299. Specific aspect on Bishop of Sabah

very urgent for this.  

We need to meet to decide on the specific course of action to save ADOS.

A paper to save ADOS from the destruction with or without litigation on the legality and entity of Bishop of Sabah.

A.             Structure of ST of ADOS

B.                    Constitution of Diocese of Sabah in Article XXXX

C.                   Total destruction of ADOS imminent – 7 violations

D.            Consequences of 7 violations

E.                   Options of moves forward to save ADOS

F.                   Conclusion  for reflection and brainstorming

By Joshua Y. C. Kong 31 January, 2014.

298. SOS on ADOS - very important

 http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html -watch out for avcf







Dear Anglican friends especially learned lawyers, (very important & urgent)

I am preparing a brief paper on BISHOPGATE after the tragic instances in two court cases.

While there maybe pro and cons about appearing in Court over BISHOPGATE, Anglicans are now cross road as how to resolve this overplay and over prolonged crisis as we have not yet exhausted the Court processes.

Both my case ended on 19^th of December, 2012 (yet to be refile) and fu & liew case with different dimensions and the results are eye openers for all.

We may be very disappointed but we must persevere and the stumbling block before Anglicans are now Civil Courts when all other methods as observed had failed to achieve our common ultimate objective to make AVCF accountable and face possible removal one way or another.

Going by the trend since BISHOPGATE in various venues including HoBs of APSEA  and the Courts, to resolve this crisis needs massive publicity stance.  Our members have been too passive and how do we want to make this effort as more acknowledgement by the relevant authorities concerned.

I wonder if Fu & Liew lodged any Police Report before proceed to file the legal case?

I also hope that the court document of Fu & Liew are made visible and available to more members to plan our next strategy.

What I intend to do next could be another aspect yet to be dealt with after the dismissal of the Fu & Liew case on 29^th of January, 2014.

Refiling my old case can still be considered but a varied aspect could be now attempted provided we have consensus.

There is a proposal that Fu & Liew case be appealed within 30 days but has the leading Counsel requested that from the presiding Judge?  From the impression of his facial stance of the leading Counsel outside the Court on 29^th of January, 2014, it was indicative that an appeal was not on.  But has he changed his mind now possibly after some bidding from others involved?

When my case ended with a possible refile, some members conveyed that message that I should leave the legal challenge to another group to file a  water-tight effort to resolve BISHOPGATE, and I hope that this is the case  now going for appeal.

It is to be appreciated that two similar cases (if my case was refilled) must not be in the same Court as the Court can be a bit confused or both cases joined together hence likely delayed.

So I come to the consideration of appeal by Fu & Liew when appealed it may take some time like a year or two or more.  So if we decide to refile my old case with or without a different approach or just on a specific aspect, my new case could be delayed by the parallet  Appeal case on BISHOPGATE.

Time is the essence of this BISHOPGATE  to be resolved as soon as possible and before the next Synod in August/September 2014.

We need to meet in small groups to start the motion of what next now to include legal skill, moral, spiritual, emotion, mental and financial support?  My proposal is about the survival or death of ADOS if we do not act now and no regret later.

We need to meet  briefly in next ten days (despite CNY) and come back for comprehensive deliberations after Chap Goh Mei on 14^th of February, 2014 but must be before ^27th of February, 2014 or if the Court allows a longer period for appeal.

Joshua Y. C. Kong

6013-8394513

297. Case against Lapok dismissed

 

 

Suit against Anglican Bishop dismissed  (Daily Express 6 March 2014) as per enclosure “JK-1”

Kota Kinabalu: Sabah Anglican Church Chancellor 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.

High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari Kamali Bin Ramli recently dismissed an Originating Summons brought by Clarence Fu Tze Kong and others against the House of Bishops of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia based in Kuching presided by Sarawak Archbishop  Datuk Bolly Lapok, a native of Sarawak with costs RM15,000 awarded to the Defendant.

“Christians should not resort to legal action as stated in the Bible. A lot of accusations as published were hearsay.

“The freedom of speech includes the freedom not to say or publish anything,” say Foo, a former State Attorney General.

Former state Attorney-General Roderick Fernandez of Messrs Shelley Yap appeared for the Plaintiffs while Ronny Cham of Messrs Ronny Cham & Co appeared for the Bishop.

The Plaintiffs brought their application by way of an originating summons dated August 30, 2013 for an order that the Defendant disclose or produce to the Plaintiff and file in Court a copy of the complete Report and Recommendation of the Provincial Advisory Committee dated August 27, 2012 in relation to the complaints against Bishop Albert Vun Cheong Fui, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah.

Secondly, to order the Defendant to comply with Article IV (h) and Regulation B of the Constitution 12 of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia by referring the complaints against Bishop Albert Vun Cheong Fui, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Sabah to the Ecclesiastical Court to be convene for the purpose of determining his removal or otherwise , within 30 days from the date of the order or within which such other period  as the Court shall deemed fit.

It was contended by the Plaintiff that he together with (3) other Anglican C hurch members made certain complaints against Bishop Albert Vun Cheong Gui to the Defendant.  An inquiry was subsequently held by the Defendant and after hearing all parties concerned, the Defendant decided not to dismiss the complaints but instead directed further investigation to be carried out in accordance with Regulation B of the Provincial Constitution whereby a three (3) members Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) was established to investigate the complaints.

The Plaintiff contended that the PAC found that there is a strong and compelling case for Bishop Albert Vun to answer but nevertheless the Defendant refused to carry out their constitutional duty and responsibility to refer the complaint to the Ecclesiastical Court to be convened for the purpose of determining the removal or otherwise of Bishop Albert Vun as provided in para 3, Regulation B of the Provincial Constitution.

The Plaintiff also submit, that they have requested the full report and Recommendations made by the PAC on August 27, 2012 from the Defendant but the Defendant had only forwarded the Report excluding the recommendations.

In opposing this application the Defendant has raised the following issues:-

(1)    Defendant is not a legal entity.

