The law of
Removal of Bishop in accordance to the following
Constitutions:-
1. The Constitution of Diocese of Sabah,
2. The Constitution of the Province of
the Anglican Church
in South East Asia.
The Constitution
of Diocese of Sabah, where Article III subsection 3 “The Bishop may be removed from office only for inability
to perform the functions of the office, whether arising from infirmity by body
or mind, or for misbehavior, or for heresy.
The procedure for removal shall be in accordance with Article IV (h) and
Regulation B of the Constitution of the Province.
The
Constitution of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia. Article
IV (h) states “ A Diocese Bishop may be removed
from office only for inability to perform the functions of the office, whether
arising from infirmity by body or mind, or for misbehavior, or for heresy. The
procedure for removal is set out in Regulation
B.
Regulation “B”
section 2 “When a complaint in writing against the Archbishop or a Diocesan
Bishop is received, it shall in the first instance be referred to the House of
Bishops. A copy of the complaint shall
be served on the Archbishop or the Diocesan Bishop as the case may be, who
shall within 4 weeks thereof submit an explanation in writing. The House of Bishops may dismiss the
complaint or direct further investigations as it deems fit.
Section 3
states “Where it appears to the House of Bishops that the complaint is
substantiated and sufficiently grave or serious as to warrant removal, the House
of Bishops shall refer the complaint to the Ecclesiastical Court to be convened
for the purpose of determining the removal or otherwise of the Archbishop or Diocesan Bishop.
So Joshua
Kong’s comments are as follows:-
1. Bishop AV is unable to perform as inability to
perform the functions of the office, whether arising from infirmity by body or
mind, or for misbehavior, or for heresy.
1.1
There
are enough of incidences of that inability.
(schedule to be enclosed).
Actually I had done a dossier of 200 pages in August, 2012 and couriered
to House of Bishops for consideration.
2. If we examine Regulation “B” section
2 and 3, it is very clear that there is no provision for the House of Bishops
to issue an unauthorized decision on 18th September, 2012 on the
complaint of the 5.
2.1
Since
it is proven in the Provincial Advisory Committee’s investigation in a report
that 38 of the 40 items were valid, The Ecclesiastical Court must be
established.
3. Non Compliance of the Decision
Since 18th September, 2012 and now more than a month, nothing in the Pastoral
letter to the Diocese of Sabah has been complied with.
4. Dialogues/Forums with members and
beneficiaries
These three functions hastily arranged with very short notices in Kota
Kinabalu, Sandakan and Tawau further confirm Bishop AV as unable to perform. The answers given must be in
writing as denials would arise.
5. CHANNELS now open
5.1
Fresh
petition for the Removal of Bishop of Sabah to the House of Bishops should
state that the House of Bishops or Archbishop cannot issue that unauthorized decision
of 18th September, 2012..
5.2
Demand
that the House of Bishops act on the inability to perform.
5.3
The
Civil Court case on the malpractice, irregularities to be pursued by House of Bishops for restitution
5.4
Since
Bishop AV has belittled the unauthorised decision (sort of concession), which
BAV had consented to and like a show cause letter, House of Bishops can now
bypass the E-court to remove the Bishop of Sabah.
5.5
Since
BAV was not suspended during the PAC investigation, the removal now is even
more pressing.
http://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/dialogue-in-sandakan/
ReplyDeleteOctober 24, 2012 - 11:19 am Joyce
Having worked in the field of Human Resource management overseas before settling in Sabah, job seeking candidates were given tests so the employer may gain some insight of the applicant’s personality.
There is strong indication of AV suffering from what is termed as Narcissistic Personality Disorder. From the simple check list of symptoms below, most points toward indication of this disorder.
The technical diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder requires that an individual display five or more of the following nine symptoms.
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (I am the Bishop, I have the prerogative).
2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power and brilliance (aspires to become the Archbishop of ADOS should he be successful in spitting from the Province).
3. Believes that he or she is “special” and unique (annointed by God to become bishop).
4. Requires excessive admiration (thrives on praises and compliments from cronies around him).
5. Has a sense of entitlement (the Diocese belongs to him).
6. Is interpersonally exploitative (takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends).
7. Lacks empathy (Lacks compassion and pastorial care).
8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her (wants to build mega structures beating his cousin’s in size, capacity and cost).
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes (this needs no explaining).
10. Sociopathy traits of manipulative and lying (another obvious trait and his Tai Pow Wong moniker).
This type of disorder are generally developed since childhood from upbringing and family. Famous people who are confirmed suffering from this includes Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Newt Gingrich.
We should all plead to the HOB to put AV through a psychological assessment and profiling. If he suffers from this disorder, he cannot be fit to hold the position of a bishop.
Reply
October 24, 2012 - 12:15 pm Henry
I find this so true……..
Reply
October 24, 2012 - 2:38 pm Fact Finder
Joyce, I think you have nailed it !!!
