歌场、娼寮妓院亦禁止涉足
妄语戒：未见言见，见言不见，虚伪夸张，藉辞掩饰，皆为妄语。妄语不但欺人，而且自欺
饮酒戒：有人以为以净财沽酒而饮，无损于人，为何也列为戒条?殊不知酒能乱性，人间许多罪恶。莫不以酒为媒介
佛门五戒，与我国五常之义相近。五常者，仁义礼智信。而五戒中的不乱杀近于仁，不偷盗近于义，不邪淫近于礼，不妄语近于信，而不饮酒理智清醒，则近于智。儒家以五常为做人的标准，佛门以五戒为未来获得人身的条件。然而守五戒，只是消极的戒恶。消极的戒 恶不是佛法的究竟义，所以进一步鼓励人积极的为善。
i leave readers to decide for themselves whether mingyi has broken “the five forbidden acts”
more on mingyi
明义失信案下判 明义日后转战香港？
新明日报
明义在审讯期间，已经辞去所有慈善机构的职务，唯一还在担任的职务，就是福海禅寺的住持。
今后，明义的动向会如何呢？对此，佛教居士林林长李木源今早受访时透露，他有听到风声说，明义曾告诉他的一些信徒，他将到香港的一座寺庙担任住持，而这座寺庙的赞助人之一，是向来十分支持明义的一名富商。
李木源说，明义和香港佛教联合会的主席觉光法师十分熟络，因此，相信明义日后若转到香港发展，应该不成问题。
福海禅寺副院长 或是明义接班人
明义被判处10个月的监禁，但他目前已经提出上诉。
如果明义入狱，福海禅寺的日常管理，最有可能由谁接管呢？
对此，李木源透露，他听说福海禅寺的副院长印愿法师，时常帮助明义处理寺内的大小事。
根据福海禅寺的网站，印愿法师是禅寺唯一的副院长，地位仅在明义之下，相信他目前稳坐福海禅寺的第二把交椅。
不过，对次，福海禅寺的职员不愿置评，并指印愿法师今早不在寺内，无法接受访问。
今早，明义并没有出现在福海禅寺，不过，他平时乘搭的休旅车却停在福海禅寺的范围内
more on the “five forbidden acts”
五戒虽然分别为五，但是根本精神是不侵犯；不侵犯而尊重别人，便能自由。譬如：不杀生，就是对别人的生命不侵犯；不偷盗，就是对别人的财产不侵犯；不邪淫，就是对别人的名节不侵犯；不妄语，就是对别人的名誉不侵犯；不饮酒，就是对自己的理智不伤害，从而不去侵犯别人。一般人总以为受戒是增加束缚，因此有人说：何必受戒，自找束缚！其实，凡是身陷牢狱失去自由的人，探究其原因，都是触犯了五戒。譬如：杀人、伤害、毁容，是犯了杀生戒；贪污、侵占、窃盗、勒索、抢劫、绑票，是犯了偷盗戒；强奸、嫖妓、拐骗、重婚，是犯了邪淫戒；毁谤、背信、伪证、恐吓，是犯了妄语戒；贩毒、吸毒、运毒、吸食烟酒等，是犯了饮酒戒。由于犯了五戒，于是身系囹圄，失去自由。所以受戒也是守法，能够受持五戒，真实认识五戒的人，才能享有真正的自由。因此，戒的真义是自由，而非束缚。
有人认为受戒难免会犯戒，不受戒就不会有犯戒的担忧。事实上，受戒后纵使犯戒，因为有惭愧心，懂得忏悔，罪过较小，还是有得度的机会。不受戒的人，犯了戒，不知忏悔，罪过加重，因此沉沦三涂恶道。所以，宁可受戒而犯戒悔过，也不要不受戒而犯戒，因为受戒才有得度的机会，不受戒就永无成佛的可能。何况不受戒，并不代表做错事就不犯戒，不受戒而犯戒，仍然有罪，仍然难逃因果业报
TEN months for MING YI and three months for T.T.DURAI. MING YI are going to jail for borrowing money to someone and after then he return all the money, but for those steal money from bank and those who are CEO of company. THOSE paying themselves millions dollars without the consent of people, how to say a person who did take 50K are put to jail. MING YI spent 500k in lawsuit and still are getting what he not expected. SEE NO EVIL DO NO EVIL……
For those who are ignorant, let me share with you on the following:
The 5 Heinous Crimes are:
