OPEN LETTER TO DIOCESAN
CHANCELLOR (DC) – PAST & PRESENT.
To:
Rev Kenneth Thien – Diocesan Chancellor
till August 2008
Datuk
Stephen Foo Kiat Shin – Diocesan Chancellor from august, 2008 till todate.
Preamble:-
This
OPEN letter would be published in my blog and emails to the ADOS and Anglican
members and the House of Bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I
hope those in positions should take note of this grave abuses of power by the
Diocesan Chancellors in the Anglican Diocese of
Sabah (ADOS) as part of the Province of the Anglican Church in South
East Asia (APSEA) and the Greater Global Anglican Communion via ACC.
2. Constitution
2.1 The position in the Constitution of the
Anglican Diocese of Sabah of the Diocesan Chancellor is clearly stated in Article XVII which
stipulates that The DC shall be appointed by the Bishop and shall hold office
at his pleasure. He shall be a qualified
lawyer and shall be the legal adviser for the Bishop and the Diocese.
2.2 Where Diocese is defined in Article 1 (2)
as a defined area of operation.
2.3 As the DC is the legal adviser for the Bishop and the Diocese,
the DC cannot act for the Bishop alone as in the internal crisis aka BISHOPGATE
and in so doing so DC is acting against the Diocese where the church member
reigns supreme where church member of ADOS is defined in Article 1 (1).
2.4 Further DC is not a member of the
Standing Committee under Article X and Article X (4) stipulates that “the Standing Committee shall act for
the Diocesan Synod between ordinary meetings of the Diocesan Synod, and shall
advise and assist the Bishop in all matters connected with the finance and
administration of the Diocese referred to it by him.
2.5 So the position and role of DC is very
clear to be as independent in any conflict of the Bishop and the church members
as in the prevailing scenario of ADOS.
2.6 What we have seen through and through in
many scenarios affecting the Bishop Albert Vun Cheong Fui (AVCF) and Diocese
(members), the DC has sided wholly with the Bishop who had actually created the
crisis BISHOPGATE resulting in losses of tens of millions of Ringgit and more for
more than six years and more as a priest.
2.7 When the Constitution of ADOS has been
deliberately abused and violated by the Bishop for his known agenda, and the DC
fails to advise him in the proper perspective, both should be taken to task.
2.8 Such behaviour of the Bishop is clearly
of unsound mind and as such DC is unethical in his performance of duties as
legal adviser for the common good of the Bishop and the Diocese under siege of
the grievous and heinous deeds of Bishop now exposed and confirmed
2.9 In such scenario why the power above the
Bishop cannot remove both the Bishop and DC.
2.10 I am in action with the sole intention to
resolve BISHOPGATE as soon as possible and the blessing would come from God.
3. I can provide a long list of the acts
of DC which had fallen short of propriety. [here is a sample only]
3.1
The behaviour and attitude of the DC Datuk
Stephen Foo at the All Saints’ Cathedral Annual General Meeting 2012 held at
the ASC on 1st April, 2012 where he sided with the Bishop and his
administration as the acting Dean/ Dean, where members had repeatedly decried
the dictatorship of the Bishop AVCF especially the acting Dean/ Dean was
missing in action. The DC never even
mentioned the illegal Chairman at the AGM.
3.2
It was reported in the Truthblog as
follows:-
http://thetruthasc.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/a-demonic-attack/
[[[
23. July 26, 2012 - 11:15 pm Messenger of Truth
To
‘Samtheprophet’ regarding your message on July 26/2012 at 7:54am on 1Corinthian
6:1-6. God’s Word is God’s Word. The message does not change but it is we
humans who turn and twists it around.
God’s
Word in 1Corinthian 6:1-6 remains UNCHANGED and is till the TRUTH.
What
you are about to read is the HARD TRUTH regarding legal matters on AV and the
Plaintiff. These happened BEFORE the Plaintiff goes to the Court to file an
injunction against AV. Here is how it goes:-
1. TRUTH NO.1 – AV, through legal firm, Chin Lau Wong & Foo (of which Stephen Foo is a partner) sued the Plaintiff AND the Police regarding the Police Report filed by the Plaintiff on AV and his misdemeanors.
VERDICT: The suit was denied.
2. TRUTH NO.2 –
VERDICT: The suit was denied once again.
1. TRUTH NO.1 – AV, through legal firm, Chin Lau Wong & Foo (of which Stephen Foo is a partner) sued the Plaintiff AND the Police regarding the Police Report filed by the Plaintiff on AV and his misdemeanors.
VERDICT: The suit was denied.
2. TRUTH NO.2 –
VERDICT: The suit was denied once again.
These
are TRUE cases. Check with the legal system and see if these cases are indeed
true.
Now,
WHO do you think breaks God’s Word? AV or the Plaintiff? You be the Judge.]]]
3.3 Questions -
3.3.1 Question 1: Can DC
Datuk Stephen Foo (DSF) instigate the first suit on behalf of the Bishop AV
against Joshua Kong and the Police?
3.3.2 Question 2: Can x?
3.3.3 Question 3: Bishop AVCF wrote in his August message to
the Diocesan Synod 2012 (page 37) that it is not permitted in the Bible for me
to file a suit against another Christian.
But how come, the said Bishop AVCF did it himself against me, ok or not?
