2eclipse\" post_id=\"1981069\" time=\"1592299761\" user_id=\"185689:

In fact, in a tuition classroom where it is air conditioned , it is definitely more comfortable as compare to non air-con classroom in school.

Hi there, I beg to differ. A https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/coronavirus-microdroplets-talking-breathing-spread-covid-19/ has shown that the microdroplets linger in enclosed rooms, but when the windows are opened, the microdroplets (viral concentration) will disperse faster and some particles might even be blown out by classroom ceiling fans or wind.

If the tutor is teaching 2 or 3 hours through her surgical mask and face shield, she might feel breathless overtime. Granted, the masked up tutees can be told not to speak up and merely receive a one-way monologue delivery of lesson with just 1 tutor speaking, but then the class might as well migrate back home and be conducted online where everyone can unmask and un-mute to ask questions, shouldn't it?

Some students in Canossian Convent will not be able to take their mid-year O level mother tongue oral examinations because they have been quarantined. That must have been a blew to those affected pupils who had spent 2 months during CB revising for their oral exams. That's the risk you have to take for commuting to the tuition centre in shopping malls to mingle with other schools' pupils in semester 2.

I prefer online lessons till year end. Health is wealth. Money can be earned back.

hling27\" post_id=\"1959759\" time=\"1579359124\" user_id=\"33103:

Just curious, for edusave good progress award for p6 students is it based on psle results or prelim? My gal scored better than some who received good progress award. Wondering how that works. Thanks.

My understanding is for P4 - P6, they look at the entire SA2 ''margin of improvement'' year-on-year, not just based on 1 subject's improvement only.

However, for P2 & P3, they look at the improvement in the course of 1 same year because there are no SAs for lower block, and partly because there's an additional Science subject in P3 which P2 doesn't have.

E.g : your child scored 50% in P5 overall and 75% in P6 overall, the yoy improvement is 25%, versus another top student who only improved marginally from P5's 90% to P6's 90.7%. Then, the school will rank them and sieve out the top 10% of level that improved the greatest.
Suppose your school's level has 220 students, then 22 students (top 10%) who made the greatest improvement yoy shall get this GPA.

Rank 1. 25.0% improvement yoy
Rank 2. 24.8% improvement yoy
…
Rank 22. 10.3% improvement yoy
Rank 23. 10.2% improvement yoy (No GPA)

GPA excludes the top 10% scholars (top 22 students of level) and top 11-25% (rank 23-55), even though we know some Scholarship and Merit awardees might have also registered a quantum leap yoy too.

And all PRs and expatriates will be taken out and I believe the school doesn't level up the next best Singaporean in the pecking order to fill up the gaps freed up by foreigners. Or maybe they do, if there's an annual allotted budget of 22 x $150 for this particular school with 220 students/level.

winsomelosesome\" post_id=\"1954239\" time=\"1576813087\" user_id=\"182226:

Yup, should consider Anderson, BPGHS, NHHS, NCHS and even MSHS But
not St Pat, St Gab, opps,
sorry Patrician n Gabrielson.
SJI can get in with 247, iszznit.

Transport is a contributory factor. There're many new condos in near the Potong Pasir MRT and a couple more down at Woodleigh MRT. Already there are some HDB flats in Boon Keng and condos in St Michael's nearer to city. Further, there are some 2 or more condo developments in Kovan and in Hougang along the NEL. I am not sure if the Bidadari flats are occupied yet.

With 247, the all-boys ''angmoh'' SA would seem quite appealing to those who want to avoid overly Chinese options like NCHS, NHHS and frankly, even MSHS as its COP is too ''low'' for the >247 scorer.
SJI would require some MRT transfers for the Northeasterners and some parents could be Protestants who want the 2-pt deduction for SAJC, not CJC. St Pats and St Gabs have a lot of naughty teens too. SJI O-level would be better because their affiliate COP is higher than SA's which sort of implies the cohort peers are more like-minded.

Going forward, some supper for thought:



1. Is this indicative of an insufficient regulatory framework for the finances of religious organisations?

We know there’re existing criminal laws on fraudulent or criminal use of funds, and these laws were used to prosecute all the high profile religious organisation leaders in Singapore. However, there is merit in reviewing whether the finance rules are insufficient because the lack of strict oversight had allowed such CBT malpractices to happen. Do we need stricter financial rules?

