Claims made in report were false
With reference to the Daily Express
report “Bishop Under Probe”
(17 June, 2012), the Diocese of Sabah
wish to state that the
report contained false, unfounded and
malicious allegations
which
are highly defamatory in nature.
The Diocese of Sabah has demanded that Daily Express
withdraw all the above false
allegations unconditionally and
publish a public apology to the Bishop of
Sabah.
The Diocese of Sabah also assures its
parishioners not to
be drawn into the allegations. All
facts and reports concerning
the ministry and development of the diocese
will be given
at the Diocesan Synod as is our
practice.
We maintain proper order in the church
and there are
proper platforms to discuss church matters and
to make
decisions for the good and growth of our
church.
We regret that our parishioners are
distressed and concerned
over the news report. However, we advise all parishioners
to seek clarifications from the Diocesan standing Committee
should there be a need to.
Meanwhile, we must move on in positive
faith. We must stand
united and strong. We must maintain our focused commitment
to reach our church’s vision.
Diocese
of Sabah
(DE letters forum of 21/7/12)
The
Daily Express has received a letter of demand from the
Diocese
of Sabah and is seeking legal advice. In the
meantime,
it does not concede that the report was
defamatory. – Ed.
Joshua’s comment is that “Diocese of
Sabah” is not a legal entity according ‘Affividavit’ of the Bishop of Sabah in
my Court case against him hence cannot demand apology and the Item in the press signed of as “Diocese of Sabah”
is also questionable. Why not put the
name of the person writing and submitting that item –“Claim made in report were
false” What is Bishop of Sabah hiding?
Joshua’s
comment is that
Daily Express was right “It does not concede
that the report was
defamatory” as it is proven beyond doubt that the
“Bishop under Probe” had resulted in a PAC report and these 38
items
of the grievous wrong doing of Bishop of Sabah have been
published
in the blog. -http://thetrutheng.com
since 22 February, 2014
Going by what Joyce has been sharing on avcf, it is to be confirmed that Avcf is not actually treating the widow sonia the wife of the Dais because he was reported to John C and his fear of being punished by any of his superior. Actually the fact that he was not made the Archbishop of APSEA and instead Bolly Lapok –somehow his junior took the place instead – had hurt the vindictive man in Avcf. After this, why should he treated a ‘foreign’ woman so well and so well that it is beyond belief that such a ‘low’ ranking person could be given the responsibility of pasturing a huge church in Sulaman Anglican Church. Sulaman A Church is an extra church and a drain on the church resources.
We all know what a man wants generally especially Avcf is
determined to get what he wants at all costs and he is using others people
money or God’s money to satisfy himself.
Like it is alleged that donation and church funds are used
to pay off his medical fees without sighting of the full medical reports by Dr
Kong Wai Loong of Paragon MC and yet it is alleged that Rev Dais Rukuman had to
pay for his own surgery fees. So Avcf
wanted people to pay for the medical fees and he got it done. So what else he is not capable of as he even
lied in the Court’s Affidavit against me.
Actually, you could have seen the trend of Avcf since 2005
till recently of his behaviour towards some women and you can form your own
opinion and not hearsay as exposed in the blogs. What can women offer him whilst others cannot
offer him?
Avcf also got the Stephen Foo to reply the press article
“Bishop under Probe” of 17th July, 2012 and that reply was miserable
and yet Foo dared to challenge the Chief Editor of Daily Express to apologise
which I believed was not forthcoming and yet Foo did not file any suit against
the newspaper. So Bishop of Sabah was
guilty by that count of circumstances.
On 6th March, 2014 Avcf again managed to get
Stephen Foo to make himself a “fool” by writing an article of inconsistencies.
misrepresentations and defamation bringing with it the great disrepute to the
Anglicism and Christianity in South East Asia
and beyond.
So beware Avcf is a man of unsound mind, physical
malfunction, and of endless possibilities of crimes and crimes against humanity
as he has no respect for most people even his superiors.
Joshua Y. C. Kong
Re: Article titled “Suit against Anglican Bishop dismissed” of DE 6th
March, 2014 p9
START OF PRESS RELEASE
I would like to lodge my personal
protest over the inaccuracies/misrepresentation and defamatory insinuations in
the above article.
