Miss Grand International 2021 Nguyen Thuc Thuy Tien taken into custody for fibre supplement fraud
The 26-year-old beauty queen is under investigation for allegedly deceiving consumers, according to Vietnam's Ministry of Public Security. Tien co-owned Kera Supergreens Gummies with other investors, and authorities discovered that she controlled a 30% profit stake in the company.
It was not just Tien promoting these gummies. She teamed up with two other influencers, Pham Quang Linh and Nguyen Thi Thai Hang, and they were all publicly talking about how great the product was back in December of last year. On her Facebook page, she was telling everyone that these gummies were a healthy snack and that just one gummy was like eating a whole plate of vegetables! She even said they were good for people of all ages.
It turns out a customer was unsure about these gummies and decided to get them tested on their own at a place called the Quality Assurance and Testing Centre 2. And that's when the truth started to come out and all the controversy began.
Each box of those gummies, even though it was supposed to have a good amount of fibre, actually only had a tiny 0.51 grams! That's way less than what they were saying. And after all the fuss started, Tien quickly took down all her posts promoting the gummies from social media.
It turns out that the people in charge of food safety in Ho Chi Minh City did an official test on these gummies. They did this because the Food Safety Department, which is part of the Ministry of Health, asked them to. It sounds like the higher-ups were definitely concerned and wanted to get to the bottom of what was really in these things.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Nine arrested for allegedly fixing matches in Singapore basketball league
SINGAPORE: Nine people have been arrested for their suspected involvement in fixing basketball matches in the 2025 K Star National Basketball League Division 1, the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) said on Tuesday (Aug 19). The individuals - eight Singaporeans and one permanent resident - are aged between 19 and 35 years old. Some of them are players from the basketball teams participating in the competition, said CPIB. One of the games that allegedly fixed was between Tagawa and Tong Whye on Aug 1. Investigations are ongoing against the nine people for suspected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, said CPIB. "Singapore adopts a strict zero-tolerance approach towards corruption, and match-fixing of any form is not condoned in Singapore. CPIB will not hesitate to take firm enforcement action against any parties involved, if they have given, received, or offered bribes to fix a match," it added. The 2025 K. Star National Basketball League Division 1 comprises 10 teams: Adroit, SBA, Tagawa, Chong Ghee, Eng Tat Hornets, SG Basketball, Siglap Basketball Club, Xin Hua Tung San and Tong Whye.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Hyflux's Tuaspring news release edited to omit key electricity sales reference after input from Olivia Lum, CFO: Witness
SINGAPORE: A news release on the new Tuaspring project by water treatment firm Hyflux was edited a few times until a portion about a new electricity sales business was taken out, a court heard on Tuesday (Aug 19). A fourth draft of the release was edited to "play down" the energy portion after input from then-chief executive officer Olivia Lum Ooi Lin and then-chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng. This was alleged in court by the prosecution's second witness, Ms Winnifred Heap Ah Lan, who was Hyflux's head of corporate communications and investor relations at the time, in late 2010 and early 2011. She was testifying against her former bosses and colleagues on day four of the trial of Lum, 64, Cho, 56, and four former independent directors. Cho faces only one charge under the Securities and Futures Act, while the other five are contesting two charges each linked to omitting details about electricity sales in the Tuaspring project from investors and the Singapore Exchange (SGX). According to the prosecution, Hyflux had pitched the Tuaspring project to the public as its second and largest seawater desalination plant in Tuas, while hiding the fact that it would fund the sale of water at a very low price to national water agency PUB, with a new business of selling electricity from a power plant it would build. When the project ran into financial problems due to weak electricity sales, Hyflux suffered losses and eventually entered liquidation, with 34,000 investors owed S$900 million (US$700 million). MS HEAP'S BACKGROUND Ms Heap told the court that she had been working as head of research for Singapore at JP Morgan Singapore before moving to Hyflux after Lum had asked her to "join her a few times". At the time, she felt the management team was "very driven" and Hyflux was one of the few water treatment companies around. She has since left Hyflux and has been with DBS Bank for about 10 years, with her current title being executive director. The court heard that Ms Heap joined Hyflux in January 2009 to cover several roles including Hyflux's water trust and business in India. Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong told her that he would be focusing only on her role in regard to Hyflux's corporate communications for this trial. She said that she handled investor relations, quarterly results announcements, the preparation of annual reports and organising events and launches as part of her role. She had help from a corporate communications team. Ms Heap testified in a low voice, at times haltingly, and was reminded multiple times by Mr Ong to speak up and into the microphones provided. She said at various points that the events occurred a long time ago and she could not recall what had happened. Mr Ong, who is senior counsel, showed her various slides, emails and documents from 2010 and 2011 and questioned her about them. Ms Heap testified that when it became known at the time that Hyflux had the most competitive or lowest bid in response to a tender by PUB, there was a "sense of excitement". Although Hyflux had not won the bid yet, she said there was a sense of excitement just knowing Hyflux had the most competitive bid, and because the company could move into power generation as part of its next business model. Mr Ong showed the court an email thread in early December 2010. Cho sent an email to Hyflux energy expert Camille Hurn and Hyflux finance staff member Tien Liang Nah, copying in Ms Heap and others. In it, Cho asked Mr Nah to contact someone to set up a time for a meeting with representatives from DBS, as they "would like to better understand our power strategy". The court heard earlier that DBS was one of the banks Hyflux had sought loans from for the Tuaspring project. After Mr Nah replies to say he would do so as soon as possible, Lum replied: "Need to do a lot of convincing job (sp) in energy strategy to the banks. Apparently Island Power is still having financing challenge." Questioned about this, Ms Heap said she had no background knowledge of this. Asked if she knew why the bank would require "a lot of convincing", she said: "I would imagine the key reason is (Hyflux's) insufficient track record with regards to power generation." DRAFTS OF NEWS RELEASE ANNOUNCING THE AWARD OF THE PROJECT Mr Ong then took Ms Heap through various drafts of a news release she was involved in preparing to announce Hyflux being awarded the contract of the Tuaspring Desalination plant. The first draft was circulated to relevant personnel via email in late December 2010. Ms Heap explained that she and her team were preparing for the news release ahead of time, even though it was announced only in March 2011 that Hyflux was the preferred bidder. This was because it was public information that Hyflux had put in the lowest bid and had high chances of winning the project, so the team had to prepare for the announcement. Mr Ong flashed the draft news release on a screen in court. On the second page of the announcement, it stated: "Integrated within the design of Tuas II desalination plant is a 350MW combined cycle gas turbine power plant which will supply electricity directly to the desalination plant. The remaining capacity will be retailed through Singapore's wholesale electricity market, the National Electricity Market of Singapore, to electricity retailers and subsequently sold to contestable consumers." The paragraph after this read: "(To this end, Hyflux will set up separate entities to undertake the power generation and energy retailing businesses. The investment in the power plant is estimated at approximately XXX million and will be funded XXX.)" Ms Heap explained that the "XXX" portions were to be filled in later. She said the target audience for the news release was the stock exchange and the public, with analysts and fund managers likely to be "the people that will read this announcement more carefully". In ensuing email exchanges, comments were given to edit parts of the news release, such as increasing the capacity of the power plant to 411MW. The second draft of the news release retained information about the sales of the electricity, with a quote from Lum at the end: "The integration of a power plant within a water project will help us drive higher efficiency and cost effectiveness in operations and maintenance of the desalination plant. "We look forward to partnering PUB to deliver another world-class desalination plant in our home market and to help Singapore become a hydrohub." Another email sent from Ms Heap to Lum and Cho and Hyflux's legal counsel on Jan 19, 2011, included a third draft of the news release. In her email, Ms Heap said she had made the changes following input from Lum and Cho, adding that "we still need to discuss on how much we need to disclose on the funding aspect". She explained in court that this email was to show the legal counsel the document so she was aware that the changes by Lum and Cho had been incorporated. This draft no longer had any mention to the sale of electricity, lead prosecutor Mr Ong said. Ms Heap confirmed this. Mr Ong asked why the line about the sale of electricity had been taken out in this third draft. Ms Heap thought for a while, before saying that the changes "would have been directed from Olivia and Wee Peng". She said she and her colleague "would not have the authority" to take out such "key points" from the news release. Asked by Mr Ong why the sale of electricity was a "key point", Ms Heap said it would be sold to the grid and investors and analysts would want to know "how much they want to sell to the grid, how you're going to do it, whether you have a track record, (and) whether you have the people with know-how to be able to execute that strategy". Mr Ong then tried to ask Ms Heap what the impact of an announcement stating that Hyflux was going to be selling electricity alongside its new water project be, in her role as the person in charge of corporate communications and investor relations. However, Lum's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, objected, saying that such a question would be for an expert witness. The judge allowed Ms Heap to answer the question to the best of her ability as a person in charge of corporate communications and investor relations. Ms Heap answered softly, with parts of her answer inaudible over the court speakers. She said there would be questions relating to the expertise and know-how that Hyflux had, and whether the company had the "relevant people to execute the strategy". She said she "really cannot recall" why Lum and Cho wanted the line about the sale of electricity taken out of the news release draft. Mr Ong then showed Ms Heap an email sent to Lum, Cho and others in early February 2011, just before Hyflux was announced as the preferred bidder for the project. In the email, Ms Heap wrote: "Hi all, attached is the cleaned up draft for (1) news release and (2) presentation following input from Olivia and Wee Peng. The key is to play down energy while highlighting our expanded bench strength and core capabilities." The email had two attachments: a powerpoint presentation for analysts at a briefing on the announcement of the Tuaspring Project and the fourth draft of the news release. Mr Ong asked her what she meant by "the key is to play down energy". Ms Heap said: "To play down the power generation part of the contract ... power generation being integrated into the contract." She said this was "key to the change" in the presentation and news release. "And whose idea or instruction was it to play down energy?" asked Mr Ong. Ms Heap hesitated. "Um. It is stated in the email, that, following the input from Olivia and Wee Peng." She said that "core capabilities" meant water desalination, while "expanded bench strength" was the power generation part of the announcement. She agreed that the announcement made no mention of the sale of electricity, just like in the third draft. The trial continues with Ms Heap still on the stand. If convicted of consenting to Hyflux's intentional failure to disclose the electricity sale information to the securities exchange, Lum could be jailed for up to seven years, fined up to S$250,000 or both.
CNA
5 hours ago
- CNA
Former preschool teacher who kicked 4-year-old girl sentenced to 4 days' jail
SINGAPORE: A former preschool teacher who kicked a four-year-old girl in a kindergarten classroom was sentenced to four days' jail on Tuesday (Aug 19). Alamelu Paramaguru got angry because the girl, who was sitting on the floor, had nearly tripped her. The 57-year-old Singaporean earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of ill-treating a child under the Children and Young Persons Act. Both the kindergarten and the victim cannot be named to protect the child's identity. The Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), which oversees the early childhood sector in Singapore, told CNA that the preschool had suspended the educator from her duties immediately after its investigations into the case. "The educator subsequently resigned and has not worked in the preschool sector since," it said, adding that she has been barred from working in the preschool sector. WHAT HAPPENED On Apr 2 last year, Alamelu – referred to as "Teacher Meloo" in school – was in charge of the Kindergarten 1 class. At about 11.55am, she sanitised the sleeping cots and placed them on the floor in preparation for the children to nap. She instructed a group of students, including the victim, to move away from a corner of the classroom where she wanted to place cots. The victim remained seated on the floor while the others moved. After Alamelu moved a cot to the corner, she turned and felt that she had nearly tripped over the child, although she did not trip or fall. Angry, she forcefully kicked the girl on her right shin while scolding and shouting at her to sit properly. She did not attend to the girl even after the child hugged her right leg in pain. That evening, when her mother was picking her up from the preschool, the girl told her about the incident. The mother saw a bruise on the girl's leg and immediately spoke to other teachers, since Alamelu had left for the day. The teachers said they would raise the matter with the principal the next day. The mother filed a police report that same night. The girl was seen at KK Women's and Children's Hospital with a bruise measuring 1cm by 1cm. She was given two days of medical leave and some cream to apply for treatment. During investigations, Alamelu said she could not remember what had happened when asked if she had done anything to the girl. She said that "unconsciously", her foot could have touched or made contact with the girl's leg. FEAR OF TRIPPING DUE TO POOR VISION During the arguments for the sentence to be meted out, Deputy Public Prosecutor Timotheus Koh sought five to seven days' jail. Alamelu's lawyer Jonathan Wong of law firm Tembusu Law proposed a fine or a combination of a fine with a bond for good behaviour. If the court thought a jail term was warranted, he asked for no more than five days' jail. In mitigation, Mr Wong said that the force used on the child was not significant and that Alamelu's reaction had been instinctive without any premeditation or planning on her part. The culpability was as short as the time it took for her to react, he argued. He also said that his client was blind in one eye and had partial vision in the other due to glaucoma. It is an eye condition where damage to the optic nerve results in the gradual loss of vision and if untreated, can lead to blindness. "The defence submits that Alamelu's poor vision has made her highly cautious and fearful of tripping, leading to a (heightened) sense of awareness," Mr Wong argued. "As such, Alamelu had overreacted to the situation given her fear and visual impairment." Adding that his client had been in the early childhood education industry for around 30 years with an unblemished track record, he said: "This is the first and only – and now, sadly, the last – incident of her having any interaction with the people and community that she has devoted her life to serving." In response to the defence, the prosecution said that Alamelu's visual impairment did not affect her ability to exercise self-control and restraint. Mr Koh pointed out that the impairment should have increased her empathy and understanding of another vulnerable person, but this was "not how it played out" in this case. Likewise, for the argument about Alamelu's lengthy career, Mr Koh said that this showed how the accused was not a young or immature caregiver. As an experienced teacher, she ought to have known that she was expected to control her frustrations and not to lay her hands on children. He argued that not imposing a jail term could "send the wrong message" in this case. "A fine in this case would be a slap on the wrist, sending the message that you can pay a monetary penalty when you kick a child, especially a child who is so young and when you are .... (entrusted) to care for a child instead of harming her," Mr Koh added. JUDGE'S REASONS FOR A SHORT JAIL TERM In his sentencing statements, District Judge Koo Zhi Xuan said that a teacher who ill-treats a child breaches both personal and professional trust, which would typically warrant severe sentences. "At the same time, the court recognises the demanding responsibilities placed on preschool teachers, who are often responsible for the care of many children simultaneously. "In this high-stress environment, frustration or fatigue may lead to momentary lapses in judgment," he added. Although this could not excuse ill-treatment of a child, the court should ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the harm, yet be tempered by a "humane consideration" of the offence and the offender's circumstances. He noted that Alamelu had not been having an easy time leading up to the offence, since she appeared to be single-handedly managing a class of around 15 students. In a short period, she had to watch out for students, issue them instructions while sanitising and arranging their sleeping cots simultaneously. He said it was "understandable and only human" for her to have felt frustrated or angry that the victim had not complied with instructions. However, her emotions did not justify her actions. The court also considered that the act was isolated, that the victim was still able to complain to her mother and that her injury was not on a vulnerable part of her body, or serious. That said, the judge did not agree with the defence that Alamelu's culpability was at the lowest end of the range. "Had the accused caused less hurt to the victim or perhaps, more importantly, showed immediate concern towards her after the kick instead of callously scolding and shouting at her, I would likely have come to the view that a fine would suffice," Judge Koo said. "In the absence of these factors, I have come to the conclusion – not without some difficulty – that the appropriate sentence in the present case is a short custodial term of four days' imprisonment."
