Tagged: Stephen Foo
What BAV doesn’t want you to know – Part 4
This is the finale of a four-part exposé series on Bishop Albert Vun. You will see the clearest evidence that suggests fraud and criminal activity.
item 8 of the auditor’s Management Letter
The Diocese purchased a shoplot in Tenom. The figure on the sales & purchase agreement was RM415,000. The actual amount paid by the Diocese was RM473,830, a difference of RM58,830. How do we read into this fact? Questions we must ask:
1. Why did the Diocese issue payment for RM473,830 when the official selling price was RM415,000? Is this a norm in the Diocese? Pay more money than what’s indicated in the supporting document?
2. Where did the difference of RM58,830 go to? Who received this money?
3. Was the transaction under declared to evade stamp duty? If this was the case, then fraud was committed to cheat the government of rightful revenue. Isn’t this a criminal offense?
4. Who negotiated this deal? Who signed the cheques?
5. Bishop Albert Vun always maintained he was guided by the Chancellor in transactions of properties. Mr. Stephen Foo, do you know about this? Do you have any part in this transaction?
6. According to reliable sources, a lawyer outside of the church, from a different faith, was engaged for this transaction. Is this true?
My brothers and sisters, the management letter revealed damaging and possibly criminal behaviours by our leaders. What did we learn from this? The mysterious movement of funds, the unauthorized use of church money, the purchase of overseas properties without a trust deed and approval of the Standing Committee, issuance of payment without supporting documents, irreconcilable accounts, unaccounted FD interests earned, missing rentals, make it clear the account is problematic, as indicated in the auditor’s qualified report. We need a forensic audit to uncover the truth. Without that, confidence and trust cannot be rebuild. You may think this is a KK problem. It is not. Diocese’s revenue comes all the parishes. Now, the Diocese’s interest is at stake. Will you stand up for it?
It is also clear the problems involved many people. It is impossible for example, to buy a RM800,000 condominium in Thailand, without anyone else knowing it. Every cheque must be signed by two or three persons. What did the other signatories do when they come to know about such irregular transactions? Has blind obedience overtaken common sense? Why did it take so long to detect irregularities?
In the spirit of transparency, I make available the management letter to be downloaded here. I have pored over reports, figures, statistics for hours and tried my best to be accurate, factual and objective. If you find any errors here, please email me so I can correct them.
THE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE
Our Priests and Pastors, for so long, bloggers have been called liars. I have presented four articles (see also Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) based on facts, figures from Synod reports, official documents and the management letter from the auditor appointed by the Synod. Judge not the messenger, but the message. Judge it based on the facts presented and the merits of the content. There are only 3 ways you can respond:
1. Dispute the facts rigorously because the articles were wrong, and thus harmful to the reputation of the Bishop and Diocese . I am happy to be corrected. I will update the articles accordingly and apologize for any mistakes made if you can prove anything wrong.
2. Accept the articles because it was factual and correct. If the articles were right, what should be the right thing for you to do?
3. Do nothing.
On your way to church, you saw a man attacking a young lady, trying to force himself on her and tearing her clothes. What would you do? Wait for the House of Bishop to decide whether a sexual assault was indeed taking place? Wait for the HOB to tell you what you should do next? Or call for help and try to stop the assault?
Clergy, this is not about the five complainants vs the Bishop. This is about right vs wrong. Truth vs falsehood. Integrity vs manipulation. You have eyes, ears, brains, and the word of God. Use them. Engage the issues in front of you. Discern them. Tell us where you stand. If you cannot tell right from wrong, how can we count on you to discern false doctrines from infiltrating the church? If you fear your Bishop more than God, how can we count on you to stand firm when persecution comes?
Think carefully what you do next for it may well decide your fate and character. The whole church is watching if you practice what you preach.
Remember the blind man at the well? Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” Wasn’t it obvious what the blind man wanted? Wasn’t Jesus the all knowing Son of God? Why do you think Jesus asked that question? Jesus wanted this man to verbalize his desires for healing. There is power and faith in the words declared, and Jesus healed him.
In the same way, dear clergy of the Diocese of Sabah, what do you want God to do for the Diocese of Sabah at this point?
Even if you despise me and distrust the research/articles written, please read the management letter for yourself and decide. It is a key evidence that was not revealed to the Synod, will you consult with your PCC to petition to the Standing Committee for a forensic audit of the Diocese accounts? This move is important because:
1. It is the only way to find out the whole truth. This is not a KK problem. The reputation and integrity of the whole Diocese is at stake. This crisis affects the giving, worship, witness and ministry in every church in the Anglican Diocese of Sabah. Trust cannot be restored unless a forensic audit to the Diocese accounts is carried out.