(2)    Whether the plaintiff can bring this application under O.15 r. 12 of the ROC 2012.

(3)    Res Judicata

(4)      Whether this court has the jurisdiction of to grant the orders sought for.

High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari Kamali Bin Ramli ruled that:

“Having considered the application, the affidavit evidence and the written submission filed by both parties, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this application.

“Among others, I am of the view that the Defendant has been wrongly named in this application.  It is not disputed that the House of Bishops of the Province of the Anglican in South East Asia is not a legal entity under our law.

“It was created by under Article III of Canterbury Primate of all England and Metropolitan via a “Deed of Relinquishment” dated February 2, 1996.  It is not a registered society under the Society Act 1966.  The Plaintiff did not dispute this fact but argued that Datuk Bolly Lapok, being a natural person and has been named as a party in this application is properly presented before this Court.

“I am of the opinion that since the House of Bishops of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia  is not a legal entity it follows that they could not be named as a party.

“Even though Datuk Bolly Lapok has been brought in as a party it does not  change the legal standing of the said House of Bishops as a non entity under the law.  By implication Datuk Bolly Lapok is a non-entity to this matter and as such he has properly brought into this application.  The case of Chin Mee Keong & ors v. Pesuruhanjaya Sukan [2007] MLJ 193 cited by the Plaintiff is clearly distinguishable because in that case there is a already a registered society with its legal entity and the appellant therein were the officer bearer of the society.

“On this ground alone I am of the opinion that the Plaintiff’s application should be dismissed and I so order.”

In an earlier suit, One Anglican parishioner Joshua Kong unsuccessfully sued the Sabah Bishop.  In Asia Commercial Finance (M) Sdn. Bhd. V Kawal Teliti Sdn. Bhd. [1995] 3 CLJ 783, the Federal Court state as follows:

“What is res judicata?  It simply means a matter adjudged, and its significance lies in its effect of creating an estoppel per rem judicature.

When a matter between two parties has been adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the parties and their privies are not permitted  to litigate once  more the res judicata, because the judgement becomes the truth between such parties, or in other words, the parties should accept it as the truth; res judicata pro veritate accipitur.

`

The public policy of this law is that it is in the public interest that there should be finality in litigation – interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium.  It is only just that no one ought to be vexed twice for the same cause of action – nemo debet bis vexari pro eadem causa.

Both maxims are the rationale for the doctrine of res judicata, but the earlier maxim has the further elevated status of a question of public policy.”

Supporters of the Plaintiffs contributed to the with a senior citizen pledging RM2,000 and even a Singaporean offering RM500, saying that he wanted to help as he likened the case to that of the City Harvest Church trial in Singapore. 

3.1             One reader responded as follows:-

Church members divided over stand of Anglican Archbishop  Daily Express  Sunday March 16, 2014.

I refer to “Suit Against Anglican Bishop Dismissed” (DE 6.3.2014)

In para. 1 of the article it is mentioned that the Suit was against the Sabah Anglican Bishop.  The Defendant is not the Sabah Anglican Bishop but the Archbishop of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia, Archbishop Bolly Lapok who is the Head of the Province.

This can be deduced from para. 14 & 15 of the report which mentioned Archbishop Bolly Lapok being named as a party.

The Sabah Anglican Bishop was never named as a Defendant although in this Suit he was the subject matter.  I believe this was done on purpose to raise the issue of “Res judicata” to convey the message that the Anglican Bishop of Sabah, Datuk Albert Vun was previously sued and therefore cannot be sued again.

The case was dismissed only because of an anomaly as the old colonial law requires any case brought against the church to be referred to the State Secretary first.  However the State Secretary following the formation of Malaysia have all been Muslims. [truncated]. 

 

 

 

 

With a Constitution, APSEA is a legal entity- PERIOD.  Joshua

 

0 comments  (thetruthasc.wordpress,com)

January 31, 2014 - 8:52 pm joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

The House Of Bishops Of The Province Of The Anglican Church In South East Asia (APSEA) is defined in Article III of the Constitution of APSEA.
I hope some Constitutional lawyers would come here to share their views to straighten everything.
It is accepted for three early churches in North Borneo namely RC, BCCM and Anglican be self regulated hence they can be sued and sue in normal business. Bishop of Sabah and ADOS had been to Courts over land matters and lost it. If ADOS & Bishop could not be taken to High Courts, then how can it is lost. Maybe our Diocesan Chancellor can clarify this. The three churches and other NGOs registered under the Society Act are legal entities and the only difference is about the registration under the Society Act for the three churches.
If HoBs of APSEA with a legal Constitution is non legal entity, then Bishop of Sabah is also non legal entity but in my case against Bishop of Sabah, I and another plaintiff need to obtain consent from the State AG under Government Proceeding Act for a religious institution to proceed with the said locus standi. At that time, the non legal entity was not an issue, and now if HoBs of APSEA is non legal entity, then how would we proceed to sue the Bishop of Sabah for his crimes. Would someone now give views to clear the endless confusion possibly arising from the civil courts?
So on that understanding, no one without legal entity like a partnership of persons cannot sue but a limited company can sue and be sued as a person can. The persons in a partnership can sue and be sued individually. HOBs of APSEA is neither a partnership nor a limited company or corporation but a body with self regulated Constitution, hence a legal entity by virtue of that Constitution. Is this argument acceptable and maybe the Judge was not guided in this aspect in the proper prospective.
In the same vein, non legal entity like a partnership can still do a lot of things and cannot be selective when litigation arises for the acts of the partnership.
We need to review the confusion from the latest Court’s decision on HoB.

We all want solution to this too prolonged BISHOPGATE and so we need to resolve our focus and unity to reach what we have started to do and that is to remove the Bishop and then revamp the ADOS.

So we need to meet as a group of say 20 persons and discuss our fresh strategies and then move on.  We also don't have much time to do that in view of the possible Appeal within 30 days.

I hope we can have a few willing and concerned lawyers to re-look this case.

