Newspaper report: The CEO of a certain charity company has an Intelligence Quotation of no more than 2 (and there's a chance of it being a negative number).
On more detailed reading, it says that the CEO, in an arrogant attempt to show that he can do whatever heck he wants with the donators' money, employed lawyers to take on half of the entire Singapore media by sueing SPH for saying that the tap in his toilet is gold-plated.
(Incidentally, the other half of Singapore media, Mediacrop, long time partner of the charity company, as we can see from the length of its news reports on this incident, is taking a position the writer personally loved most: On the fence .)
However, the attempt backfired. The CEO, whose name coincidentally sounds like 'tulan', really succeed in making the public f*cking tulan when they learnt that only about half (or less) of the money they donated went to the beneficiaries, due to the publicity of this court case by SPH. The rest went to stuffs like administration fees, telephone company, prizes to tempt more donation, gold-plated taps, 1st class air tickets, 12 months bonus to the CEO himself etc etc.
The CEO, buay da haned, beat a strategic retreat by suddenly 'realising' that SPH is reporting for benefits for the people (who suddenly has the right to know) and withdrew its charges against SPH, despite knowing that in doing so, he's actually admiting that he has an IQ of less than 2.
His lawyers, who must be a bit unhappy at the decision, are offering no help now. They say things like
- "Don't understand why he (the CEO) is sueing SPH in the first place..."
- "It's ok to sue, but accuser's own moral character must be able to withstand challenges from the defendants." (Haha!)
- "It's very rare for people to stop sueing halfway, there must be some reasons." (What? There're more hidden things that can't see the light?)
Somewhat related to this incident is a dubious statement given by the wife of a certain minister. She said that the CEO is earning a peanut salary. There're several interpretations of this statement. Is she trying to show off that the CEO's salary is peanut-size compared to her own durian-size income (Just an example. Durian is the writer's favourite fruit. =P)? Or is she insulting 99% of the Singaporean citizens by saying that their salary is much much much less than peanut-size? (Wtf?? How dare she imply that I'm having a amoeba-size allowance?!) What she meant we do not know, but it might be interesting to note that the photo of her on the newspaper is not very flattering.
Anwz, despite the strategic retreat, the damage is already done. Someone vandalised the walls of the charity company main building. (This the writer strongly condemned. Guess whose money the company use to repaint the wall?) Donators stopping their monthly donations. People petitioned to demand the CEO and the board of directors to step down.
In response to this demand, the CEO demostrated his intelligence (or lack of) again by saying that he refuses to step down unless he's forced to. This tells us that a person with IQ less than 2 will never give up having a few hundred thousands a year and gold-plated taps in his office toilet willingly. I believed any person with an IQ of 3 or more in his position would have resigned himself immediately.
Latest news: The whole board of directors are resigning. At least they are much smarter. Too bad, Mr CEO. You are being forced to resign.
The moral of the story: No matter how low your IQ is, NEVER EVER show it by going against the media.
Disclaimer: Although I've FULL confidence in Singapore's freedom of speech, I must state here that all the above are rubbish. If you are thinking that I'm refering to you in the above article and wanting to sue me, you think too much. I'm not refering to you. Any resemblance to any company or people is just coincidence. =P
are you cines
ReplyDeleteErm... I\'m chinese, but not from China. Y?
ReplyDelete