Dear Bishop and Standing Committee of ADOS,
I don’t know why the issues raised in
since 12 September, 2012 have not being addressed.
The accounts of ADOS are totally unacceptable and ADOS would have the money
to engaged good account staff.
I have my own issues at the end of this mail and 3 at the moment is enough.
So all together is 17 sweet questions and just quote the number when you
reply in writing.
Thank you,
Joshua
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
Ezekiel 3:18
When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do
not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to
save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you
accountable for their blood.
Any
financial person will ask some of these questions in the Synod if they are
given time to read the accounts:
a) What is the definition of fixed assets in
accounting? Why was the Bangkok condominium
treated as off balance sheet item? Why was it never a fixed asset? Who suggested it as revenue expenditure
(charged out as expenses) instead of capital expenditure (fixed assets)?
1-JK’s Question
---who has given the instruction ? Who
did the bookkeeping entry?
b) How
did the KK land sales of RM236,500 become receivables? What is this? Land sales from Likas land not
fully collected? ADOS only sold 2
parcels of KK land. The Likas Land
and the road access to the freemason. This amount owing from which buyer?
2-JK’s Question:
When did this figure first occur and for what?
c) Why is the Kokol Project Account
supposedly monitored by Michael Tong (the treasurer for the project) cost only
RM5.1mil but the costs booked in ADOS accounts shows RM6mil? ADOS account shows Kokol cost RM836,000 more
than the project account under the project treasurer Michael Tong. How and why?
This can only suggests some unknown expenses were booked in as costs to this
project in ADOS account. The Kokol
building was completed and dedicated end of August 2010. Why was there still an addition of RM538,967
costs in 2011? How could two different
figures presented to the Synod? How could the accounts be approved and
accepted?
3-JK’s Question
– Show us the complete project account and documents.
d) Where
has the rental income gone? ADOS
has been receiving rental like from Wisma Anglican, staff apartment and various
premises. Why were these not reported in
the accounts?
4-JK’s Question: -Please give us a complete list of
properties rented out and the respective rent.
e) There was RM38.8mil of bank balances from the close of 2009
financial. After
having spent RM18.1mil for both 2010 and 2011 and received income RM7.4 of
income for the 2 years, there should only have left with RM28.1mil. This is simple mathematics. Why there is still RM34.5mil? How have overnight miracles happened
that RM6.4mil just appeared into the bank from nowhere?
5-JK’s Question:- Please show us the Diocesan
assessment schedule due and payable and paid by those churches concerned in
these two years.
f) Movement of specific fund was all done with
wrong accounting. Why funds utilised
(spent) is also funds transferred into this account? This is not right. There was RM41mil in the special fund at the
close of 2009 financial. RM3.7mil for
2009 & 2010 from the assessment has been allocated into this fund, a total
of RM44.7mil. RM18.1mil have been utilised.
There should only be RM26.6mil.
Why is there still RM37mil? This
is very strange.
6-JK’s
Question – Please show us the relevant ledger of these fund for 2010, 2011.
g) Development fund & Kokol were over charged by RM96,728 and RM34,912 in the specific
fund. How could RM131,640 overspent from
this account? How will these
discrepancies be accounted for?
7-JK’s Question -
Please show us the relevant ledgers with these items.
h) What was the reason for no budget was presented
during the 2010 Synod? Is it right that
the Chairman had violated the Constitution of the Diocesan and manipulated the
Synod? Without the budget from the previous Synod, more than RM6.4 worth of
properties had been purchased between last Synod and this. Was it not Bishop Vun initiated to purchase
the Tenom shop lots, Sipitang and Menggatal land worth more than RM2mil? (We
all know these RM2mil deals were all with contentious issues). Then, why were
these selectively not taken up as fixed assets of ADOS but the Sulaiman and
Lahad Datu were booked as assets in ADOS account ? Who decided the purchase of Sulaiman and the
Lahad Datu shoplots worth more than RM4.1mil?
8-Jk’s Question – We need to examine copies of titles of all land and landed properties. The three pieces of properties Tenom,
Sipitang and Menggatal maybe included in the list of assets 2006-2012 in page 56 but we need to have a
schedule of assets as at 2010 and 2011 to be reconciled to the Balance sheet of
the two years. Show us Synod 2009’s
minute or the Standing Committee on the purchase of landed assets.
i) RM6.3mil was spent for purchase of land and church
planting and RM3.4mil as mission and outreach fun. A total of RM9.7mil from the
sales of Likas Land has been spent over the past 2-3years. There should only be RM21.3mil remaining not
utilised. How long will this last if the same pattern of spending is practiced
for the next 5 years? Have we achieved our purpose from the intention of the
Synod to approve the sales of this land?
9-JK’s Question
- When was the sale of likas land
actually approved by Synod and the purpose of that sale? Why was the Likas land not retained for the
expansion development of ADOS?
The Diocesan Academies Board (Hearing it 1st time)
j)
When was this
Board formed? The All Saints Anglican Academy started immediately Bishop Vun
was made the Bishop. Why only now in
Synod 2012 then the Diocesan Board was formed?
Who decided on the members of the Board?
There are 8 members on the Board 7 members are directly under the
payroll of the Diocesan Bishop. The
members are Stella Lo (Bishop’s representative), Bishop John Yeo, Canon Yong
Thiam Choy, Datin Mary Vun(Chairman), Rev Tan Chor Kee, Lily Tan ( Rev
Tan’s wife) Mdm Chung Shuk Yong. The
other person is none other than the Diocesan treasurer. How can the Board make objective decisions
when they are all interested parties?