1. Killing one’s father,
2. Killing one’s mother,
3. Killing an Arhat,
4. Attempting to wound a Buddha, and
5. Causing division amongst the Sangha (congregation of the ordained monks).
The 5 Hindrances (or Obstacles) are:
1. Sensuous lust,
2. Aversion and ill will,
3. Sloth and torpor,
4. Restlessness and worry, and
5. Sceptical doubt.
The 5 Basic Precepts are:
1. Do not kill (with intention),
2. Do not steal,
3. Do not indulge in sexual misconduct,
4. Do not make false speech, and
4. Do not take intoxicants.
There are distinct differences among them. So don’t get yourselves confused and mixed up.
The five heinous crimes are forbidden because the commission of which results in irreversible direct passage to the Hell Realm. (Whether one believes there is Heaven and Hell is a different matter altogether.)
The five Hindrances are obstacles to one’s practice which every practitioner will have to face and overcome. Its seriousness is a matter of degree from individual to individual.
The five Basic Precepts are meant for the lay practitioners of the Buddha’s Teachings. However, they are also include among the 227 monks vows (for males), which is known as the Body of Precepts for ordained monks.
There are also other additional precepts, not connected with ordination, known as The 37 Bodhisattva Vows, Tantric Samaya Vows, and The Vows of the White Sangha (for Yogis).
All the precepts and vows can be mended if broken. However, the five heinous crimes if committed cannot be mended, and that is why they are sometimes known as Forbidden.
Whose LKY policy lock people for half their life, take away people land by force, Murder & Slaughter 1/2 million of the “Innocent & Defenceless” foetus, Loss away Billion of hard earn Public fund.Teacher the Public to Gambler .So this has violated the five heinous crime even U’re not a “MONK”. LKY will be throw into the Eighteen Charmber of Hell (Abyss).
“Place of no Recarnation”
Even a famous MONK can do this despicable act, what about the “cleaner than white” people on the political bench?
I think this episode proves that nothing is clean, even if it seems so. Therefore we need to champion more transparency and more accountability.
Our current President (no disrespect to his title), is totally a useless check and balance tool.
“Be Careful”,
I agree with you completely that whether or not Goh remains a monk should be settled by the Sangha, the Buddhist monks themselves. If Goh had belonged to the Theravada tradition I believe that this would have happened, because in the Theravada tradition there is a mechanism for disrobing monks who have violated the moral precepts. However there appears to be no such mechanism in the Mahayana tradition to which Goh belongs. In fact, the Venerable Kwang Sheng (who is also President of the Singapore Buddhist Federation) is quoted in the article above as saying “Ming Yi has to make the decision on his own whether to disrobe”.
The point that I wish to make is that so long as Goh continues to be a monk then he is likely to remain in a position to solicit and receive monetary donations from the public. This should not be allowed to happen, and the public deserve to be protected against this. If Goh had been a lawyer or a doctor then the Singapore Law Society or the Singapore Medical Council would have stepped in automatically as soon as he was convicted and taken the necessary steps to protect the public from him by removing him from their respective registers. Why don’t the Mahayana have a similar mechanism of responsible self-regulation like the Theravada? The public deserve to be protected from dishonest and unscrupulous monks who would deceive and cheat the more gullible members of our society.
Disappointed
That was very well said. It was objective and looking at the issue from an impartial angle. That’s what I was saying all along, that we should separate religion from the man because it is the man on trial and not the religion.
And your reference to the SMC and SLS really pack the punch there. No question about it. If “Be careful” guy still cannot see this point I am afraid he is lost in the woods.
What’s all this sudden reverence for Buddhism? Does it matter whether Ming Yi disrobed first before serving time? An inmate can’t wear religious robes? Utter hogwash.
And all you Buddhists out there: if you’re really worried about not disrespecting Buddhism then stop worrying about Ming Yi and start examining your own conduct. Be more discerning in future about pious-looking religious frauds. Charity starts from home, not from stunt-filled charity shows.
Do people still respect Buddhism nowadays?
Speaking for myself, yes, deeply.