This morning I read this post on Qiuqiu’s blog, which left me with a heavy heart. It seems to hint at a potential lawsuit QiuQiu V Nuffnang.


“Because money is a very.. odd thing.

Everyone loves it but everyone can misuse it. It can be a great power used by someone to help someone else but it can also be a great power used by someone to to degrade and destroy someone else.

…Helping people with money doesn’t mean giving them money and then sharing about it online, waiting for people to tell you what kind of a god-like person you are.”

She also writes about how the rich might use–I assume, lawsuits– to threaten the weaker party into silence. QUOTE:

“You might already know, for the past one year plus i’ve been going through a really bad time of my life…i decided to walk out of it and stop letting people pin me down with money. Scaring me into silence. Threatening me into retreat.

But after talking to many people who are in the same situations and after paying shitload of money to get my own legal advice from a top-notch team of lawyers, i realise that all these time, i was just too silly. Silly enough to walk into the trap of fear that they path out for me.”

After reading this, I felt very sad and sorry for Qiuqiu.

Assuming that “lawsuits” are indeed being mentioned, it is bound to be the weaker party having to sue the money-loaded, more powerful party.

Why is this so, and why is this so unfair?

It’s because the richer party only needs to threaten the weaker party into silence.

So lawsuits seldom result from the rich suing the weak. After all, with more money, the rich can get better lawyers, and obviously they would not give you unfavorable evidence against themselves.

Just look at the City Harvest case involving Roland Poon. In spite of Roland Poon being right and justified in his whistleblowing–QUOTE:

He had no clear evidence to show for but he had to take a stand for what was right and what was — given his position then, he probably had no idea how big this issue was going to be — a matter that was soon to be of extreme public interest.

Nonetheless, he blew the whistle by putting his name down onto letters to the press, having written to various mainstream media outlets saying it was not ethical to mix secular matters and religion.

This was after his queries to the church leadership about how church funds were being used went unanswered.

He had at that time alleged that church funds were used to finance Sun Ho’s publicity campaigns and claimed then that he was encouraged to buy her music.

When the church threatened to sue Poon for his allegations, he retracted his statements and apologised to CHC.

In January 2003, Poon subsequently took out five apologies in The Straits Times, Lianhe Zaobao, Lianhe Wanbao,Shin Min Daily News and The New Paper, to a tune of $33,372.06, that was paid for by an anonymous donor.”

QiuQiu V Nuffnang: Life is sometimes so…unfair, isn’t it?

Generally speaking, whenever you witness injustice or have something grossly unfair done against you by a rich party, you’d be threatened with defamation/ libel/ slander lawsuits even if you are speaking the truth. Unless you retract unfavourable statements–regardless of the truth–you’d be sued very badly.

And then it is up to you to prove that whatever you are saying is the verifiable truth. In short, the truth has to be indisputable in black and white. If not, you’re effectively screwed because most normal, trusting people don’t record important verbal conversations, nor have access to confidential internal information.

Then we are left to wonder, would there be karma? How can there not be karma? When you are slapped on your right cheek, would you turn the other?

After someone destroys your life like that, seriously–?

When you are so broken, would you stand back up with all your might and strength?

I don’t know the exact details of what happened to Qiuqiu, but really found comfort and solace in the way she came to a resolution:

“As for the people who shot me down, Thank you for your help in pulling me apart so i could fall to nothing and rebuild myself into something else.”

Qiuqiu is quite a strong lady. Meredith is blessed! 🙂

Hmm but having said that, there are many ways to retaliate in a dignified manner that would not result in you getting sued. It is only a matter of strategy. /grins.

One comment

  1. Indeed, everyone has a choice. It is up to you whether you’d like to support Trump or not, whether you’d support the legalization of abortion or not. But when something appears to not be right, shouldnt others voice out to help awaken the blind? Slavery was legal in the past but because people fought against it, it became a wrong.
    Caution is always key to making a judgement.
    Likewise, the majority is not saying that nobody should donate but rather they feel as though this blogger has been rather contradictory in her actions. If she hasn’t been, nobody would have a cause to dispute her claims.
    The facts are simply there.
    People, BOTH supporters and non supporters alike are unable to explain the why:
    1. She chose not to sell her HDB house away but choose to resort to her fans’ financial pool
    2. She bought a $90++ toy car for her child while most would shudder at spending such an 
amount whilst undergoing tight financial constraints for a year.
    3. She has the luxury to consult various lawyers and opted for the most expensive one.
    4. She chose not to settle out of court and blew up the matter. “In its Aug 11 statement, ChurpChurp, which is represented by TSMP Law Corporation, said in a statement on its website that despite numerous attempts to “amicably resolve” the matter, the blogger continued to “wilfully ignore” her contractual obligations.”. We also know that she was already aware of the “threats of suing my pants off” before she was given the writ of summon. Hence, things could change with negotiation prior to the summon being served.
    5. She still leads a rather shopaholic lifestyle and eats at restaurants (look at recent cotton on hauls and her giving away a very expensive stroller that can still be used)
    6. She opted for an overseas filming project for goodfeelim when she could be sourcing for opportunities already available in sg for the moment. Thus incurring additional personal costs.
    7. She chose not to opt for personal and bank loans which understandably requires money to be returned unlike for crowdfunding.
    8. Where did all the money for the birthday parties and mooncake parties come from?
    9. The reason given for the rental of the landed property was to combine a studio, office and home together. Many have provided the constructive feedback that you could have all 3 in a hdb home as well. It is just a matter of adjusting.
    10. She did all these while she already knew of an imminent lawsuit.
    11. Some parents are unhappy with how it might appear as though she is using her child to garner sympathy. (Even though she might not have been doing so. Take for example a parent who beats with a cane versus a parent who doesnt; who is to say which is right or wrong?)
    12. She mentioned she spent $12,000 on the consultations: “All in all, before i even got served, i already spent about $12,000 on consultations with different lawyers. But proceeded to state that “All of my savings had been used up in the past one year plus of email correspondence, letter exchanges, contract reading and consultation etc, plus i went to many different lawyers before i could settle with one i am confident with.” How did her total savings only amount to $12,000. Did she use to spend as she earned?
    **13. (ADDED BY OTHERS) She has alot of blogger friends (Miyake, Cheesie, Pxdkitty etc.) + 5 sisters + besties (Mich). Counting them casually 14 known relatives + friends in social media. If each person could loan her $10,000-$15,000, that would amount to at least $150,000. The additional could be topped by bank loans and the sale of her HDB :). She could achieve the $200,000 target she seeks instead of crowdfunding from the public.
    When others mentioned giving to a better cause, they just meant giving to someone who is extremely in desperate times and in dire need of help. Indeed nobody can help everyone but everyone can help someone (: and it is just how you exercise your judgement during these times. We are all aware that there are people who still support Trump despite his notorious racism and acts of sexual abuse. Likewise, this blogger will always have supporters regardless of her actions.
    So bottomline is, no hate is and should. be incited. The topic at hand is just extremely controversial and debatable.
    I do feel that THERE IS NO NEED to dispute facts and support her fervently unless you do know the reasons behind all her contradictory actions or when she finally explains herself. Those who spam are just trying to hide the facts from the public.
    Likewise, THERE IS NO NEED for personal attacks (esp those targeting her family and friends. I feel that they have been nothing but supportive and I love their family dynamic. This is the blogger’s choice to opt for crowdfunding.) but facts are also much appreciated and should be shared to be food for thought for the public. Much like how a courtroom decides whether a party has been fraudulent or not. Otherwise thinking further and looking into one’s history is always wise before making any donation at all (applies to all cases).”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *