Re: Article titled “Suit against Anglican Bishop dismissed” of DE 6th March, 2014 p9
START OF PRESS RELEASE
I would like to lodge my personal protest over the inaccuracies/misrepresentation and defamatory insinuations in the above article.
The defamatory insinuations and statements as published may or may not refer to the Diocesan Chancellor Datuk Stephen Foo as the article started with “Datuk Stephen Foo refused to comment on the legal case brought by some disgruntled Anglican parishioners against the Sabah Anglican Bishop, when asked by Daily Express. The question of confusion is that if Foo refused to comment, then where did the defamatory words “some disgruntled” come about? Did the Daily Express with unnamed writer coin such words? Also who made the mistake both in the heading and the quoted sentence when it was the Archbishop Bolly Lapok as one of the defendants and not Sabah Anglican Bishop? Then the confusion to the readers could link me to be disgruntled as my name appears toward the last portion of the article. When was I a disgruntled parishioner?
Surprisingly very naughty and even seditious in the context of Christianity to suggest that statement later and I quote “Christians should not resort to legal action as stated in the Bible. A lot of accusations as published were hearsay” and was this statement made by Foo or Daily Express or an unspecified person? If accusations as published were hearsay, surely there is a recourse to punish such activities otherwise whoever had said this is guilty beyond doubt.
Further salt to injury against parishioners was added by Foo when he was reported “The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to say or publish anything.” In this misplaced statement of Foo, I would like to remind him of his response to the Daily Express’s article “Bishop under probe” dated 12 July, 2012 page 2 indicating several items of Criminal Breach of Trust and his subsequent response as published in the letters forum in Daily Express of 22nd July, 2012 in which he acknowledged the unnamed Bishop was an Anglican Bishop and that he mulled litigation against that article, after the Roman Catholic Church had disclaimed that their bishop was not under probe. Did Foo initiate any litigation process against that article? If not why not? Christians should not have short memory.
I am not to dwell into the recent case by two plaintiffs against the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province of churches in South East Asia (APSEA) as I am unsure of the issues raised in those Court documents. What I know is that there is full Judgement by the High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari Kamali Bin Ramli after adjournments during the final process and including some changes in the trial Judge. The case was started on August 30, 2013 and the Judgement came about on 29th January, 2014 after several hearings in chamber on 3rd December, 2013, 17th December, 2013 and final decision was supposed to be on 24th January with VC in open court but again postponed to 29th January, 2014 in Chamber of the Judge for the full Judgement against the Plaintiffs on the “non legal entity” of APSEA with a possibility of Appeal of 30 days thereof with costs of RM15,000 to the defendant.
As my name was mentioned in the sixth paragraph from the end of the said article, some professionals and readers maybe confused why my case was also included when the Judge on APSEA case as reported that “On this ground (non legal entity) alone I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff’s application should be dismissed and I so order.” The said article seems so happy to add on the terms “Res Judicata” and “Estoppel”. Was this in the Judgement of the honourable High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari? I hope Daily Express can publish the full Judgement please.
As far as my case is concerned started in late June 2012 with an Exparte hearing on for an Order on Anton Pillar in mid July by High Court Judicial Commissioner Lee Heng Cheong (transferred later) to obtain documents for the Anglican Diocese of Sabah and ended in mid December, 2012 and widely reported in the press initially without my name and then my name was revealed in the press to show courage and not cheap publicity. In this article of 6th March, 2014, why should my name be brought in when there was no full Judgement as the full trial did not take place except arguments on technicalities such as locus standi and wrong party. So how is it that the legal principle of Res Judicata comes into play with the case against APSEA? The bulk of my legal documents presented in Writ of Summons and several bulky Affidavits and supporting documents to the High Court were just ignored by the defendants..
I wonder why DE did not refer the matters to C Fu and I prior to the publication of the article to get a balanced disposition to the enlightened readers of all faiths. The article as it is does give a picture of “contamination” of some “disgruntled” Christians when the undesirable words used like “disgruntled”, “freedom of speech”, “accusations” and “hearsay” need to be defined in the proper perspective for true justice as such words are regularly in the lips of the bishop both from the pulpit and official bulletins of the Church to which parishioners have no avenue to reply.
I hope your paper would publish this letter/press release/article in FULL to clear the air of sort of deception and contamination by the yeast coming from some quarters.
End of PRESS RELEASE OF JOSHUA Y. C. KONG.
Page 2 of 2