Please get in touch as the Lord touches you, and my handphone is 6013-8394513

 

 

January 30, 2014 - 7:09 pm joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Dear Dr Richard,
AVCF is unfortunately the yeast of the ADOS and beyond and the Anglican churches may have temporarily lost its focus for a purpose yet to be known. Whilst Anglican churches under APSEA maybe declared not legal entity and if the case goes to Appeal, then better not to release the PAC’s report which contained 38 of 40 allegations as proven AVCF as “guilty”. If that PAC’s report is released, it may prejudice the Appeal process.
There are enough substance to the legal entity of HoBs as its power was devolved on it when the Archbishop of Canterbury transfer its power to HoBs/APSEA as it was detailed by the same legal counsel in my case.
So our legal entity is inherited by the Archbishop of APSEA.

If the Province of South East Asia is not a legal identity, then we as Anglican members are members of an illegal organisation subject to the full force of the law?

If it is not the Civil Court to clear this claim, who else?  Maybe the defendants should also include the Anglican Province of South East Asia and like my case it was sort of "wrong party".

So it is worth to go forward to Appeal Court to resolve a Constitutional issue which can be very expensive in term of legal advisors.  ADOS & ASC would need to draw on the International fraternity on Constitutional issue but we need to consider the concession of the churches who were established much earlier to be self regulatory. 

 

 

 

January 30, 2014 - 1:02 am joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Other areas of substance over form – the appointment of AVCF by Archbishop of SEA Province instead of Archbishop of Canterbury as per instrument of trusteeship; If AoC could be the legal entity to appoint Bishop of Sabah in an enactment for trusteeship, then HoB is also a legal entity by the power in exercise within the framework of the Anglican church. This area of argument was put forward by AVCF via his counsel in my own case. So it would appear a contradiction of sort by the same legal counsel for a similar context. We should all study this case in more exposure. I think legal entity is not limited to person or a corporate body but such legal entity is extended to other persons like formerly the President of municipal council cannot be sued but now the Mayor of KK is also being sued in civil courts. Any explanation for this observation?



Latest: http://thetrutheng.com/2014/01/29/anglican-province-of-south-east-asia-in-constitutional-crisis/comment-page-1/#comment-9434

Quote:  "dismissed the application on the sole ground that the HoB is not a legal entity and so cannot be sued. "   what a tragic day for ADOS and Anglican members in Sabah and beyond.

I wonder how many days did the learned lawyers study the Constitution of the Province.  Lets get back to the drawing board to move forward in an Appeal if considered safe.

What are the setbacks right now ---
the Province Constitution is not comprehensive enough to stand the test of the civll court and so no excuse to set aside the case against HOB.
They may not be enough case laws on bishops handling such legal case here and elsewhere.  Hence the Judge lack precedents to give proper justice.
I wonder how many relevant cases have been forwarded by lawyers on both sides in the legal papers presented by both sides.  That is a set back.

The appeal can only be justified if substance is more important than form.
I think there are enough instances of substance over form to deal with the inadequacies of the Province Constitution.  Did the plaintiff's lawyers give proper sight of such substance  over form?

Just take an example if the same argument be accepted then Bishop of Sabah could sue the HoB for conducting an investigation (deemed illegal) of the complaints of the 5 based on the non legal entity of the HoB.  Since AVCF did not sue the HoBs, then it is an after thought for the defence to put forward such argument to misplace justice when it is proper and due.

I think there are other instances of substance over form when the Constitution of the Province (as inadequacy noted) but recognised by AVCF prior to his appointment of the HoBs and why now HoB want to claim lack of entity in a court of law.  HoB as a living entity could appoint a living person as Bishop of Sabah in 2005/2006 hence should be deemed to hold out such legal entity in a court of law.

Many other senior clergy including Bishops had been charged in the civil court of laws elsewhere if we only care to do a research in the Internet and case laws of churches in Civil and criminal Courts.

In the pursuit of my own case in July, 2013, I could not expose my case as it was an Anton Pillar case where secrecy in modus operandi was desirable as advised by my legal counsel but it  fell due to lack of locus standing under the Government Proceeding Act which need the consent of the AG to proceed in a civil court.  Actually the appointment of AVCF as a sole trustee of the ADOS was illegal from the outset and the TYT with the advice of the State AG should take AVCF to task hence AVCF could be removed as a sole trustee. 

Also in the pursuit of the my own case, I spent almost 9 full months into that case.

So we need to work harder in TOTAL unity to resolve the BISHOPGATE which is a shame to the Anglicans too long to be tolerated. 



I have studied the three Constitutions of the Anglican Province of South East Asia, the Anglican Diocesan Constitution and the All Saints Cathedral's constitution and I found them incoherent hence cannot stand the real test in a civil court.

It is indeed a blessing that this is a dismissal in the High Court.  If the High Court has ruled in favour of the two plaintiffs, then AVCF would appeal to the Appeal Court on the Constitution anomaly of the three constitution.  I do not know what are the grounds of dismissal.  I do not see any of the Court papers of the plaintiff and defendant.  Maybe the Judge used other points to dismiss the case.

So we really have to make our Constitution strictly comply with the standard of the civil courts as there are unlikely any similar case law on such church disputes.

The Judge must be on safe ground to decide to send the case away from the Courts once and for all.  I also under the Judge had ruled  no appeal as it is a sensitive matter concerning religion.

What tickles my mind is that on 24th January, 2014, it was supposed to be VC for the delivery of the decision in OPEN Court.  Then today 29 January, 2014, it is a few minutes in the Chamber of the Judge.

Why such diversion over a few days?  Was there an interference from somewhere?

Nevertheless, it is now back to the drawing boards for the members of ADOS to move forward the 'blue ocean' strategy to force the unwanted bishop Vun to stop the rot in ADOS beyond repair.

  I also do not know why my counsel just did not refile my case as promised.  It could be that some quarters influenced him not to do any thing as there was another group going to the High Court.  So it was thought that two concurrent cases could be counterproductive and so now this 'Archbishop" case is off, I can refile my case on the substance of that case struck off by lack of locus standi which has now being repaired.