2. Should the Government dictate the affairs of religious organisations?

Is it too sensitive and potentially problematic proposal for the Government to dictate what is the “right” way to do things in a Church or Temple? Do we need to brighten this ‘light touch’ approach?

3. Should religious organisations be treated the same as or differently from other charities, and whether the regulations on the sector as a whole should be reviewed in light of such significant cases of fraud?

I'm trying to recollect what this case is all about. The presiding Judge's oral judgement and NCCS letter/statement should bring us all back to what this saga is all about:


(A) LEGAL

1. Sham Bonds: 1st to 3rd charges.
2. Round tripping: 4th to 6th charges.
3. Falsification of accounts in CHC's books relating to round tripping and defrauding the auditors: 7th to 10th charges.

*Wrong use of CHC's Building Fund which by the way was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments. SOF and ARLA were also beyond reasonable doubt.

(B) MORAL (Issue of Dishonesty)

1. Extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project.
2. Whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent. E.g. \"covet operations\" and \"conspiratorial cover-ups\", creation of \"cover stories\" to conceal unlawful conduct, \"siphoning off large amounts from the Building Fund\" for SH's music career.

*Being discreet was synonymous with non-disclosure and misstatements.

It was interesting that the Judge had also noted: \"They loved CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposed with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC funds. And ultimately, the funds which were removed were for church purposes and were returned to CHC.\" And, \"There is no evidence of any wrongful gain.\"

BUT...he added that \"(t)hat was never the prosecution’s case in any event, as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation.\" That's the crux.

And NCCS was spot on to state that crux in their press statement. Nope, it wasn't \"politically correct\". It was in fact factually correct. \"Church governance in the matter of management of funds\" and that all churches should abide by the \"law of the land\".

In any case, do note NCCS is not the \"boss\" of CHC (which is a member) nor any other Protestant churches for that matter. It's also inappropriate to insinuate that CHC was \"smart\" to register as an \"independent church\" and in doing so, other traditional denominations cannot \"control\" them, or something to that effect. I doubt that was the intent and CHC's denomination and preferred style of worship has nothing to do with this CBT case.

Style of worship/delivery (K-pop or J-pop) and rebranding campaign were frowned upon too. I feel it doesn't matter if it's a quiet form of worship via hymns or one that is ministered via lively song and dance (or even speaking in tongues as in the case of mega churches like CHC or NCC; and smaller Assemblies of God). Mega churches are certainly not warped, and those from other mega churches might take offence with this sweeping statement. What's warped was how KH and gang psychologically coerced their members to give tithings and buy all of SH's albums, failing which they would be \"outcasted\" or counselled by their cell group leaders:

http://gerashen.com/2015/10/22/8-reasons-why-city-harvest-church-was-the-devil-to-me/

Lifestyle of pastors/religious leaders were highlighted in some chatrooms. I agree with some netizens that pastors/priests need not live from hand to mouth in order to overtly display humility and their unconditional love for God. But KH and SH were way too excessive and lavish for any non-Christian/layman's appetite, never mind their conviction in the Prosperity Gospel. I also hesitate to disagree with the notion that pastors (who have been instrumental in expanding their membership base as founding religious leaders) can be legit wealthy leaders too. I think it's justifiable so long as the income streams are all above board, like Joseph Prince who made his money through anchoring legit religious channels in the US and through rental of spaces of their legally declared properties, etc, correct me if I'm wrong. Lawrence Khong has his income stream from elsewhere like performing magic shows, methinks?

Incidentally, both the above mega churches (NCC and FCBC) have been transparent in declaring their financial statements on MCCY's Charity Portal. As you know, religious organisations have to comply with the \"Code of Governance\" under the Societies Act, which includes providing an annual report of their accounts and financial statements. There is a “Code of Governance” that societies are encouraged to (but not legally required to) adhere to. And they can also register as charities under the Charities Act, which has yet another set of Code.

http://themiddleground.sg/2015/10/27/church-and-state-whats-next-for-city-harvest/

I hope the new CHC can learn from this saga and abide by the relevant Codes and laws of the land. The state/judge wasn't interested in their Cultural Mandate or Crossover project whatsoever... I suppose they prefer to leave it to the 6 accused's God Almighty to judge them in those religious aspects.

