I was both appalled and disappointed when I saw this article approved and posted on the Buddhist Channel website (a prominent Buddhist website)

Ven. Ming Yi – Should he be disrobed for his financial misendeavour at Ren Ci Hospital?

It is indeed sad and disappointing that the once famous and inspiring Buddhist monk in Singapore has broken his precepts and break the hearts of his faithful lay disciples and supporters.

Ming Yi has already been punished for his mistakes. Should he still dorn the saffron robes of a Buddhist monk or should he renounce monkhood to prevent bringing the religion into disrepute?

Though regretful, Ming Yi’s actions have not tarnished the name of Buddhism in anyway. The Buddha taught human beings a method to achieve real and eternal happiness. The dhamma, or the teachings of the Buddha, is simply a path leading to the eventual goal.

I am not well versed in the Mahayana school to comment on whether Ming Yi should disrobe. In the Theravade school of Buddhism, to which I belong to, the monks are restrained under the Patimokkha, or a code of conduct comprising of 227 precepts formulated during the Buddha’s time more than 2,500 years ago

According to the Patimokkha, there are four parajikas (defeat) or rules entailing explusion from the Buddhist order or Sangha if they are broken by a monk: – engaging in sexual intercourse with a female, stealing, murder and “boasting of a superior human state without direct knowledge.”

As long as Ming Yi did not commit any of the above offences, he does not need to disrobe at least according to the Theravada school.

I do not see how embezzlement and the making of false accounts are not considered as stealing, and according to the Patimokkha (Theravadin Monastic Code of Conduct):

Accepting gold or money, having someone else accept it, or consenting to its being placed down as a gift for oneself, is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. (NP18)

Obtaining gold or money through trade is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense. (NP 19)

The Vinaya Rules were set in place by the Buddha to serve 3 main purposes: First, to ensure peace and well-being within the Sangha (Monk) Community itself; Second, to foster and protect faith among the laity, on whom the monks depend for their support; Third, to help restrain and prevent mental defilements within the individual monks.

Though each of the above is a nissaggiya pacittiya offense (which does not entail disrobing, but requires the monk to forfeit the article obtained, and make a confession to a fellow bikkhu or group of bikkhus before he is absolved from the offense), under the Theravadin context, his dealings with money has not only rendered him irrelevant as a monk, whose primary purpose is to renounce the world and devote his time to the study and cultivation of the Dhamma, but it has most importantly eroded the faith (which the Vinaya outrightly sets out to protect) lay people have on the Sanghas.

I shall not be drawn into the polemic debate as to how and what he should be doing, but this post is written to underscore the flagrant mistakes made and to straighten out the wrong views some people might be harboring, since  I could not reply/comment on the article posted on the website.

P.S. This post does not discount the fact that he should be forgiven albeit all his wrongdoings.

Second Chance

At 17 I was captain of my high-school football team and on my way to college. But in November 1992 I went to a birthday party with friends. We were tussling around, and the chaperones threw us out. One of them knocked me to the ground, and I felt ashamed and angry. My friend had a gun in his car. I got it, came back, and fired three shots, killing one of the chaperones. I was convicted of murder and given 10 to 25 years in prison.

I grew up in an area known for gun violence and drugs. Like a lot of boys, I looked up to tough men who could fight and had been in prison. My first arrest came when I was 12: I stole my grandmother’s gun and took it to school. At 14 I was sent to a boys’ home. I studied hard and won a full scholarship to attend the University of Detroit high school. I excelled there, but my thinking was twisted. I didn’t know how to manage my anger. As a result, a man lost his life the night of that party.

On the day I was to begin Marygrove College, I started a prison term instead. I was 18 and had hope: I could be paroled when I was still a relatively young man. I spent six of my 12 years in prison in solitary confinement. I promised myself I would read 1,000 books. I read 1,300. I became certified as a carpenter, plumber, electrician, and paralegal.

I was released from prison in 2004 after my third parole hearing. I received bachelor’s and master’s degrees from University of Detroit Mercy. I started a motivational-speaking and fitness-training company. As a community-reintegration coordinator, I help other ex-offenders start anew. I’m proof that people, especially teens, can’t be judged by the worst thing they ever did.

There are countless examples of former juvenile offenders like myself who, given the opportunity to be contributing members of society, have done great things. Former senator Alan Simpson committed a serious federal offense as a juvenile (destroying government property) but became a GOP leader. Terry Ray was a violent repeat offender but became an assistant U.S. attorney. Charles Dutton was convicted of manslaughter at 17 but became a respected actor and director. Dozens of studies show that overwhelming majorities of juvenile offenders mature out of committing crimes.

Next month the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida,two cases that will decide if it’s constitutional to sentence teens to life in prison without parole. The court should give people like me a reason to keep improving themselves. Individuals who have committed crimes as teens should be allowed to have their sentences reviewed. Teenagers change. Adolescents, even more than adults, have enormous capacity for redemption. I know.

In Singapore, Yong Vui Kong, a 21-year-old Malaysian is sentenced to death and will be executed for drug trafficking. He was 19 when he was caught for drug trafficking in June 2007.

Singapore is estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world.

A mandatory death sentence in Singapore is a cruel and inhuman punishment because even if the defendant’s lawyer is able to adduce fresh evidence or canvass a new argument which has merits, in both situations, after an appeal has been heard by the Court of Appeal, the court system in Singapore, does not have the power to re-open a case where an appeal had already been heard and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Some may argue for the case on grounds of social expediency, while some may even be insouciant about it, but I think everyone would choose to stand for the abolishment of mandatory death penalty and support the call for the Courts to be granted revisionary powers over all cases which carry the death penalty IF THE PERSON FACING THE DEATH PENALTY WAS YOU!!

Your reticence is tantamount to a consent to kill.

The difficulty of the task (appeal against mandatory death penalty) does not annul the necessity. Everybody deserves a second chance.

Article Courtesy of Newsweek; Excerpts from “World Day Against the Death Penalty – A Singapore Forum“, theOnlineCitizen.