Due to the sudden phone call of Mr Andy Ong from ERC today with regards to his reading of my blog, I decided to delete the Venessa Anne posting (because the response was louya) and make this posting the current one.

It will be all dedicated to the discussion of ERC’s legal action on a blogger, my blog ie.

As for those who do not know ERC, you can:
1. Check up through the internet;
2. Go to the sales pitch Mr Andy Ong mostly held on Wednesday.

Actually, the best is to go for the sales pitch if you picked up the time and address from ERC’s advertisement in Today, telling you should kick your jobs and sign up with the course and be an entrepreneur.

“Do you want to be successful…?” I’d always remember Andy Ong’s presentation to me during the sales pitch in the room of people.

Scope wants to be successful, but I don’t trust him anymore. And now, after paying the full fee, this Andy Ong is sending his lawyer after an unhappy customer.

This posting is dedicated to ERC’s threat to take legal action on a blogger in Singapore, who happens to be an unhappy consumer.

Not only the threat of legal action,  he also claimed that I made veiled threats to ERC through his staff, that I harassed his female staff, that I was taking advantage of what situation, that I am arrogant, that I bla bla bla in our email communication. I don’t care if he is so influencial in Singapore.

Simply put, he can never be my mentor in entrepreneurship.

And obviously, he can never keep his part of the contract since I will not trust him again. 

And today, he came calling demanding that I obliged or else he’d take legal action, and the deadline was within this day. He’s just too much. I am not a sandbag he can just punch anyohow~

Encounter: Scope Wants Justice.

It’s going to be interesting. Singapore ERC’s Andy Ong has visited this hilarious blog and decided to give me a call this noon. He told me politelyI don’t want to talk to you anymore…” Just as my battery gone flat. (Actually, the battery went loose.)

Knowing Mr Andy Ong, I decided to go back home right after delivery and gave him an email requesting him to email me the request to remove the mentioning of ERC here in the Blog. I even took the time to write to him, nicely. It was obvious, Mr Andy was working up his temper again.

My due respect became arrogance… (?!)

He called me in the noon when I was carrying heavy loads of goods, fighting for time to unload at somewhere nearby some construction site at Tanglin Road, and all he wanted was to threaten to take legal action on my voicing out of unhappiness about ERC in the blog by an extremely unhappy consumer (Me lah~) with his service. That’s so like him.

After I took the pain to respectfully email him in reply, he alleged that I was arrogant?!

I don’t understand where have I been arrogant? And he claimed that I was determined to hurt them? Now… did he refund me? Nope. Did I sue him? Nope. So?

I may be a nobody. But I am feeling very unhappy now. This is Singapore, hailing service quality when a consumer can’t even vent out some frustration in his personal blog, which is designed for unserious blogging. Now, who is out to hurt again? Why? If Seiko’s product can’t work, you mean I can’t even say it is a waste of money? Or I should just keep this from the world?

Now, Mr Andy Ong has found a lawyer and will be taking legal action against a Blogger after Mr Philip Yeo did so a few years back. In this case of mine, it is even more ridiculous. It is between an unhappy consumer and a government linked ERC on a small blog which is written-for-written’s sake. So… The next Marytr has to be me.

So be it. I paid $1680 to ERC who has nothing better to win a consumer’s approval but to resort to legal action on his non-serious blog. And it wants to teach me how to be an entrepreneur…

Now I am waiting for his lawyer’s letter to share with you guys and gals. I have gone to my MP on this before I left for China, disillusioned with Singapore. Mr MP wanted facts. Now he can have alot of facts.

How can I have such a mentor???

No. Whatever proposals I got, I am not going to ERC, to Andy Ong. He asked us to trust him back then during his sales pitch. I had. I even paid the money in full. It is now very obvious that he cannot be my mentor in entrepreneurship in this manner. He should not keep my fee.

If I obliged, then oil companies can sue me if I complain their fucking oil bloody expensive and I use my hero bicycle instead~!

This happens in Singapore, today… in the 2007, when MM said people should return to Singapore and they will be taken care of. Now even a consumer cannot talk about his frustration over a paid service in this tiny island. (Laughing…)

It seems that I am right. That’s how caring it is?

Aspiring people should try to move overseas.

I am very tired about hiding or running away as and when a bully comes by. If Andy Ong insists on legal action on a non-serious blogger’s blog, anything can happen anyway. If my promised pinnacle by ERC is in the jail or what, I have paid for it.

And I tell the government of Singapore… aspiring people should find a place elsewhere in the globe for themselves. Singapore is just too dangerous. You can’t even express unhappiness over service bought, what else?

Life… it is just a continuous chain of struggles… in Singapore.

Wait for the update then. It’s a prime case in Singapore’s blogging environment… plus (laughably) a drama between an unhappy nobody consumer Vs a very rich service provider, in this education hub of Singapore.

I’d wear brown in court if I am allowed to.

It is going to be a landmark case. I suppose Andy’s lawyer must be very excited about this.

She Vs a nobody blogger. How sweet… …

How Valid Is This Case.

No doubt lawfirm S could send in a letter in behalf of Andy Ong. But whether Andy and ERC has a case is another issue. The case is not on whether ERC will refund Scope, but on Andy’s unhappiness over my unhappiness with him.

However, Andy is the service provider, and Scope is the customer. That’s the basic relationship between ERC, Andy and Scope.

And read ERC’s communication to public via ads. Must read~!

In such a manner, the service provider is unhappy that the user makes noise. I really do not understand if Andy has even consulted Carrie before he made the phone call.

If Andy Ong can succeed in this, then Seiko Watch can just have a Law department instead of a customer service department and repair workshop. Carrie (Andy’s lawyer)should understand that Seiko can just sue whomever made noise (words of mouths), and there shall be no need for customer service nor repair. Hence, if Carrie sends this lawyer letter, she is telling the world that Scope cannot make noise or do something about his unhappiness over what he perceived as bad service.

Is this a defamation? Nope. Besides, blog cases have never really being fought in Singapore’s court. And between an unhappy consumer and an unhappy service provider, who has the case?

Consumers paid service providers to be satisfied. When consumers are not happy because the providers won’t deliver, isn’t it more obvious that the service provider do something to make consumers happy?

Otherwise, why should consumers pay?

Now I consider Andy’s demand and this case ridiculous. As the blog shows, the aspiring Scope had started from zeal with ERC to utter disappointment, and total disillusion upon wanting a full refund.

Rationally, Carrie should understand when a consumer is unhappy, and he had tried all the ways to get off the boat but met with such things as excuses and allegations, he’d certainly make noise. This is a simple consumer case, not a defamation case.

If a parent complains to Straits Times that the school her daughter is in sucks, will the school hire S lawfirm and threaten the parent to shut up or face legal action for defamation?

This blogger is discussing this case now. Anyone in the law society wants to render this discussion to ‘shut up’ by slapping a threat of legal action?

Andy is too much. I was an aspiring man signing with a fee fully paid to ERC. And at this very moment, I can confirm I am right: He is unfit to be my mentor. Because if I run a big company like Volvo Beijing, I don’t go around suing consumers who made noise.

There might be a contract saying you must pay in full after the first drive of my Volvo, but if I can’t deliver that Volvo eventually, should I not refund my customer?

If I have known ERC is like this, do you think I’d pay a single cent to sign up? Carrie, is this not sounding rational to you?

This case is very funny. Besides, filing against a blog itself is already a venture into a new scope of laws. Fair judgement here, if Scope must oblige by reasons of legal action instead of other justification… We will have a problem. REACH will have a problem. Various forums and blogs will also have a problem. The impact is going to be huge.

I have emailed Andy. If he or his lawyer can justify whichever is unfair in this blog, I will be more than happy to amend. But first… whenever the customer is unhappy or puzzled, what he needs is good customer service and reasonable answers.

Andy wrote “I hope you’d appreciate my efforts” in his book issued to me. I really don’t know how I can appreciate such efforts of his. He has driven one zealous aspiring man into a total disillusioned, and he is threatening to sue or take legal action on him.

When I was going to Beijing… I was already prepared for the worst. What makes Andy think that I will back off like this? I saw death just in front of me in China, I didn’t even shake.

Andy, I am utterly disappointed with you. And to think that you have pushed me again and again and again. I take your threat seriously. But you have never taken me seriously.