Please pray for me and my legal counsels to pick up the loose pieces again.


Joshua


Why? Why? Why?

So I have to refile my case.  Anyone want to support me now?

It needs three efforts in the Triune God to achieved our common objective to bring back God's order in ADOS.

6013-8394513.

296. Light over Mt kinabalu 15/5/2005

Photograph of Mt Kinabalu on 15/may 2005 - for the shooting lights upwards

295. RM1million down in SPC

 http://thetrutheng.com/2014/01/05/why-bav-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-9532

• February 5, 2014 - 10:59 pm Ir. Douglas Chow

  I was drawn to the Anglican diocese crisis just today. It is rather sad to read how BAV has become. I knew AV from All Saints cathedral during Bishop Luke Chhoa and Rev Yong Chen Fah’s time in the mid 70′s. We always had great fellowship with the youth fellowship and young adults gatherings. As an engineer I have given numerous talks & lectures at seminars, conferences and international meets. Yes, sometimes the organizers did give us honorariums but it is always in the hundreds of RM not the big amounts demanded by our Sabah bishops. As always I donate back the honorariums to their library fund or benevolence fund. It is unbecoming for the bishops to ask for honorariums, is it not their duties to conduct services and confirmation services etc..?
  The power that be in the Anglican Church should remove BAV. The catholic Pope had removed one German bishop for over luxurious living and over spending on his diocese just last year.
  

  Reply
  • February 8, 2014 - 8:11 am joshuakong823

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Unfortunately, a confession is yet to come as AVCF has a big family and extended families to feed for his “flamboyant” of sort…as tears from the pulpit of the lady pastor repeatedly sort of confirmed that.
    

January 5, 2014 - 9:39 pmhttp://thetrutheng.com/2014/01/05/why-bav-is-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-9532

Why Meltar apologise?
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/10/26/bishop-melter-memohon-maaf/
October 26, 2012  Bishop Melter Memohon Maaf

 http://thetrutheng.com/2012/10/28/behind-the-bishops-apology/
 Why no apology from John Yeo for his sin?

As John Yeo lodged a FALSE POLICE REPORT against me and that is the hand of God working for Himself through my effort to bring them to the books of God's justice, and yet you people out there do not want to acknowledge this as who are the wrong party and now again confirmed with the drop of RM1m in SPC?  Joshua

John Yeo who chaired the Clergy Conference in place of the senile AVCF had also lodged a FALSE POLICE Report against me in July 2012 and how can he not account for his own crime now when there is a drop of RM1m in the collections at the SPC where is in charge?

 

January 27, 2014 - 7:31 am joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Truthasc, since there were clapping by some or most of the clergy present giving a totally wrong message to condone the lies of the greatest liar on earth and who call himself bishop – the anointed one -we need to give the clergy an OPEN letter and then a poll for the members of ADOS and finally close down the churches where such priests presides until the suitable ones are found to takeover. Why don’t those priests go to the Court to challenge my legal suit to make it ALIVE to get to the truth of the AVCF’s crimes and his cohorts? The priests can make my suit with locus standi by becoming Plaintiffs or joint plaintiffs or class action to clean up ADOS. May I ask what is the modus operandi of the Clergy conference?



 About the challenge by AVCF on his departures from the Diocesan Constitution, avcf is senile and sick and all the clergy present need to be reminded of many instances in these blogs surrounding the Synod 2012 which itself did not comply with the notice and practice of the Constitution and there was no Agenda printed on the Synod.

Please refer to the following items in this blog:-
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/02/3-laughable-resolutions/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/03/more-dirt-from-synod/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/04/what-bav-doesnt-want-you-to-know-part-1/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/05/what-bav-doesnt-want-you-to-know-part-2/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/10/what-bav-doesnt-want-you-to-know-part-3/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/12/what-bav-doesnt-want-you-to-know-part-4/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/09/25/stand-comm-misses-the-point/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/10/31/severity-of-traitorgate/
http://thetrutheng.com/2012/11/23/rm100000-bonus/  - Did Standing Committee authorise this?

the list can go on, and suffice to say AVCF is guilty on all counts and blame them on others with denials.

Confession is in order and then resign even before the Court's decision on 29th of January, 2014.

Joshua Y. C. Kong




I would call for an investigation that the drop is so massive with RM1m as this can be due to some people close to the collection had been pilfering the tithe and collections given the bad publicity surrounding the mentor who had been dishonest.  Would John Yeo conduct an investigation?  I had seen a server boy put some RM50 into his back pocket about 10 years ago as I was with Richard in the prayers ministry every Sunday at the back of the Altar.  Joshua



Even according to Bishop Albert Vun’s own Key Performance Index (KPI), the church is not doing well. Church attendance in urban areas  had zero growth since Bishop Albert Vun took reigns seven years ago. In 2013, Diocese-wide tithing and offering dropped for the first time in 10 years, with a RM1 million drop–the largest in the Diocese–coming from St. Patrick’s Church. Still Bishop Albert Vun insists it’s problem with a minority group of members–and many clergy clapped and cheered on lies from the Bishop as if a rockstar had just belted a hit number.
http://thetrutheng.com/2014/01/26/bishops-address-to-the-clergy-part-2/

294. AVCF to the clergy

The Bishop writes on the All Saints’ Cathedral Sunday bulletin of 26^th of August, 2012 when he was acting Dean of ASC.

