- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=1]WHY DID SINGAPOREANS TAKE THINGS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO SHAME JOVER CHEW?[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
7 Nov 2014 - 12:35pm

<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
<pic credit: SGAG's instagram>
For harassing Mr Jover Chew who has been harassing his customers, lawyers said that the people serving citizenry-led justice against Mr Chew can be liable for harassment.
By now, Mr Chew needs no introduction, being the owner of the shop Mobile Air at the Sim Lim Square, who has caused a Vietnamese tourist to have to go on his knees to beg for his money to be returned, and another Chinese tourist to have a bag of coins thrown at her, while she also had to go on her knees to pick the coins up.
Yes, Mr Chew has scammed his customers. And not only that, since the start of this year, his shop has received 18 complaints – no other shop at the Sim Lim Square can beat his record. Not that they want to.
But for the graver deeds that Mr Chew has done to his customers, some lawyers have been quoted by mainstream media as saying that Mr Chew can take legal action against those whom have “harassed” him.
A perversion of justice? But of course, one bad act doesn’t deserve another.
Yet before we even debate about the use of the law, would it not be wiser to understand why the incidents even happened in the first place?
What about how Mr Chew’s shop has engaged in several scams without having been penalised for it? What do the lawyers have to say about that?
What about the hundreds and thousands of dollars lost by unsuspecting tourists and consumers, who have no recourse except a warning served by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) against Mobile Air, and even when consumers are able to get a refund, it is only a partial one?
What of the Police who were called in for the two recent incidents which have made the news but where the Police could not even arrest or charge Mr Chew for his misdeeds?
Perhaps it might be all too convenient to turn it on angered Singaporeans to silent the ongoing discourse.
But why did some individuals feel the need to take things into their own hands?
The people behind the SMRT Ltd (Feedback) Facebook page had said, “Since the Singapore Police Force and CASE is so f***ing useless, we'd like to volunteer to make sure the owner of Mobile Air, Jover Chew come beg to SMRT Ltd (Feedback) for mercy like how Heather Chua did before we released his identity to AMK Police Division.”
Thereafter, SMRT Ltd (Feedback) started to release personal information about Mr Chew on their Facebook page.
A shirt, with the words, “You C**B** (Hokkien swear word)”, was also left outside Mr Chew’s shop, by other individuals.
Mr Chew’s shop has been closed for the past few days, since his shop became infamous.
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Even before we got to the current stage, this situation could have been prevented.
A more pertinent question to ask is – if the authorities were able to take effective action at the start to prevent Mr Chew from scamming or to even penalise him for scamming the consumers, would the current backlash have followed?
Reasonably, no, they wouldn’t have.
One has to question why citizenry justice has taken root in Singapore, from the filming of ungracious acts on trains to the photos taken of people relieving themselves in public.
If this is what it takes to make known an issue or if Singaporeans have to kick up a ruckus before the authorities would even take notice of the situation, what recourse do Singaporeans have?
Should the question not be directed to the authorities instead? Why did they not act?
=> Ass Loon: KNN! I donch need resources to fix the Oppos ah? *chey*
Why could the police not take action? Why could CASE not take action but only give warnings?
Did the authorities think it serious enough to think of alternative ways of doing things in the first place, to resolve the issues before they sink deeper into the mess that we see now?
Yes, citizenry justice is a new concept in Singapore, but it is one which has evolved as a response to the perceived lack of justice.
Where your only recourse lies in taking things into your own hands because the authorities which could have but did not, the question is not to ask how we should penalise Singaporeans for doing so, but why the authorities failed in the first place.
There are many learning lessons to be learnt, but if the blame is pinned only squarely on Singaporeans, then I am afraid we have not learnt at all.
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
7 Nov 2014 - 12:35pm

<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
<pic credit: SGAG's instagram>
For harassing Mr Jover Chew who has been harassing his customers, lawyers said that the people serving citizenry-led justice against Mr Chew can be liable for harassment.
By now, Mr Chew needs no introduction, being the owner of the shop Mobile Air at the Sim Lim Square, who has caused a Vietnamese tourist to have to go on his knees to beg for his money to be returned, and another Chinese tourist to have a bag of coins thrown at her, while she also had to go on her knees to pick the coins up.
Yes, Mr Chew has scammed his customers. And not only that, since the start of this year, his shop has received 18 complaints – no other shop at the Sim Lim Square can beat his record. Not that they want to.
But for the graver deeds that Mr Chew has done to his customers, some lawyers have been quoted by mainstream media as saying that Mr Chew can take legal action against those whom have “harassed” him.
A perversion of justice? But of course, one bad act doesn’t deserve another.
Yet before we even debate about the use of the law, would it not be wiser to understand why the incidents even happened in the first place?
What about how Mr Chew’s shop has engaged in several scams without having been penalised for it? What do the lawyers have to say about that?
What about the hundreds and thousands of dollars lost by unsuspecting tourists and consumers, who have no recourse except a warning served by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) against Mobile Air, and even when consumers are able to get a refund, it is only a partial one?
What of the Police who were called in for the two recent incidents which have made the news but where the Police could not even arrest or charge Mr Chew for his misdeeds?
Perhaps it might be all too convenient to turn it on angered Singaporeans to silent the ongoing discourse.
But why did some individuals feel the need to take things into their own hands?
The people behind the SMRT Ltd (Feedback) Facebook page had said, “Since the Singapore Police Force and CASE is so f***ing useless, we'd like to volunteer to make sure the owner of Mobile Air, Jover Chew come beg to SMRT Ltd (Feedback) for mercy like how Heather Chua did before we released his identity to AMK Police Division.”
Thereafter, SMRT Ltd (Feedback) started to release personal information about Mr Chew on their Facebook page.
A shirt, with the words, “You C**B** (Hokkien swear word)”, was also left outside Mr Chew’s shop, by other individuals.
Mr Chew’s shop has been closed for the past few days, since his shop became infamous.
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Even before we got to the current stage, this situation could have been prevented.
A more pertinent question to ask is – if the authorities were able to take effective action at the start to prevent Mr Chew from scamming or to even penalise him for scamming the consumers, would the current backlash have followed?
Reasonably, no, they wouldn’t have.
One has to question why citizenry justice has taken root in Singapore, from the filming of ungracious acts on trains to the photos taken of people relieving themselves in public.
If this is what it takes to make known an issue or if Singaporeans have to kick up a ruckus before the authorities would even take notice of the situation, what recourse do Singaporeans have?
Should the question not be directed to the authorities instead? Why did they not act?
=> Ass Loon: KNN! I donch need resources to fix the Oppos ah? *chey*
Why could the police not take action? Why could CASE not take action but only give warnings?
Did the authorities think it serious enough to think of alternative ways of doing things in the first place, to resolve the issues before they sink deeper into the mess that we see now?
Yes, citizenry justice is a new concept in Singapore, but it is one which has evolved as a response to the perceived lack of justice.
Where your only recourse lies in taking things into your own hands because the authorities which could have but did not, the question is not to ask how we should penalise Singaporeans for doing so, but why the authorities failed in the first place.
There are many learning lessons to be learnt, but if the blame is pinned only squarely on Singaporeans, then I am afraid we have not learnt at all.