The stage looks of SH came under heavy criticisms too. IMHO, Steph Sun's DH should've held his tongue or pen. I don't think it's nice to criticise another man's wife like that. Separately, there's no need to bring in Snow White's evil witch's chant \"Mirror mirror on the wall\" to take a jibe at the failed celeb wannabe...And lastly, there was a comment on \"Al-Qaeda\" and another on the \"work by the devil\". I don't know what's that got to do with this CBT case, honestly.

sinoboy:

janet88:

[quote=\"starlight1968sg\"]Pray for justice for the victims and innocent pple.

even though he was facing bankruptcy, there is no reason to kill 2 innocent people.

Not just kill but tie one of them to a car and drove around as if got really deep hatred like that. Cannot understand. :scratchhead:[/quote]\"tie\"? Wrong facts. No time to tie a bleeding man to a stolen car after stabbing 2 men.
On day 1 of the trial, it was revealed that he'd reversed the older Tan's car over the younger Tan in his flee from the crime scene. The latter was unfortunately lodged underneath the car, and dragged for a km.

Did Sun Ho take the money? Good question.


She was the beneficiary of some \"personal gifts\" (amongst other perks that came along with her job) for spreading the Message on behalf of her Church as its chosen music evangelist for this project. But she was not the one who falsified the accounts or doctored any documents. No where in the flowchart of round-tripping can you spot her name.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singer-ho-yeow-sun-received-over-500000-in-bonuses-advances

The Indonesian donor Hanafi wasn't charged either. It was his own money, not Firna's.

Cheers

phtthp:

If 6 of them all use $ to appeal, since church have loads of $, does it mean they no need to go jail ?

Can having loads of $, be used to buy jail term imprisonment ?

Thought-provoking.

You cannot \"buy\" or offset a jail sentence with $ (aka fine in lieu) when it's been passed by the Judge. The pre-sentencing sessions on 6 Nov & 13 Nov before the actual scheduled day of sentencing on 20 Nov, are for both the prosecution and defence to discuss with the Court first.

On 6 Nov, the prosecutor will assist the Court in deciding on a sentence which accurately reflects the severity of the offence and the culpability of the offenders. On 13 Nov, the defence counsel may mitigate i.e. highlight any reasons why a lighter punishment should be imposed. After deliberating on all factors, the Court will then decide what punishment the offender should receive and pass sentence accordingly. That'll be after the oral submissions are delivered on Nov 20 at 9.30am. Sentencing may take place on Nov 20 or at a later date, as reported by media.

Therefore, we do not know if it's going to be jail sentence, and for how long (though we know the max is 20 years since this is a District Judge), and/or plus fine.

The Court may consider all sorts of mitigating factors to arrive at the final decision, e.g. whether: there's public interest in treating a particular sort of behaviour severely; there're any relevant parliamentary debates to refer to; the offender's remorseful, e.g. pleaded guilty or admitted to the offence early; the offender's got psychiatric disorder or medical condition, previous criminal records; he's made any restitution to the victim (if applic). Sentence imposed by other courts in similar cases may be considered too, though the Court does not blindly follow the sentences imposed in previous cases, but will consider how the facts differ.

TT Durai = 3 mths (for ? amt, circumstances)
Shi Ming Yi = 10 mths (appealed to reduce to 6 mths; released early after 4 mths due to good behaviour and placed on home detention scheme). (for ? amt, circumstances)
Other white-collar CBT crimes = ?

If the offenders are not satisfied either with their sentence or conviction or both, they can file an appeal. The prosecution also has the right to appeal against a sentence which it considers to be manifestly inadequate. In some rare cases, a jail sentence could be reduced to a fine after an appeal, like what you've asked. In others, a fine might become a jail term, if the prosecution is not satisfied with the light sentencing and files an appeal.

Whatever the case may be, if the offenders have already pleaded guilty to the charge, they can only appeal against the sentence. Mr Chew is going to appeal agst the conviction, before the impending sentencing, as I last heard. The rest will be discussing with their lawyers, per Sun Ho's Facebook update yesterday.

janet88:

God is God.

there is no God 2.0.

Indeed. There is no God 2.0.

Because Sun Ho did not write God 2.0. She only wrote CHC 2.0.

She was referring to the rebranded, rejuvenated and refreshed CHC. CHC 2.0 signifies a new lease of life for her church.

There can only be 1 God.

God speed.


http://i58.tinypic.com/29620ex.jpg\">

http://i58.tinypic.com/2uop4qd.jpg\">