Ilango Letter 26 09 06

Jeffrey Lim just called me at 9am.

1. For these few years, the procedure is gana caught play game / watch porn in tech lab, students need to get their parents to sign a letter, and pay a $10 fine with receipt given. The $10 goes to "student needy fund" (direct quote).

2. Regarding ilango and the fines, "other teachers also know about it" (direct quote). From his following elaboration I think he was referring to the mini-fines during class which were later stopped. Not sure.

3. "My personal opinion is that he won't pocket any of the money lah", in the end someone has to "pay the bills". Then I asked about the possibly unrecorded fines e.g. $10 in Java camp and $80 fines for Lawrence and Lewis (normal is $40). These are possibly unrecorded? He said he will go check. Me: "It's hard to track down, right?" Mr. Lim: "Yah it's hard, but I'll try my best."

4. "We have no further dealings with him", "we will take note, if anybody comes and asks us about him". I said Ilango has a company which does business with some MOE schools, what if we want to send a letter to MOE, can the school help us? He advised me to be extremely sure of our case first, because its our word against theirs. "It could be blown out of proportion and become a civil case."

Ok. Those above are the facts. Now is my opinion:

1. I'm guessing that the accounts might show a series of $40 fines, that being the 'standard procedure' at that time. It's two people's words, and if the two $80 fines were not recorded, then that is where a case can be built.

2. $10 Java camp fines. In this case, please note that whatever happened was behind closed doors. Truly, our words against his. Hard to prove? I don't know. I'm not seasoned lawyer.

3. The mini-fines. This in our favour, since according to Mr. Lim some of the other teachers already "heard about it". The case might start from here.

4. I still have my mind on the phishing incident. That one is hard to prove, because ignorance is a good claim. I do not know. If I were a lawyer I would argue, what are the chances that an IT expert with running his own IT company allowed phishing code on his website for at least 7 days?

Also keep in mind that that this 7 days is the time from anonymous tip-off to time when action was taken (website shut down).
-------------------------------------------------------

Ok. To conclude, PLEASE DECIDE ON THE COURSE OF ACTION.

1. For the Chinese High side, my impression is that more or less they already hold negative views towards ilango. I don't know if that is solely Jeffrey Lim's opinion. "In fact if he come to us we won't do his business". I never ask for elaboration. If you'd like, we can request a formal statement from the school explicitly stating disapproval of ilango. Obviously the most they are comfortable in going could just be telling us in an informal manner. Formal statement = possibility of legal action.

2. Since Ilango's company has dealings with some MOE schools. We can choose to send forward these letters directly to the MOE schools. Then also to MOE itself. Think about this carefully.

Remember that the only remaining evidence that the school can provide us is (A)accounts information, and (B)teacher testimony. That's all. They are probably not going to formally support nor deny our testimonies. The most we have is our own mouths. Please decide. Also note that I was never fined. So it's your decision to make. But if we go all the way obviously I will face the consequences together, being the chief instigator (nice word).

If you are already happy enough that the school (at least informally) seems to agree with our assessment of Ilango, then yes we may stop here. If not:

Obtain some accounts information + teacher testimonials, add to Ilango letter, then forward to MOE.

Think about it first, then we'll come up with something. Meanwhile if you have any friends well-versed in law, I will want to seek their advice.
--------------------------------------------------------