I am deeply saddened by what I heard happened at the 7.30am English service where a member went to the microphone at the lectern, without the permission of the Rector and shouted the objection to the Si Quis.  Whilst the Si Quis invites those who may have reasons to object to the ordination of any of the candidates, they are to “declare” it in an orderly and peaceful fashion as befits the honour given to the Lord in public worship.  Even in the exercise of spiritual gifts we have to be orderly, 1 Cor 14:33 gives the reason:  “For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”  There are certain individuals who have taken upon themselves to disregard the spiritual authority of the Rector and would not listen to him and his instructions.  I heard some even clapped.  This is very wrong before the Lord.  When we are presumptuous to show contempt of the Lord and create disorderliness in worship services, we are in danger of God’s action against us.  I repent before the Lord on behalf of the congregation. I urge us to do the same.  Normally, to declare your objection means “to make it known” – and if reasons are given, they should be given in writing to the Diocesan Bishop.  Our Constitution gives the Bishop sole discretion to ordain candidates who have clear calling and are sufficiently competent to fulfill their ministry outside of some of those guidelines.  This is true for all our Dioceses in the Province.  But if there are objections, the Bishop will receive the objections and he will weigh those objections seriously and prayerfully.  They are not matters to be debated.  Time and space must be given to the Bishop to consult, to weigh and to consider his decision.  If the substance of the objection is not factually correct or not weighty, then the  ordination will proceed. If the objections are substantive, then the Bishop will decide to delay the ordination.  But the sole discretion in this decision is the Bishop’s.  Once the objection is made known, the job of the objector is done unless the Bishop wants to consult  him/her to clarify.  It is not right to apply any kind of pressure on the Bishop when he is considering the objections. When Canon Thiam Choy convened a meeting for me to clear some of the misconceptions in a written objection submitted to the Diocesan office, someone published in a local paper another meeting of a “dialogue” in the name of Anglicans of Sabah Diocese inviting all Anglicans to attend.  I have never agreed to any such meeting.  We were forced to call off our original meeting to avoid confusion.  That was very unfortunate.  And it was also presumptuous for anyone to publish a notice in the newspaper in the name of Anglicans of the Sabah Diocese.  He/she has no right to represent all our members without consulting us.  I ask all our members to maintain a high level of courtesy and mutual respect in dealing with our church matters.  Even if there are disagreements, there are guidelines in the Bible how to deal with them.  To publish in the newspaper, to bring matters to Court (where an unbeliever is asked to rule over us) and to shout in the worship service are certainly not what the Lord approve of.  Let us all help to build one another up for the common good.  Let us not easily believe gossips and allegations that are untrue.  Let us show ourselves matured and not be easily deceived by loose talks.  In all that we do and say, let us remember to do everything in the fear of the Lord and in the spirit of peace.

                                                                          

Joshua says:  Why is the bishop shouted in his meditation?  Why did some or most clergy clapped??

 
If the Celebration Centre on ASC ground is started with RM16.5m (half of the fund) then this can happen to ADOS and ASC land - another scam.  Very sad indeed.
 http://wismabandarayasabah.blogspot.com/


The building costing RM33m would bankrupt the Anglican Diocese of Sabah and All Saints Cathedral, Kota Kinabalu so that the Bishop would sell the land there to an already known buyer
http://thetrutheng.com/2014/01/25/bishops-address-to-the-clergy-part-1/comment-page-/#comment-9378 


4. Bishop’s Final Legacy?


Bishop Albert Vun is adamant to launch the building of Celebration Center this year. In the next Standing Committee meeting, he will ask the Standing Committee to top up the funding so it will have at least half of what’s budgeted for the controversial RM33 million project.
The purpose for this project is unclear. Bishop Albert Vun said he had to “speed things up” due to his illness, but later claimed he wanted to build Celebration Center because the Lord told him through Isaiah 54 to “enlarge his tent”. So is this a dying man’s wish or is this the divine will of God to spend RM33 million and up for a building? Because someone claims to have heard from God, the Diocese will spend RM33 million? Is that how decisions are made? Is this how money is spent?
The Bishop said he hoped the Stand Comm would allocate up to half of the required fund. Does the Stand Comm have the mandate from the Synod to spend RM16.5 million for this building? No! The Standing Committee must remember that they are elected by the Synod to carry out the mandates of the Synod. They have a fiduciary duty to the Synod and whole Diocese, not just serving the wishes of a dying man. With painkillers, morphine, chemotherapy and pancreatic cancer in the Bishop’s body, how do we know he is in the right frame of mind to make such an expensive and far reaching decision?
Bishop Albert Vun sounded as if the Lord had spoken to him recently from Isaiah 54. This sermon is neither recent nor new. He had preached it in other fundraising events or building projects. There is nothing about Christ in the Bishop’s address to the clergy, it was all about his suffering, dying wish, illness, vision, and tent enlargement.

 

293. AVCF was sick since 2005

0 comments

January 25, 2014 - 4:15 pm joshuakong823

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Quote “Newly collacted Canon Missioner, Jon Shuller, dropped the bomb when he led a devotion. He said BAV was ill and “not his right mind” in reference to BAV’s frequent outbursts. Participants noted Bishop John Yeo looked stunned and flabbergasted by Shuller’s remark.” AVCF is of unsound mind since 2005 and so unfit to be Bishop and also not due to his latest “sickness” and I believe he went for slimming course of treatment..


It is another great embarrassment to the Archbishop Lapok (bankrupt) for this scandal as I did send a very thick Memo on AVCF on his mental capacity on August, 2012 but never acknowledge the Courier's despatch by SkyNet and God knows we have a mad man as bishop of Sabah.  How could this be allowed to go on for God's sake of goodness?  Joshua



AVCF was  shouting since 2005 as Dean Koo was 'forced' to resign.... Joshua


http://thetrutheng.com/2014/01/22/from-the-clergy-conference/

The New Canon Fired 1st Salvo
Newly collacted Canon Missioner, Jon Shuller, dropped the bomb when he led a devotion. He said BAV was ill and “not his right mind” in reference to BAV’s frequent outbursts. Participants noted Bishop John Yeo looked stunned and flabbergasted by Shuller’s remark.