2. It will safeguard the interests of the Diocese. The Diocese holds millions in cash and properties. These belongs to God and we must do our utmost to ensure they are all accounted for.
3. If wrongdoings were committed, a forensic audit will reveal the management, administrative and governance weaknesses. Only by identifying them, we can implement corrective measures to prevent similar crisis from happening again.
Hebrews 10:38-39 “But my righteous one will live by faith. And I take no pleasure in the one who shrinks back.” But we do not belong to those who shrink back and are destroyed, but to those who have faith and are saved.
This matter is urgent. If you do not act by this Sunday , then the laity will arise and petition for it. By then, you would have lost the opportunity to lead your people to do the right thing, at the right time. More importantly, you would have lost their respect and trust for abdicating your leadership when it mattered most. You have shrunk back.
Billy Graham puts it well:
“When wealth is lost, nothing is lost.
When health is lost, something is lost
When character (integrity) is lost, EVERYTHING is lost!”
May God convict you to do what is right.
What BAV doesn’t want you to know – Part 2
item 5 of the auditor’s management letter.
In 2009, Bishop Albert Vun purchased a luxurious condominium (Bangkok Garden) in Bangkok using Diocese funds. Official figures show the purchase price to be RM724,778, however the actual figure is believed to be closer to RM800,000. Officially, the purpose of the purchase was for the expansion of mission work in Thailand. Here are some facts about about the Bangkok Garden condominium:
1.It was purchased in 2009 without any discussion or approval from the Standing Committee. Does this constitute breach of trust? How did the Bishop manage take out so much money from the Diocese without any approval from Standing Committee? Who signed those cheques? Who authorize the payment?
2. All newly acquired properties by the Diocese are recorded by the Secretary and reported in the Secretary’s report during the Synod. The Secretary, Paul Liew, did not have Bangkok Garden in his report in 2010 because he did not know the Diocese had purchased this property. (see Synod 2010 report pg. 54-56 and Synod 2012 report pg. 46-47)
3. The purchase of Bangkok Garden condominium first surfaced in the in Synod 2010’s Diocese Financial Report, page 14.
Synod 2010, Diocese Financial Report, page 14
4. Bishop purchased the property in Thailand under his personal name, using church funds.
5. The trust deed was completed on 23 June 2012, just 9 days before the Provincial Advisory Committee started their first round of interview in Kota Kinabalu.
Bangkok Garden. Bishop Albert Vun owned a unit of condominium here. picture from Bangkok Garden website.
What does this tell us?
1. The trust deed was done after this issue was raised to the House of Bishops. Why? Would a trust deed have been done without the complaints to the House of Bishops?
2. Normally a trust deed is done at the same time of the acquisition of the property. Henceforth, the Diocese’s interest was not safeguarded for nearly 3.5 years.
3. Why did the Chancellor allow the Diocese’s interests to be risked for 3.5 years?
4. During Synod 2010, the Bishop said, “the condominium is held under his personal name in trust for the Diocese.” One cannot hold anything in trust with mere words. The ONLY way to hold a property in trust is to have a trust deed done. Yet the management letter by George Lim revealed the trust deed was only done on 23 June 2012. Did Bishop Albert Vun’s words tally with actual facts?
Synod 2012 report, page 23 shows minuted reply from Bishop Albert Vun during Synod 2010 about Bangkok Garden Condominiums.
5. How does a RM800,000 condominium expand mission work in Thailand?
6. The condo is 1 hour away from Rangsit, before you factor in Bangkok’s infamous traffic congestions. How is this condo practical to the ministry in Rangsit?
nearly 60km away, Bangkok Garden to Rangsit, or 60 mins drive without Bangkok infamous traffic congestion.
item 9 in the auditor’s Management Letter
This item also confirms the assertions of this blog mission fund is used for the academies. More seriously, when money was given for Mission, it must be spent for that specific purpose–mission work. Never had the Standing Committee or Synod mandated the utilisation of Mission Funds for the academies. Questions:
1. Whose decision was it to use Mission Funds for the academies?
2. When a leader use the Mission Funds for purposes other than for mission, is this a breach of trust? Had the Bishop, also the trustee, not acted contrary to the wishes of the trust?
