Blog

Jover Chew And Four Others Charged In Court

Jover Chew, the owner of now-defunct Mobile Air, and four other men were charged in court on Friday morning over cheating cases at their now-defunct Sim Lim Square shop.

The five men, aged between 31 and 38, were arrested on Wednesday “for a series of cheating cases”, said the police in a statement.

Each of the five faces between one and 26 charges. Chew alone faces 25 cheating offences and one criminal intimidation charge.

Several police reports were lodged in 2014 against the mobile phone shop for dishonest sales practices. Customers said they were coerced into buying mobile phones and in-house warranties at inflated prices.

“These victims ended up paying for the hand phones at much higher prices or had to pay fees to cancel the deal,” said the police.

The police conducted extensive follow-up investigations, and interviewed victims and witnesses to gather evidence before consulting with the Attorney-General’s Chambers to bring them to court.

On Friday morning, Chew and two of the men were brought from remand in a police van to the State Courts at about 7.30am.

Another former Mobile Air employee, Edmund Lim Hong Ching, was spotted arriving at the State Courts at 8.50am. He was reported to also be known as Ricky Lee and Wilfred, and took over Chew’s shop after the owner closed it and went missing late last year.

Chew and his shop became infamous after a video of a crying Vietnamese tourist begging staff at the shop for a refund went viral last November.

The tourist, factory worker Pham Van Thoai, was initially quoted a price of $950 for an iPhone 6 which he wanted to buy for his girlfriend. But he was later asked to pay an additional $1,500 for a warranty.

Mr Thoai was told that if he failed to pay the additional amount, he would not only lose the $950 but also the new phone. He went on his knees, pleading with Chew to return his money.

After the video of the incident went viral, online vigilantes posted Chew’s personal details online, driving him out of the mall.

A crowdfunding campaign was initiated to raise funds to buy a new phone for Mr Thoai. About $15,500 was raised, with $1,538 used to buy an iPhone for him. But Mr Thoai declined the gift, excepting only about $200 worth of food items from Singaporeans.

Chew also came under the spotlight for refunding a woman $1,010 in coins, which included one- and five-cent coins that came up to 18kg last October.

The woman from China had turned to the Small Claims Tribunal after Mobile Air charged her an additional $1,400 for a mobile phone.

Chinese evening newspaper Shin Min Daily News reported on Thursday that Chew was having breakfast with his mother the day before when he received a call to report to the police at 3pm.

He then told her that he would have to stay at the police station for 48 hours, and would be charged in court on Friday morning, Shin Min reported.

Source: www.straitstimes.com

May 29, 2015
K Shanmugam: AHPETC’s “Egregious Conduct” Must Be Punished

A day after a High Court raised the red flag on the goings-on in Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), Law Minister K Shanmugam followed up with hard-hitting words for the Workers’ Party, which runs the town council.

The scathing comments Justice Quentin Loh directed at AHPETC confirms his remarks previously that AHPETC’s town councillors had acted in an “unlawful” manner, said Mr Shanmugam, who is also Foreign Minister. He also zeroed in on the fact that the judge had highlighted AHPETC chairman Sylvia Lim’s misleading statements to Parliament about the financial transfers the town council was required to make.

“I said in February, in Parliament, that the WP MPs’ conduct on AHPETC was unlawful. I said that several times. I choose my words carefully. This judgment confirms what I have said,” said Mr Shanmugam, who was giving his views on the court’s decision at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs today (May 28). “The judge was scathing about the town councilors and their conduct. He said that the chairman of the WP misled Parliament. It is very serious to lie in Parliament.”
Today was not the first time Mr Shanmugam has, shorn of parliamentary privilege, described the WP town councillors’ conduct as unlawful. Parliamentary privilege refers to the legal immunity from any action in the courts for words spoken in the course of parliamentary proceedings. The aim is to allow Members to speak freely and frankly without fear of legal consequences.

In an 80-page judgment released on yesterday, Justice Loh had said that AHPETC’s actions were “at the height of financial irresponsibility”, quoted Mr Shanmugam.

The judgment underscores the fact that action should be taken over the “egregious conduct” of the AHPETC, he added, highlighting that the judge had said the conduct was “possibly criminal” and that the town council could be sued by residents and the Housing and Development Board.

Mr Shanmugam said: “If this were to happen to a People’s Action Party town council, what do you think Singaporeans would be asking? If this were to happen to a public company, what do you think the shareholders would be saying? Is conduct like this responsible? Is the Government responsible if it just keeps quiet in the face of a judgment from the Supreme Court that says all these things?”

The judge also noted that “it is clear there are grave and serious questions” in AHPETC, relating to its books and the validity and property of payments made to related parties.

Calling for WP’s Secretary-General Low Thia Kiang and other AHPETC town councillors to take action, Mr Shanmugam said: “(They) have to explain what are they going to do to set right the situation? … What are they going to do to answer the ‘grave and serious questions’ that the court says has been raised? This is pretty serious.”

Mr Shanmugam said MND will consult the Attorney-General’s Chambers on its next steps, but said the Government has a responsibility to pursue further action.

Reiterating that the judgment concurs with the government’s position that AHPETC’s conduct “was bad … and actionable”, Mr Shanmugam said the judge was of the view that the Town Councils Act empower the HDB and residents, not MND, to seek legal action.

“That is something the Attorney-General will advise us on, as to whether it is the correct interpretation, and what they should do about it,” he said.

AHPETC could not be reached for comment today.