292. Why two dates for Decision?

2013 Clarence Fu Tze Kong, Rosalind Liew Fui Lee (Shelley Yap)The House Of Bishops Of The Province Of The Anglican Church In South East Asia (Ronny Cham & Co.) 1 Originating Summons Decision Application Dismissed with costs of RM15,000.0 0 Application Dismissed with costs of RM15,000.00 Page 5 of 10  http://www.highcourt.sabah.sarawak.gov.my/apps/highcourt/sabah/modules/highcourt_cap/components/publishing/print_public_week_pdf3.php?monday=2014-1-27&friday=2014-2-01&judge_id=533&div_id=1&cat_id=1  Why in page 6 of 10, the decision tomorrow (29/1/14) is in chamber? Confirmed in court document to be on page 5 of 9 of Judge on 29 January, 2014. postponed to 29 January and so near to Chinese New Year..
http://www.highcourt.sabah.sarawak.gov.my/apps/highcourt/sabah/modules/highcourt_cap/components/publishing/index_search_case.php?search_case_no=BKI-24-170/8-2013&search_case_party_name=&search_case_party_ic=
		Page: 1 of 1  Total Records: 1 No. Case No. Parties Judge Hearing Date Remark 1 BKI-24-170/8-2013 Clarence Fu Tze Kong (640907-12-5473), Rosalind Liew Fui Lee (710115-12-5046), (Shelley Yap, Ronny Cham & Co.) Vs. The House Of Bishops Of The Province Of The Anglican Church In South East Asia (-) Azhahari Kamal Bin Ramli 03-12-2013 (Hearing) 17-12-2013 (Hearing) 20-12-2013 (Hearing) 24-01-2014 (Decision) 29-01-2014 (Decision)

291. What would God say?

Bible Raid: Federal Govt Cannot Act Like Pontius Pilate Wash its Hands

Bible Raid – Betwixt and Between Federal and State By Andrew Khoo
Malaysiakini 19 Jan 2014 LINK
Quite early on in the aftermath of the raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia on Jan 2 by officers from the Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor, accompanied by members of the police, politicians from the government and also federal ministers, had begun suggesting that instead of criticising the federal government, blame for the raid should be directed at the Selangor state government, since issues relating to the religion of Islam are a state matter under the federal constitution.
That view was very clearly encapsulated by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of Law, Nancy Shukri (right), in remarks she was reported to have made after the opening of the legal year ceremony of the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak in Kuching on Friday.
With respect to the honourable minister, the situation is not quite as simple as she is reported to have made it out to be.
Article 10(1)(a) of the federal constitution states that “every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression.”
Article 10(2) states that “Parliament may by law impose – (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence.”
For the present purposes, the key words in Article 10(2) of the federal constitution are “Parliament” and “restrictions”. It is only Parliament that can pass laws to impose “restrictions” on a citizen’s freedom of speech and expression.
Not a state legislative assembly, not their royal highnesses, the Malay rulers. Only Parliament. And only “restrictions”, not outright prohibitions.
Further, paragraph 4 of the federal list under the ninth schedule to the federal constitution clearly places “civil and criminal law and procedure and the administration of justice” within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Paragraph 21 of the federal list places “newspaper, publications, publishers, printing and printing presses” also within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
It is therefore the duty and responsibility of the federal government to ensure that state legislation does not encroach into areas which are clearly within the purview of Parliament and/or the federal government.
Policy statement
In the case of the 10-point solution, which is a policy statement of the federal government in relation to the freedom of the Christian community in Malaysia to express the name of God in one’s own language in print, and to distribute such publication, it is the duty and responsibility of the federal government to ensure that state law in Semenanjung Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak does not restrict such freedom of expression.
Any such restriction would be ultra vires the federal constitution. Therefore, the federal government cannot wash its hands Pontius Pilate-like and say that it has nothing to do with this issue.
But what then do we make of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution, which states that “state law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Putrajaya and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.”
This is a clear provision of the federal constitution, and cannot be ignored. However a harmonious reading of Articles 10 and 11 of the federal constitution would entail a careful and delicate understanding of the interplay of the provisions of these two equal articles of the federal constitution, whilst again bearing in mind that Article 11(4) uses the words “control” and “restrict” but does not contain the word “prohibit”.
It remains to be seen whether any existing “control” or “restriction” will have gone too far and constitute an outright prohibition, which would then be a violation of the federal constitution.
The best way to appreciate this interplay is to analyse one of the state enactments that purports to apply Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Since the raid on the premises of the Bible Society of Malaysia was carried out in the state of Selangor pursuant to powers allegedly contained in the Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988, it would be useful to analyse the wording of this enactment.
The preamble to this enactment cites Article 11(4) of the federal constitution, thus outlining at the outset that the provisions of this enactment have been made pursuant to the provisions of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution. They must therefore be consistent with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Section 9 of the enactment is entitled “Offence relating to the use of certain words and expressions of Islamic origin” and reads as follows:
“(1) A person commits an offence if he -
(a) in any published writing; or
(b) in any public speech or statement; or
(c) in any speech or statement addressed to any gathering of persons; or
(d) in any speech or statement which is published or broadcast and which at the time of its making he knew or ought reasonably to have known would be published of broadcast, uses any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule, or any of its derivatives or variations, to express or describe any fact, belief, idea, concept, act, activity, matter, or thing of or pertaining to any non-Islamic religion.
(2) A person who is not a Muslim commits an offence if he, in the circumstances laid down in subsection (1), uses any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule, except by way of quotation or reference.
(3) A person who commits an offence under subsections (1) or (2) shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit.
(4) The ruler in council may, by order published in the Gazette, amend the Schedule.”
Several observations need to be made in respect of the enactment. For there to be an offence under Section 9 of the enactment, one of the four circumstances (a) to (d) laid down in Section 9(1) must exist.
In the raid on the Bible Society of Malaysia premises, did any one of these four circumstances exist?
Did anyone at the Bible Society of Malaysia write any published writing, write any speech or statement, give any speech or statement to a gathering of persons, or publish or broadcast any speech or statement using any of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment?
Or did anyone at the Bible Society of Malaysia use any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule in any one of the four circumstances (a) to (d) laid down in Section 9(1) of the enactment? If not, no offence would appear to have been committed.
But even if someone did, it would be pertinent to ask the question, who was the audience?
Bearing in mind the provisions of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution, the use of the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment or the use of any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule to the enactment cannot be unlawful unless the context is “the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”.
If the enactment seeks to make it an offence to use the words listed in Part I of the schedule to the enactment or the use of any of the expressions listed in Part II of the schedule to the enactment outside of the context of “the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam”, then that would be ultra vires the federal constitution.
Context is all-important
In this case, the context is all-important.
Using certain words and phrases in the context of a church service where all those attending the service would be expected to be Christians, or at least non-Muslims, would take it out of the context in which there would be a commission of the offence under Section 9 of the enactment when read within the context of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
Again, this is something that the federal government should be in communication with the various state governments about – explaining the proper context of Article 11(4) of the federal constitution.
It cannot be the case that this is simply left to the respective state governments to decide, since the interpretation of federal law is also within the jurisdiction of the federal government under paragraph 4(e)(i) of the ninth schedule to the federal constitution.
Something has also been made of the fact that the Malay rulers, as head of the religion of Islam in their respective states, may have issued decrees or edicts on the use of certain terminology deemed the exclusive use of the religion of Islam.
The Malay rulers have always been accepted as the head of the religion of Islam in their respective states, and this was confirmed even when the British as colonial powers took over control of the Malay states beginning in Perak in 1874.
Article 181(1) of the federal constitution certainly affirms that “the sovereignty, prerogative, powers and jurisdiction of the Rulers and the prerogatives, powers and jurisdiction of the Ruling Chiefs of Negri Sembilan within their respective territories as hitherto had and enjoyed shall remain unaffected.”
However it should be noted that such “sovereignty, prerogative, powers and jurisdiction” are, in the opening words of Article 181(1) of the federal constitution, “Subject to the provisions of this constitution.”
The Yang DiPertuan Agong, and the Malay rulers, function as constitutional monarchs and are also subject to the provisions of the federal constitution.

