Tima said, "(The article) only says two men from Singapore committed this crime."

I don't know anything about this company, but I read Chinese very well and can say that this article emphatically says that ONE of the Singaporean men COMMITTED THE CRIME, and the OTHER was the VICTIM. So as Tima says that they both were perpetrators, this is totally false.

Additionally, Tima said, "The story you list in Chinese doesn't state the names of the persons involved." Yet, the article gives the family names of the Singaporeans involved:

CRIMINAL: [Chinese characters]
VICTIM: [Chinese characters]

The article couldn't be clearer in this regard, so again Tima is wrong. And I trust the original poster, despite his or her poor English skills, had sense enough to compare these facts against what he knew of the names of those who ran the business.

And the article is also pretty clear that this happened in Chongqing and that the two men opened some kind of "training school" together.

So when Tima says, "That can be any of the thousands of Singaporeans that visit China" I would submit the odds are very low that the criminal described in the article is not the same boss in CHONGQING that ran a TRAINING SCHOOL that the original poster identified. In other words, the odds are heavily favored that this 张 character in the article is the same crook that ran the school.

Hmm... What possible explanation could there be for Tima making such glaring mistakes? I'll let you decide.

[Edited by Administrator (admin) Wednesday, 01 December 2010, 06:46 PM]