3.4 Has the DC advised
Bishop AVCF to withdraw his pastoral letter dated 5th August, 2012
against Joshua Kong which remained posted in the Homepage of ADOS since August, 2012 and I am not given a
chance to rebut what the Bishop wrote in that pastoral letter which contains
falsehood on the civil case.. .
3.5 Has the DC advised the Bishop AVCF to use his
own personal money and own facilities to defend his cases in the Provincial
Complaint as investigated and my civil case?
As long as Bishop remains in office, he is using the church fund to
defend himself for crimes he had committed.
The other irony is that the 5 complainants (May 2012) and 10 appellants
(7th & 8th November, 2012) have to use own resources
to deal with the Archbishop of APSEA. The 5 complainants and 10 appellants did in
the spirit to defend the ADOS and the Church for public interests. I am also using my own resources to file the
civil suit to defend the ADOS and Church for public interest. If the guilty Bishop according to the
Provincial Advisory Committee in 38 out of 40 issues raised by the 5
complainants can use the church funds and facilities including travels to defend
himself, then the 5 complainants, the 10 appellants and myself can apply to the
ADOS and the church for funds.
3.6 To make matters worst, DC DSF has been alleged
to have advised Bishop AVCF to fight to the end (whether DC DSF had actually
advised Bishop AVCF in such fashion is not relevant) while remaining as a
Bishop even in Sabbatical leave from February, 2013. In the latest development, DC DSF had
accompanied Bishop AVCF to Kuching on 27th
and 28th November, 2012 for the meeting of the House of Bishops on
the appeal of 10. DC DSF has clearly
acted unethically and his costs of travel could have been paid from the ADOS
fund. (DC DSF to confirm this?). In this
process, DC DSF is against the church while defending the guilty Bishop AVCF. Only insanity of Bishop AVCF and DC DSF would
ignore such development.
3.7 We have seen how DC DSF has replied in
writing to Mr William Thien and how he had answered the members in a dialogue
called by Bishop AVCF at the All Saints’
Cathedral on 15th October, 2012 in selective approaches. All posted in the blogs.
3.8 The DC DSF had made false accusations against
me as a messenger or whistleblower (again bias) when I had been issued a Court
Order/ Anton Piller Order to collect official documents from the ADOS office in
Wisma Anglican on 23rd July, 2012.
Is it right to attack me personally to defend the guilty Bishop AVCF? In this way, DC DSF has committed contempt of
court.
3.9 As to Rev Kenneth Thien
(RKT) and an ex DC, he had also acted
bias when he prepared the Police Report for the Assistant Bishop John Yeo to
lodge against me on 23rd July, 2012 and that Police report turned
out to be false. That report was done at the time the Court Order was served.
3.10
Also Rev Kenneth Thien spent much time on the instruction of
Bishop AVCF to initiate a split within the Province of APSEA
which has emerged as a tainted process of an ill motive within the Anglican
Communion.
3.11
Both items (3.9 and 3.10) on Rev Kenneth Thien are unethical
and the second item is illustrated in the Truthasc blog under the title “latest
news”
3.12
Professionally DC DSF and DC RKT have failed to perform their
duties in the handling of the Trustee Incorporation
Certificate under the Trustee Incorporation Ordinance (Sabah
148) possibly with very dire consequences for the acts and omissions of the
sole trustee in Bishop of Sabah (registered trustee) with or without the
appropriate advice of the DC. Ignorance
is no excuse in this instance.
3.13 Whatever irregularities or mal practice done
by Bishop AVCF should have been reviewed by the DC since 2006 and all the
shortcomings are now very costly indeed for ADOS.
3.14 Did the DC DSF and ex DC RKT present at the
Diocesan Synod 2012 advised the Bishop AVCF about the illegal Synod in
substantial and substantive measures including the very much questioned
financial reports already subject to the Management Letter from the Honorary
Auditor? If not, why not?
3.15
Finally, DC DSF and DC RKT should be reported to the Sabah Law
Association for the unethical practice for many questionable developments now
under scrutiny and challenge internally and in the Civil Courts. Never use the prerogative power of the Bishop
as accorded by the defective and bias Constitution of ADOS as an excuse for the
shocking conduct and performance of the Bishop of AVCF –still unfolding- as the
Bishop has multi roles and the full responsibility thereof in the ADOS and ASC
and the church in general especially in his questioned role as the sole trustee
as BISHOP OF SABAH (registered trustee) with lots of irregularities.
4. I pray that you will respond to this OPEN
letter as soon as possible and allow the resolution of BISHOPGATE in win-win-win
scenario for all in the Christian communities in Sabah
and beyond.
5. Please
refer to the following blogs:-
As Bishop and
his gang including the DCs have claimed the blogs as lies, but never
substantiated by them. The more they try
to address some of the pressing issues, the more lies they employ to cover
their evil deeds like robbing the church and God’s money under their care. Don’t use any scripture verses to protect
your guilt in one way or another. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
6, If anyone including
the Bishop AVCF and his people around him cannot handle the resolution of BISHOPGATE, please resign and restore
whatever the ADOS and ASC and the church in general had suffered losses.
7. Let others local members and beneficiaries come together to
revamp the ADOS with a new beginning.
Thank you for
reading,
Joshua Y. C.
Kong
ADOS member,
beneficiary and Plaintiff.
Why Stephen Foo did not sue Daily Express on the title " Bishop under probe"?
ReplyDeleteSo AVCF is guilty beyond redemption.
AVCF must be removed on this count alone as he has owned up to wrong doings and misdeeds.