Thus, the fundamental liberties of a citizen, such as freedom of speech and expression, have to be respected.
ANDREW KHOO is co-chairperson of the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Council Malaysia. He writes here in his personal capacity.

290. ASC Amendments for EGM

After writing the earlier comments on the All Saints’ Cathedral’s proposed Amendments (see below) and in the light of recent decision at the High Courts, I would like to make the following comments:-

The implication of the non legal entity of House of bishop of the Anglican province on churches in south east asia has great impacts (illegalities) on the ADOS & ASC where bishop of sabah has an important role to play.

Is Bishop of Sabah appointed by HoB of APSEA legal?  If not legal and so are the ADOS and ASC.  So why are we amending an illegal constitution of ASC?

How can we go to amend any item of a constitution where due notice must be given when there is a error in ITEM 6, the 7 (what?) days, working days, weeks, months?  I call this the hand of God to call off this EGM.  Let this be an exposure draft.

Also if 7 (what) days is considered appropriate, which I don’t agree as it is too short and an honourable person can go outstation for a week or more.  Also there is no provision to appoint or elect a new treasurer.  This can be handled by the standing orders of PCC.

Also how do anyone to sign off any cheque to be bounced off if there is no fund in the bank account or any unusual expenses like bonus of say RM100,000 not provided in the budget.  no pcc or any committee can approve that.  the treasurer should not have any reason not to sign any cheque when properly approved by pcc as a normal expense item if the supporting facts and items/documents are available.

There are no urgency for the EGM and the issues can be dealt with the AGM due in two months time.  First establish the legality of APSEA, ADOS and ASC.

Joshua Kong  6013-8394513  4^th of February, 2013

Dear rev C fu,

I do not intend to defeat the Proposed Amendments as it is.

I hope the EGM can be called off as it is still CNY.  The Proposed Amendments can be refined and then tabled at the AGM on 12th Of April, which is not an Election year and save the church and members time and effort/money for a possible futile exercise as it is.

There is not even a half way house to better days.

The Amendments as proposed would have to get the green light from the Bishop and then table for the members to approved or otherwise it can be ding dong.  This is the first time ASC is doing this as far as I can remember.

The last amendment were done in 1996 by the bishop alone.

Also the existing ASC Constitution is technically an illegal one for the notice of 14 days and not corrected to 21 days but the ASC admin used to inform the members of the AGM well ahead of 21 days.

We need to do a better job than what had been done that cannot be undone.

If we check the Anglican Irish Constitution (parent one), it is 153 pages and how many pages are ours in ASC and  ADOS?  So to be comprehensive we must have clauses to deal with all the possibilities and not let lop holes to be obvious.

We don't want AVCF to point at the Treasurer and so "I told you so and now rectified".  If this is the standard constitution for all churches in ADOS, then we can accept that.  That is permanent damage and we need to make it straight now.

The sack issue of any PCC members can be done in the Standing Order. We are not a public NGO as such but we a body of Christ and so we need to show the way. 

It was indeed a very sad episode on the case of ex-Teasurer who was doing her work very well and we will see what is to come in AGM 2014.  In the AGM 2013, there was a mighty effort to remove the ex-Treasurer by all the below the belt measures.  I hope she (not him/he) will stand again in 2015.  The latest amendment unfortunately is to make her as a target unjustified.

God already defeated this Proposed Amendment on 8th February, 2014.

Thank you,

Joshua


Dear Rev Clarence,

So the draft is the work of 5 persons as authorised by Dean Chak and no green light from the Bishop yet.  I think this is the first time this is happening  in ASC and ADOS.

I think drafting the amendment is one thing and should have gone

through an exposure draft for the congregation to comment to refine it.

I am sorry to say that it is not good enough to work to promote fairness,
justice and transparency plus practicality.

Why should ASC stands out to sack a honourable treasurer at this stage to

throw a bad light on the previous treasurer to live her life resulting in such an action?  That is what AVCF wants to see and by having such a clause, it is indeed a nightmare for Rosalind.  The sacking of the treasurer or any elected officials can be handled by the Standing Order within the PCC.  The ASC constitution even does not have a clause to remove an elected PCC member for failure to perform like absent from three consecutive PCC meeting without any reason.  Anyway God has His hand in this amendment.