10-JK’s
Question – Are the Diocesan Academies the family business of the Bishop all
subsidized/funded by church money?
All Saints Anglican Academy (ASAA, the school)
k) Why all the academy accounts not included as part of
ADOS accounts yet funds were transferred out from ADOS’s mission funds
expenses to finance the school activities. Why is this account so preferential
that need not to be audited? Who
owns the school? Does it belong to Mary Vun ( the chairwoman) or the Diocese?
11-JK’s
Question - Isn’t this action of
transferring ASAA out of ASC to ADOS subject to Criminal Breach of Trust?
l) Salaries for ASAA has increased close to RM90,000 between 2010 & 2011. If every staff (including Mary Vun) get one
month bonus, there is still an unexplained RM45,000. Was this paid to Mary Vun for being consultants
to the China
failed mission?
12-JK’s
Question - We want to see the salary card
of ASAA and Form E to the Inland Revenue Department.
m) Guess who are the signatories to the cheques of the
ASAA? Is it not Mary Vun? Together with her, there is a young priest
who is also under the payroll of Mary Vun’s husband (the bishop). Interestingly, this account was not included
in ADOS financial. If it is not part of
ADOS, why is ADOS so obligated to transfer funds out to aid ASAA, Sunway and Beijing? Do you think this is right? Being an
interested party to the Bishop, she received the money from her husband. Why was the formation of the Academy Board
only done in 2012 before the Synod? Has it been discussed and approved by the
standing committee?
13-JK’s
Question – Does ASAA have a trading licence?
n) The
school (ASAA) venture into China
with the Koreans. Is that all we have
invested RM80,000 as reported by the Board secretary?
Inconsistencies: Auditor’s finding was
RM650,000 and another RM600,000 without records. We want the truth to be unfolded.
14-JK’s
Question – What is the present status of this proposed venture? Is it one or off?
Additional
Questions by Joshua Kong for Bishop A Vun and his standing committee as they
need to give valid explanation in writing
while Bishop remains in office against protests.
JK- Q15. We are not only interested to know more about two
years 2010 and 2011 but also years 2006-2009.
So when can get certified true copies of those years?
JK-Q16. It is now known that ADOS land had been planted with
oil palm and substantial revenue has been estimated for a few years and have
these income being included in ADOS accounts? If so, please give details.
17.It is now alleged that at least a BM priest and BM
pastor have died prematurely since 2006. The Rev Rais died in Tuaran after a by pass
operation after preaching in church.
Bishop did not allow him to go for full rest of three months after the
heart surgery and instead gave him 3 days leave only.
17a-Question: What
did the Bishop do after the death of the BM priest? Should the Bishop now agree to have an Inquiry
on his premature death to clear his blame for the death? This is very important as more than one
deaths and at least 13 sudden resignation of senior priests since 2005/2006.
I have many more questions and leave them to another
forum and I hope I can have the answers in writing as the forum on Monday would
not have the time to deal with them satisfactory.
Thank you,
Joshua Y. C. Kong
012-8380897; 013-8394513.
It is really too little and too late.
AVCF is playing the game to catch the members flat footed,
and unprepared.
3.We want to see the amended accounts with at least days
notice. Don’t expect the members to ask good accounting questions within one
hour.
4.We want to hear from the.honorary Auditor.
5. If AV and Michael Tong want to give answers, we want the
written answers posted in a website within 24 hours, then we can have a second
or third rounds if necessary.
I prefer we go ahead with the petition and let AVCF and M
Tong answer all the points of accounts of ADOS in court hearing soon
We need to meet soon to set up our strategy in a Court
case..
It is widely known that the leader of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah is presently getting bogged down in a flood of negative accusation—violation of the Diocesan’s Ordinance. Parishioners have come to believe that over the past five years he has acted in ways of abusive and dishonest. A website has been set up for them to air out their grievances. He is described as an arrogant, selfish, and opinionated man. He regards himself the only man who is more prominent in all fields of work. He is deaf and insensitive to criticism. Though parishioners throughout the Diocese have been complaining him about his behavior, he has never denied nor refuted the accusations. His total ignorance of the public opinion about him has sparked off a towering wave of anger in the Diocese.
He was suspected of being involved in corruption and many other malpractices Such accusations are beyond parishioners’ comprehension. They are unwilling to accept the fact that a God-fearing leader would have committed such mistakes. They have been crying out for his clarification because they all think that the accusations of corruption is highly defamatory to the Diocese. They have the same wishful thinking—they want the leader to prove himself innocent of all the accusations. They want to know the truth.
However, their grievances are still ignored by him. He has consistently and openly displayed daring challenges to their will and the Diocesan Ordinance. He has compounded his errors –despite written and strong verbal objections, he had resolutely ordained Philip Lo who is said to be an unqualified person, to the position of Deacon on the 15th of January, 2012. They are in great doubt now—were there any similar scandalous ordinations in the past? They want his explanation why he wanted to ordain such a person who is ineligible for the position.
There are also questions about his attitude towards the complaints. He has absolved himself of the responsibility by pushing the issue to the Chancellor who heads the Standing Committee. He stated that it is his advice that he chose not to respond. Parishioners are inclined to ask—why did he give the leader such an advice? The Chancellor should realize that responding to queries should not be construed as the leader’s admission of the accusations. Keeping silence is not the proper way to resolve problem. His advice was deemed as inappropriate and it has aroused widespread public curiosity—did the leader actually commit the irregularities in handling the church money? The Chancellor was denounced and he should be held responsible for the current crisis in
...page 1