Source: www.todayonline.com

May 29, 2015
Miak Siew: Calvin Cheng Is Just Pretending To Be Clever

This is privilege. Majority groups are often blind to the oppression and discrimination minority groups face. And when they speak up, they are labelled militants, disturbing the peace, stirring trouble.

I am deeply offended that Calvin Cheng accused Alfian Sa’at. Did Alfian not articulate the real experiences of a Malay person living in hyper-Sinicized Singapore? As a Chinese person I was blind to it until someone like Alfian pointed it out to me.

Saying that they don’t experience discrimination is to deny their experience and is also our denial of our participation in their discrimination.

We are all a little racist. Admission is the first step of acknowledging that reality and the long journey of building a society based on equality. I wonder how much of it is an attempt to absolve himself and the government of racism, and how much of it is – and I use this word seriously – stupidity masquerading as intelligence.

Source: Miak Siew

May 29, 2015
Alfian Sa’at: Ignore Calvin Cheng, Let Reason Prevail

Actually, in all honesty, I don’t really care anymore what this strange, confused and ignorant person by the name of Calvin Cheng said. I mean, where do I even begin? Basically what this guy is alleging is that pointing out discriminatory policies is directly responsible for radicalisation–as if those policies are not the very cause of radicalisation to begin with!

If this person wanted attention, I’m sure he’s got it, but it makes me feel dirty to want to have anything more to do with him.

Let’s all move on lah, though I won’t blame people for lingering around to watch him self-destruct on his backpedaling and squirming and stammering and equivocations. The thing is that if you try to smear someone and you’re not very good at it, then you just end up getting shit on your own face.

(OK, I admit–I did try to find out who Calvin Cheng is, and tried reading some of his Facebook posts. And I concluded that the only argument that this ex-NMP person has produced worthy of any consideration is a walking, breathing argument against the NMP scheme.)

I do get a warm and fuzzy feeling though from knowing that I have friends who are on the side of reason and truth and sanity. Yay friends!

In other more important news, my short story collection ‘Corridor’ has been republished by Ethos Books. And contrary to what Calvin Cheng would like to insinuate, it’s not on ISIS’ reading list.

Source: Alfian Sa’at

May 29, 2015
Report Cases Of Radicalism Promptly, Counsellors Urge

Amid concerns over how friends of self-radicalised youth M Arifil Azim Putra Norja’i did not report him to the authorities despite knowing what he was up to, youth counsellors and experts yesterday stressed the need for the community to report such cases promptly to the authorities, given the potential dire consequences.

Ms Nur Irfani Saripi, a Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG) counsellor, said that had someone not alerted the authorities, Arifil might have succeeded in pulling off his plans.

“It is not easy to report someone you care about, but it is necessary especially if that person has become influenced by deviant and violent ideologies, like those of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria),” she said.

But she noted that “when someone is detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA), he or she is deemed a serious threat to national security”.

On Wednesday, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said that Arifil, a 19-year-old post-secondary student has been detained since April under the ISA.

He had hoped to travel to Syria to join ISIS, failing which he planned to carry out attacks in public places here, even going to the extent of trying to recruit others to help him.

MHA said that while these persons were not recruited, they did not alert the authorities about Arifil.

The authorities were notified by another person who knew the teenager and had noticed changes in him.

Separately, another teenager, a 17-year-old who was unnamed, was also arrested under the Act for further investigations into his radicalisation, MHA said.

The Ministry refers cases to the RRG for counselling.

While Ms Nur Irfani noted that Arifil was detained because he fit the bill of someone who poses a serious threat to national security, the associate research fellow at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies’ International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research said those who have been detained for radicalism “must be provided proper counselling to try to guide them back”.

Agreeing, counsellors and experts felt that the book should not be thrown too quickly at these misguided youths.

To this, the MHA explained that when a report is made, investigations will be carried out to determine whether the person reported has been radicalised, and if so, the extent of radicalisation, and the risk and potential threat the person poses.

“In appropriate cases, the person may be referred for counselling and other mitigation measures without the need for arrest,” said an MHA spokesperson.“Counselling or rehabilitation programmes are tailored to the person’s specific circumstances, including age.”

Psychiatrist Adrian Wang, who runs his own clinic, noted that “youths are easily attracted to radical ideas, especially if the idea can compensate for a lack in some area of their lives”.

Self-radicalised youths have their lives ahead of them and should be helped as much as possible to turn over a new leaf, he added. “We have to try and understand the factors that caused this young person to become so interested in ISIS.”

The MHA spokesperson urged the members of the public who observe extremist tendencies in any person “to report this early, so that efforts can be made to save him or her from becoming a danger to himself or herself, and to others”.

“This is particularly so for youths who are impressionable and who could need guidance to steer them away from radicalisation,” the spokesperson added.

Among parents and youths whom TODAY interviewed, there seems to be a general reluctance to report self-radicalised youth to the authorities as soon as they are uncovered.

Ms Noorulain Sheik Mohideen, 48, who has two children aged nine and 17, felt that someone like Arifil should not be treated too harshly, and should be given psychological treatment.

Polytechnic student Siti Nursyazwani Ramle, 18, said: “What I’d do firstly is to ask him why he harbours these kinds of thoughts, and then start to talk to him about how these ideas are not right. If it becomes severe, like if he has intentions of bombing, I think it’s important that I report him to the authorities.”

Ms Samantha Chng, 41, whose children are aged 15 and 17, said parents need to be aware of what their children do or read online.

“I am monitoring (my children’s) activities on social media. I don’t throw a (smart device) at them and let them use it without guidance,” she said.

Source: www.todayonline.com

May 29, 2015