Megalomania is another name for this disorder. No wonder nothing can make him step down.
October 24, 2012 - 3:45 pm street wise
Joyce,
Excellent assessment of Vun Cheong Fui @ Albert’s personality.
Congratulations to Vun Cheong Fui @ Albert for having scored a distinction & the Los, Yeos n Chaks are so very proud of you
for scoring a distinction in the personality evaluation.
October 24, 2012 - 4:54 pm LKH
That explains all. We are dealing with a man who is sick in the head and not just a person from our perspective as normal but with bad character. We must push for a psychological profiling to be insisted by HOB.
House of Bishops should insist AVCF be examined first by a medical doctor who in turn recommend him to the Hospital Mesra Bukit Padang.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise tougher measures needed.
Don't let this 'madman' destroy ADOS and APSEA.
COME CLEAN PLEASE – Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok. {Boleh Bankrupt]
ReplyDeleteWhen the House of Bishops is not transparent in the dealing with the Complaint on AVCF, the consequences are aplenty namely;-
1. It is a departure from the OPENNESS of the Bible and violation of the Constitutions of the ADOS, APSEA , Installation of Bishops etc. Hence a misconduct of all those socalled spiritual leaders sworn to serve the sheep.
2. What is the hidden agenda of the House of Bishops?
3. The complainants have become sort of ‘victims’.
4. AVCF can go on to destroy ADOS and APSEA which is a Satanic attack.
5. Credibility of all concerned down to zero.
So to restore the confidence, House Of Bishops should do the following:-
1. Publish the full report of the Provincial Advisory Committee’s investigation which has been treated a closed document.
2. Reveal the 38 issues out of 40 which PAC considered as valid against AVCF..
3. Publish the agreement signed between House of Bishops and AVCF in Singapore on 11th September, 2012.
4. Take action on their own initiatives of House of Bishops on the Diocesan of Sabah’s Synod 2012 as illegal in many aspects.
5. Pursue Civil Action on AVCF for all the ‘crimes’ already exposed in so many forums including my own Court Case.
[list not exhaustive]
Who say only the Archbishop can remove the Bishop of Sabah?
ReplyDeleteUnless Archbishop does that, this Archbishop maybe 'removed' by the reverse way, for failure to act according to the laws of the Anglican Province.
So also go civil way to get restitution of up to RM30m in twenty years of AVCF as priest...
for inability to perform the functions of the office, whether arising from
ReplyDeleteinfirmity by body or
Still OK as he is the son of kungfu sifu and capable to cry physically;
infirmity by mind,
This is obvious for he has been diagnosed here and for his frequent desperate crying to expose his mental dysfunction; and need the medical doctors, plus Police and also the Court to order detention for his mental status checked;
or for misbehavior,
Plenty of instances and incidences for his misbehaviour over handling of his clergies, staff, sheep and cases of homicides can be attributable to him;
or for heresy.
A range of heresy has been identified as he ordained unqualified persons; no action taken against abuses by unqualified clergies; allow Police in All Saints’ Cathedral during service; allow the presence of bouncers etc in forums / dialogues in St Patrick’s Church.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
My friends, don't be deceived anymore-
ReplyDeleteCut out the 'anointed' one now as I am still alive since 25 December, 2011.
Cut out the 'anointed' one as non Christians think we are all FOOLS. Enough of that.
Cut out the 'anointed' one as horns had been seen on his forehead as all his deeds confirm it as the worst
lawlessness as AVCF breaks all laws in the Constitution of the church and he is infectious..
Cut out the 'anointed' one as I am still around since I took first action in April, 2012.
Don't wait for others to restore the ADOS but we have a duty to do it in Christ's name.
Time is running out...the trojan horse is just waiting in the corner to act to destroy ADOS.
I think every human being wants justice and in this case it is the restitution of up to RM30m for twenty years
of thieving.
My friends in Christ,
ReplyDeleteWhat are you waiting for?
On that count of NOT complying with Regulation B, APSEA is also finished in breach of Constitution and a precedent.
This give us a chance to have no confidence on the APSEA and lodge an official complaint to Archbishop of Canterbury.
So ADOS can push out AVCF for us to start a total revamp of the Diocese of Sabah.
So we need to work fast now.
Joshua
We need now to draft a proper document to Archbishop of Canterbury.
ReplyDeleteIf HOB decides to make good its failing and remove AVCF straight away, then we can give Archbishop Datuk Bolly Lapok another chance, can we?
Can we not comply with the Constitution of APSEA?
Even the Constitution of APSEA is not ratified by the Archbishop of Canterbury?
No more time for all the nonsense any more --
ReplyDeleteArchbishop of Canterbury, please note
Archbishop of Province of Anglican Church in South East Asia, please take action now..
It is no longer tolerable that the appropriate action is not done for the ReMOVAL OF AVCF as Bishop of Sabah and his cronies.