3. RM650,000 spent in Beijing and Bangkok? Until now, the Bishop has not disclosed how much money was lost in the blotched attempt to setup a school in Beijing. Can the Bishop show the accounts for the failed Beijing school please?
4. Another academy in Bangkok? What is the progress? How much fund is already utilized?
p/s More will be revealed when adequate time and effort is given into testing the evidence presented to this blog. I understand the rising anger amongst members. May I ask that we refrain from name callings and hate comments. Incoming comments will be vetted more closely from now on.
More Dirt from Synod
As the dust settles, more details emerged from the just completed Synod that points to highly suspicious business of the highest order in the Diocese.
1. RM600,000 renovation of the Bishop’s lodge
Chris Chiew from St. Patrick’s Church, who also headed the engineering firm that supervised the renovation work, rose to confirm the renovation cost at RM600,000. He said he had all the files and documents to show and anyone who wanted to see the proofs could approach him. Highly curious why the engineer has to come out and defend the Bishop so valiantly. Yes, they are dive buddies and Chiew oversees a lot of the Diocese’s construction projects, including the controversial Kokol Prayer Summit which is a project probed by the Advisory Committee. Can’t blame the delegates for being skeptical when the Bishop’s close ally came to the defense.
I have further questions on the renovation. What does RM600,000 include? Likely the structural work only as Chiew is an engineer. What about the furnishing and fittings? How much did that cost? Can we summon Bishop’s former PA and personal shopper Esther Liew to testify? Esther and Datin Mary Vun made trips to KL and Thailand to bring home containers of furnitures. Can the Bishop give us the figures for furniture and fittings please? More importantly who were in the committee to oversee the renovation? What was the budget set by the Standing Committee?
RM600,000 = 1 year of offering+tithes from Church of the Good Shepherd (in 2006)
RM600,000 = 1 year of offering+tithes from Christ Church Likas (in 2006)
Let’s not forget in the same year, Philip Lo spent RM300,000 to renovate rectory II of Christ Church which he occupied for a few months before moving into the Deanery. In total, the Diocese spent RM900,000 on renovation in 2006, and we haven’t figured out the furnishing and fitting cost yet. That’s 40% of the Diocesan assessments (RM2.2 million) in 2006. Can you imagine 40% of what the whole Diocese collected in 2006 went into renovating houses for two families? Is this good stewardship of God’s money?
2. RM850,000 Sipitang land
Diocesan Secretary, Paul Liew noted he was tasked by the Standing Committee to negotiate the purchase of this land. Liew, who is also professional valuer, valued the land at RM650,000 and offered the same to the seller. Liew told the Synod he did not know how or why the Diocese eventually concluded the purchase at RM850,000. Liew wanted this fact to be noted and minuted. The Bishop then clarified there was a miscommunication with Liew.
WOW! A miscommunication that cost the Diocese RM200,000 more! Why did the Bishop choose to buy it at RM200,000 premium of what was negotiated? Why did the Bishop bypassed Paul Liew who was appointed for negotiation and valuation? Can you blame the members from suspecting the Bishop of collusion and embezzlement?
3. Management Letter from the Auditor
Remember the 3rd paragraph from the Auditor’s report above? The report included a management letter. Several delegates asked for the letter as it would highlight the exact areas where the accounts are problematic. Treasurer Paul Chong declined to produce the letter saying it was only meant for the Standing Committee. The Synod is the HIGHEST governing body of the Diocese. Amongst the Synod’s duties is to approve the accounts and budget. The Standing Committee is elected to carry out the wishes of the Synod, therefore the Standing Committee is subservient to the Synod, not the other way round. The Synod has every right to know why the auditor find the accounts so troubling.
Chong finally relented, but he would only provide the letter to Stephanie Chin, treasurer of Church of Good Shepherd, who raised the question. Such secretive behaviours rouse further distrust towards the Bishop, his inner circles, and top leadership.
4. An Abusive Chancellor
The Church of Christ the King, a relatively young and small church in KK, stunned the floor with their passionate opposition to the 2nd resolution. Both wardens, Chin Chiong Fah & Chong Yun Choi, relatively new to the Synod crossed swords with the Chancellor. We need more delegates like them who would speak out of their convictions not fearing what others think. When Chin argued the clergy should be excluded from voting the 2nd resolution, Stephen Foo barked down on Chin, “Are you challenging the constitution?” The Chancellor may not have read his job description. Under the constitution, the Chancellor is the legal adviser for the Bishop and Diocese. An adviser speaks when he/she is sought for advise; and adviser should be neutral. It is unbecoming of Stephen Foo to be aggressive towards any delegate during a debate. Where was the Chancellor when the Synod failed to obey the constitution in serving notice to the parishes, preparing the agenda, and submitting the resolutions?