The defamatory insinuations and
statements as published may or may not refer to the Diocesan Chancellor Datuk
Stephen Foo as the article started with “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. The
question of confusion is that if Foo refused to comment, then where did the
defamatory words “some disgruntled”
come about? Did the Daily Express
with unnamed writer coin such words?
Also who made the mistake both in the heading and the quoted sentence
when it was the Archbishop Bolly Lapok as one of the defendants and not Sabah
Anglican Bishop? Then the confusion to
the readers could link me to be disgruntled as my name appears toward the last
portion of the article. When was I a
disgruntled parishioner?
Surprisingly very naughty and
even seditious in the context of Christianity to suggest that statement later
and I quote “Christians should not resort to legal action as stated in the
Bible. A lot of accusations as published
were hearsay” and was this statement made by Foo or Daily Express or an
unspecified person? If accusations as
published were hearsay, surely there is a recourse to punish such activities
otherwise whoever had said this is guilty beyond doubt.
Further salt to injury against
parishioners was added by Foo when he was reported “The freedom of speech
includes the freedom not to say or publish anything.” In this misplaced statement
of Foo, I would like to remind him of his response to the Daily Express’s
article “Bishop under probe” dated 12 July, 2012 page 2 indicating several
items of Criminal Breach of Trust and his subsequent response as published in
the letters forum in Daily Express of 22nd July, 2012 in which he
acknowledged the unnamed Bishop was an Anglican Bishop and that he mulled
litigation against that article, after the Roman Catholic Church had disclaimed
that their bishop was not under probe.
Did Foo initiate any litigation process against that article? If not why not? Christians should not have short memory.
I am not to dwell into the recent
case by two plaintiffs against the House of Bishops of the Anglican Province
of churches in South East Asia (APSEA) as I am unsure of the issues raised in
those Court documents. What I know is
that there is full Judgement by the High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari
Kamali Bin Ramli after adjournments during the final process and including some
changes in the trial Judge. The case was
started on August 30, 2013 and the
Judgement came about on 29th January, 2014 after several hearings in
chamber on 3rd December, 2013, 17th December, 2013 and
final decision was supposed to be on 24th
January with VC in open court but again postponed to 29th January,
2014 in Chamber of the Judge for the full Judgement against the Plaintiffs on
the “non legal entity” of APSEA with a possibility of Appeal of 30 days thereof
with costs of RM15,000 to the defendant.
As my name was mentioned in the
sixth paragraph from the end of the said article, some professionals and
readers maybe confused why my case was also included when the Judge on APSEA
case as reported that “On this ground (non legal entity) alone I am of the
opinion that the Plaintiff’s application should be dismissed and I so
order.” The said article seems so happy
to add on the terms “Res Judicata” and “Estoppel”. Was this in the Judgement of the honourable
High Court Judicial Commissioner Azhahari?
I hope Daily Express can publish the full Judgement please.
As far as my case is concerned
started in late June 2012 with an Exparte hearing on for an Order on Anton
Pillar in mid July by High Court Judicial Commissioner Lee Heng Cheong (transferred
later) to obtain documents for the Anglican Diocese of Sabah and ended in mid
December, 2012 and widely reported in the press initially without my name and then
my name was revealed in the press to show courage and not cheap publicity. In this article of 6th March,
2014, why should my name be brought in when there was no full Judgement as the
full trial did not take place except arguments on technicalities such as locus
standi and wrong party. So how is it
that the legal principle of Res Judicata comes into play with the case against
APSEA? The bulk of my legal documents
presented in Writ of Summons and several bulky Affidavits and supporting
documents to the High Court were just ignored by the defendants..
I wonder why DE did not refer the
matters to C Fu and I prior to the publication of the article to get a balanced
disposition to the enlightened readers of all faiths. The
article as it is does give a picture of “contamination” of some “disgruntled”
Christians when the undesirable words used like “disgruntled”, “freedom of
speech”, “accusations” and “hearsay” need to be defined in the proper
perspective for true justice as such words are regularly in the lips of the
bishop both from the pulpit and official bulletins of the Church to which
parishioners have no avenue to reply.
I hope your paper would publish
this letter/press release/article in FULL to clear the air of sort of deception
and contamination by the yeast coming from some quarters.
End of PRESS RELEASE OF JOSHUA Y.
C. KONG.
Thank you,
Joshua Kong
.
Page 2 of 2
No comments:
Post a Comment