Any amendment must also ensue that only genuine Malaysians are in the electoral roll.

Why does this amendment needs to go through the Synod?  I thought in the

past it is the Bishop who decided everything.  So if it needs to go through the Synod, there must be a model constitution already and that is not the case, I believe.  ASC must be the model in ADOS.

BTW, is "his" in the amendment as repeated means only a man can be a treasurer?  I know the law can be funny like only male can be priest in Anglican tradition of Sabah. Elsewhere we have women priests.

Synod is coming soon and we must curb the tenure of the Bishop as acting Dean to maximum two years only otherwise ASC Constitution is going to be abused and denied by a recalcitrant bishop with the prerogative power.

Finally, would you permit to publish your reply in my blog?

Thank you for your prompt reply and God bless you.
Joshua

 The above is a reply to Rev. C. Fu
 <><><>

I wonder why this AGM 2014, there is no election of the PCC, why is it so urgent to hold EGM at additional cost and why not wait for two months on 12th April, 2014 when the AGM would be held and the Amendments can be held then ? 

All Saints’ Cathedral

This is very important constitutional Amendment

1.             Since we started the change of the Constitution since late 2011, it is only now we see something on the very important Constitutional Amendment which is still very lacking in substance to anything near the revamp of the ASC vis-à-vis ADOS.

2.             Why is the notice of EGM for the amendments not attached to the proposed amendments sheets?

3.             Is the proposed amendment originated from the Bishop or the Dean or members of ASC?

4.             Since the Bishop has the prerogative to approve such amendments even after the EGM which may approve all the proposed amendments or some of the amendments.  I wonder if the proposed amendments in such sketchy stage would be finally approved in principle by the Bishop and how quickly would that be done?  Otherwise it is a futile EGM.

5.             Overall the proposed amendments are inadequate to deal with the problems and crisis since 2011 in ASC vis-à-vis ADOS as the fundamental causes are not really dealt with.

6.             If I have a say – the whole proposed amendment should go back to the drawing board as EGM and Constitutional Amendments are not regular affairs for an expanding church like ASC.

7.             The main reason for the crisis which I call BISHOPGATE is that we had a bishop cum dean who had violated the existing Constitutions which were highlighted in the AGM of ASC in 2012 where two major Constitution issues were put to the vote in two Resolutions.

8.             Both these issues were not addressed in this Proposed Amendments namely there is no curb in the term of the bishop and dean holding both positions for an extended time and that the power of the normal PCC was very much diluted by excessive nominees of the bishop cum dean.  A bishop cum dean can be a recurrence anytime.

8.1    Instead of improving the performance of PCC, it is another ‘laughing stock’ to belittle the elected Honorable Treasurer who is expected to performance out of good heart and much sacrifice for holding such non remunerated office.  How can an elected Treasurer be sacked for whatever reasons unless the person decides not to continue to serve?  I have been pioneers of formation of NGOs and have to see first time that the elected or appointed Treasurer can be sacked as stipulated in the Constitution.  I think such clause or term is against public interest and it is happening in ADOS.  Better still to go ahead with a civil suit if the Treasurer refuses to sign any cheque.  Then the question is ASC would be without a Treasurer as sacked and how to get a replacement by appointment or election?  There is no provision in the amended Constitution to deal with a PCC without a Treasurer.  Why is there such a thing to move forward with such a clause in ASC giving the impression all is not well with ADOS?

8.2  We must recognize and define what is the role of PCC in a church environment ?  Is it about the play of numbers in PCC?  If that is the case it is already a ‘political’ maneuver in every move for every act and decision in PCC.  If that is the case the quality of the performance in the PCC to manage the church is to be questioned.  I see in the elected lay council members to the PCC, equal numbers from the three main sections while the least section (Filipinos) would be ignored.   Is this a healthy development?  In the recent decades until AVCF comes in, there was never such division of the members to be elected as we were more interested to get committed, capable and matured members to serve in the PCC.  Such division mired by self interest is designed to serve some people.  This system of equal numbers from the three divisions would mean more sitting ducks.  The amended Constitution does not spell out how the elections would take place?  Would the English division votes for their 4 members in PCC and likewise with Chinese and BM?  If this is not the system, the results would be awry as it was seen in the AGM 2013 where chaos reigned supreme as there was menu from certain quarters later exposed by emails and this can destabilize the church in its machinery as any divide and rule cannot go on for long in God’s church.

8.3   Also on what basis are that the three divisions have equal representations?  Why are we doing that as a church?  By all means, we must stop all manipulations from any quarter at any AGM’s elections.  After the elections, most of those members from certain divisions disappeared and not interested in the affairs of the church and is that what we want as all credibility would be lost.

8.4    If the representation is based on the confirmed members who are local and citizens, then if the English divisions has 4 members, the Chinese should only have 2 and possibly also 2 for the BM if all the members in the Rolls are genuine Malaysians.  Can ASC clean up the electoral rolls for the BM division by checking their identity cards?

(NB:  All Christians or otherwise can attend church but to be in the Electoral Roll is a  separate matter)

8.5    If the representation is based on financial contributions annually, the ratio as in paragraph 9.4 should be a fair one.

9. As there is no determination on the voting system in the Constitution (old and amended) and if all the members vote on one ballot paper as in AGM 2013, the winners for the English division would get the low or least votes giving a very degrading impression for the elected members in PCC hence their voice could be weakened (also sort of demoralized) in PCC as the number of the winning candidates .  We always pray to God for the election to get the right people into the PCC but any manipulation would be counterproductive.  Tell me how would those least interested (traditionally) in the affairs of the ASC can select any one from the English division to serve in PCC effectively and efficiently?  Please enlighten me if this view of mine is to be challenged.

10.  So far it is enough for me to deal with the proposed Amendments and I strongly believe the Amendment should not be passed individually or in total on 9^th of February, 2014.  We need to do much more to make ASC a vibrant and a model church in ADOS and the Constitution should be in place to do that.

Joshua Y. C. Kong

6013-8394513