be safe in SAFE in Sabah and beyond

Dear friends, It is only right now to consider this very important aspect. At the AGM 2012 held at the ASC on 1st April, 2012, we were told in great details how the PCC function in the formulation of policies and implementation of such decisions made. It was exposed at the second motions which was voted on with the results as rigged. We had seen how the policies made at the PCC meetings had caused the ASC to have massive deficits for 2010 and 2011 of over a RM1m in two years. It was observed how impotent it was at the said AGM and an earlier one in 2011. So I would like to see a full report on how the Synod had performed since 2000 especially from 2006. It can affect the ADOS and ASC as the mother church. Have members of ADOS and ASC got any chance to address the shortcomings of the policies making, the decisions made, and the implementation thereof for the wellbeings of all concerned? For the strengths if any, the members can further made them more significant. So it is also worthwhile to consider the Standing Committee SC of the ADOS. The composition of the SC needs to be made public Someone in the ascblog wrote "You have sixteen members in the Standing Committee, not including the auditor and the Chancellor. Out of these, twelve of them are under the payroll of the Church of which you are boss. Only four are from the laity. Would you tell us who can vote? I bet any proposal by you will be carried because the four members of laity are grossly outnumbered by the house of clergy and others, if all are allowed to vote. Do you follow the Constitution on who can vote? Does every one present carry a vote?" How would such S C implement the decisions made at the Synod? How would the Synod knows that SC has implemented decisions made and those expensive projects made? Who actually played the major role in the implementation of those projects? Could any conflict of interests had arisen? The areas of conflict can occur in the dealings vis-a-vis all the committees and the sole trustee. A classic example like the Kokol Prayers Centre KPC was quite obvious as how the decision made? I think it was a fast tracked project? Was due process (all sequences) properly done? We all know what happened to that KPC project possibly overpriced and subject to questioned quality. Where is the OC to be exhibited? The other project like Celebration Centre CC is easily to be questioned in the same pattern like KPC. We know the Bishop/Acting Dean/Dean wrote in the Bulletin that all decisions were made in PCC of ASC and the SC. So we want to see all the minutes and documents to that effect. Another obvious failure of BAV is that the effort to pull out ADOS from the Province of South East Asia to set up his own idea of Sabah own Archbishopship has an agenda of BAV to be seriously reviewed by the members of ADOS. I only learned of this in the ascblog. So members in ADOS, ASC and other major churches should now wake up to what Synod, SC, PCC and the executive arms of the respective bodies to their own agenda under BAV. So the proposal of SAFE (Sabah Anglican Fellowship Entity) throughout Sabah be timely to be set up under ROS for the good of all. So my dear friends, please give this SAFE a proper consideration. Joshua Y. C. Kong SAFE