• 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.

Donors upset money for Vietnamese tourist diverted to alternative causes

krafty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Aw Cheng Wei,
The Straits Times,
Saturday, Mar 28, 2015

Many netizens felt sorry for the Vietnamese tourist who begged for a refund after he was allegedly conned into paying an exorbitant sum for an iPhone, raising more than $15,500 online for him last November.

But five months later, most of the money is still unused and only about $200 has gone to the tourist, sparking questions and criticism from donors. Entrepreneur Gabriel Kang, 37, the man behind the fund-raising effort, told The Straits Times that over $9,000 is still left in the kitty.

He started a campaign on crowdsourcing site Indiegogo last November to buy an iPhone for the tourist, Mr Pham Van Thoai, who allegedly fell prey to an unethical retailer at Sim Lim Square.

After deducting charges from Indiegogo and payment site PayPal and currency conversion, Mr Kang received about $13,940, which was transferred to his bank account. He used $1,538 to buy an iPhone 6 Plus for Mr Thoai but the latter declined the gift, though he accepted about $200 worth of food items, such as kaya.

Mr Kang later auctioned off the phone and used the money to buy an air ticket for a Vietnamese woman who claimed to have been trafficked out of her country, and medical supplies, sweets and toys for Thien Binh Orphanage in Dong Nai, east of Ho Chi Minh City.

But some donors are unhappy that they were not consulted. Student Abraham Lee, 23, who gave US$50 (S$68), said: "I wanted the money to go to Mr Thoai. Now that he doesn't want it, it is not right of Mr Kang to give to any charity of his choosing."

Computer engineer Jonathan Hoo, 28, who gave US$20, said: "I was shocked to learn that (Mr Kang) paid for an air ticket for a woman he never met. That was not the original purpose of the donation."

In recent months, other online crowdfunding campaigns have also been started to help the unfortunate, including a fish farm hit by a plankton bloom and a pump attendant cheated of $400,000.

But the controversy over donations for Mr Thoai has raised questions about such fund raising. When contacted, the Office of the Commissioner of Charities noted that the Charities Act states that when a donation cannot be used for the charitable purpose communicated to the donor, the amount should be refunded.

Or it should be used for another charitable purpose similar to the original aim. On his part, Mr Kang said he wanted to "use the money to help others who had been scammed". He added that he made an effort to be accountable. For instance, he visited the orphanage in Vietnam for two weeks last December.

He decided to help after he found out that the place, which is run by church members, had children who were ill but had no access to medicine. During his trip, he paid for his air ticket, hotel and food. One challenge he faced was getting receipts for the fridge and medical supplies he bought for the orphanage.

"The way they operate is very different from the way we do. You don't get a receipt for everything." He said he was careful to use only the $2,000 he received from auctioning off the iPhone. Mr Kang plans to set aside $3,000 for Mr Thoai's next visit to Singapore "whenever that may be, to pay for his hotel, food and air ticket".

He hopes to use the rest of the funds to help scam victims get their money back. Asked if he would consider refunding donors, he said: "I plan to refund the donors but only as a last resort...There's no timeframe as yet. I am exploring options on what to do with the (remaining funds)."

[email protected]
 

lurpsexx

Alfrescian
Loyal
Aw Cheng Wei,
The Straits Times,
Saturday, Mar 28, 2015

Many netizens felt sorry for the Vietnamese tourist who begged for a refund after he was allegedly conned into paying an exorbitant sum for an iPhone, raising more than $15,500 online for him last November.

But five months later, most of the money is still unused and only about $200 has gone to the tourist, sparking questions and criticism from donors. Entrepreneur Gabriel Kang, 37, the man behind the fund-raising effort, told The Straits Times that over $9,000 is still left in the kitty.

He started a campaign on crowdsourcing site Indiegogo last November to buy an iPhone for the tourist, Mr Pham Van Thoai, who allegedly fell prey to an unethical retailer at Sim Lim Square.

After deducting charges from Indiegogo and payment site PayPal and currency conversion, Mr Kang received about $13,940, which was transferred to his bank account. He used $1,538 to buy an iPhone 6 Plus for Mr Thoai but the latter declined the gift, though he accepted about $200 worth of food items, such as kaya.

Mr Kang later auctioned off the phone and used the money to buy an air ticket for a Vietnamese woman who claimed to have been trafficked out of her country, and medical supplies, sweets and toys for Thien Binh Orphanage in Dong Nai, east of Ho Chi Minh City.

But some donors are unhappy that they were not consulted. Student Abraham Lee, 23, who gave US$50 (S$68), said: "I wanted the money to go to Mr Thoai. Now that he doesn't want it, it is not right of Mr Kang to give to any charity of his choosing."

Computer engineer Jonathan Hoo, 28, who gave US$20, said: "I was shocked to learn that (Mr Kang) paid for an air ticket for a woman he never met. That was not the original purpose of the donation."

In recent months, other online crowdfunding campaigns have also been started to help the unfortunate, including a fish farm hit by a plankton bloom and a pump attendant cheated of $400,000.

But the controversy over donations for Mr Thoai has raised questions about such fund raising. When contacted, the Office of the Commissioner of Charities noted that the Charities Act states that when a donation cannot be used for the charitable purpose communicated to the donor, the amount should be refunded.

Or it should be used for another charitable purpose similar to the original aim. On his part, Mr Kang said he wanted to "use the money to help others who had been scammed". He added that he made an effort to be accountable. For instance, he visited the orphanage in Vietnam for two weeks last December.

He decided to help after he found out that the place, which is run by church members, had children who were ill but had no access to medicine. During his trip, he paid for his air ticket, hotel and food. One challenge he faced was getting receipts for the fridge and medical supplies he bought for the orphanage.

"The way they operate is very different from the way we do. You don't get a receipt for everything." He said he was careful to use only the $2,000 he received from auctioning off the iPhone. Mr Kang plans to set aside $3,000 for Mr Thoai's next visit to Singapore "whenever that may be, to pay for his hotel, food and air ticket".

He hopes to use the rest of the funds to help scam victims get their money back. Asked if he would consider refunding donors, he said: "I plan to refund the donors but only as a last resort...There's no timeframe as yet. I am exploring options on what to do with the (remaining funds)."

[email protected]

Singaporeans are the most kum gong, brainwashed and sheep like people on earth... a sad story and all will trip over themselves to open up their wallets for the foreigners to take as much as they want.. after tang na episode and countless other money skimming scams, this still happen.. or bi goot.. never learn, will always kena scammed non stop... Now this Kang wants to do whatever he wants with the 15K and "help" whoever he chooses.. where is the accountability to the original donors? Can anyhow change the scope of the donation? sounds very much like the current rulers of singapore...:oIo:
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Most Sinkies are gong kias and gong cheebais... remember the Huang Na incident? NKF and Renci? :rolleyes:

I blame the education system... the discernment and individuality have been stripped off at an early age.

And that is why the PAP remains in power, and twits queueing up for hours to pay respects to someone who single-handedly caused many of the problems we are facing today. Wear black. wear white, wear ribbon. HAO SIAO. :rolleyes:

quote-how-fortunate-for-governments-that-the-people-they-administer-don-t-think-adolf-hitler-85894.jpg
 

AxelWitsel

Alfrescian
Loyal
But five months later, most of the money is still unused and only about $200 has gone to the tourist, sparking questions and criticism from donors. Entrepreneur Gabriel Kang, 37, the man behind the fund-raising effort, told The Straits Times that over $9,000 is still left in the kitty.

Well $9000 can be use to print leaflets and have them distributed to warn SLS shoppers on the blacklisted shops. :biggrin:
 
Top