Dear Synod delegates, I appeal to you to write a letter to the House of Bishop in light of the coverups and irregularities you witnessed at the Synod. You were denied access to the management letter. You were denied sufficient time to consider the resolutions, which should have been published 6 weeks prior to the Synod. Instead, they ambushed you for a vote of confidence at the end of a Synod. You were denied the opportunity to consult, weight and discuss the resolutions with your parish.
Please arise and let the voice of righteousness be heard. Don’t let James Chhoa do all the work. There are 98 of you, and you only need a handful of signatures from the delegates to send a letter to the House of Bishops.
Evil triumph when good men do nothing.
3 Laughable Resolutions
While winding up the Synod, Rev. Kenneth Thien tabled 3 resolutions. The move was controversial because the Diocesan constitution stipulated any resolutions must be published in the Synod agenda, at least 6 weeks before the Synod. This is to provide all the churches adequate time discuss, study and weigh the issues. I’m puzzled how our learned Chancellor missed that. Not only the Synod was unconstitutional, the 3 resolutions were laughable. Please read on…
1st Resolution
To denounce the blogs and to affirm resolution to church issues must be conducted through proper channels. After some squabble over its wording, it was passed with some objections. Really? Do a couple of blogs that have long been labelled as “all lies” and “malicious” dignify an official condemnation at Synod? He or she who has never read either blogs should cast the first vote. Not even our Prime Minister had the gall to tell us what to read or not to read.
Besides the resolution, there are also attempts behind the scene to stop this blog. It only tells us that collectively, we are damaging to someone’s seat of power, interests, agenda and sleeping patterns. Do you think this resolution has any power in stopping people from reading the blogs?
2nd Resolution
To affirm that Bishop Albert Vun is God’s appointed leader for the Diocese of Sabah and we support his leadership. This kicked up a huge storm. The little goodwill the Bishop gained by apologizing, crying and hugging went down the drain. Many delegates objected it, including James Chhoa. First, all clergy had sworn canonical obedience to the Bishop. Thus it is absurd Rev. Kenneth Thien raised this. Secondly, why should the clergy vote on this when they have already sworn canonical obedience to the Bishop? How do you expect the clergy to vote against the Bishop?
The Chancellor concurred it wasn’t appropriate Rev. Kenneth Thien proposed the resolution, so Thien stood down. However Chris Chiew from St. Patrick’s Church re-tabled the resolution. The house was quiet as nobody stood up to second it. Michael Tong, the new Standing Committee treasurer, seconded it. Then all hell broke loose.
Clearly the resolution was a vote of confidence to shore up support for Bishop Albert Vun as the verdict from the House of Bishops loomed large. Many delegates saw it right through and did not want to support it. Once again delegates fought to exclude the House of Clergy from participating in the vote as they had already sworn canonical obedience to the Bishop. Despite the debates, Chancellor Stephen Foo opined the clergy should also vote.
95: Yes
53: Abstained or No
Voters breakdown:
Clergy: 50
Lay delegates from rural churches: 38
Lay delegates from urban churches: 60
House of Clergy: 48 of 50 (voted for)
House of Laity: 47 of 98 (voted for)
Assuming 95% of the clergy and lay delegates from rural church supported it, the Bishop got 84 votes. That means only 11 lay delegates from the urban churches supported the resolution, while 49 opposed it. Without the clergy’s votes, it would have been a draw. The voting patterns reveals supports and opposition to the Bishop are clearly drawn along geographical lines. Either out of fear or blind support, the clergy is largely also behind the Bishop. Vast majority of the priests are under 40 years old. Their youth perhaps dissuade them from rocking the boat. This is unhealthy to have such schism in the Diocese.
What’s laughable was the language of the original resolution. Why would God need a vote to affirm his anointing on Bishop Albert Vun? Or perhaps it was the Bishop that needed it.
3rd Resolution
To affirm the Diocese of Sabah is committed to the Anglican Communion. This is an admission that Bishop Albert Vun did tried to pull the Diocese out of the Province two years ago, though the Bishop would tell a different story. The truth is prior to Synod 2010, Bishop Albert Vun met with the clergy prior to the 2010 Synod to gauge their support for such a move. He pulled back when some senior priests opposed it violently. If he could not get the support of the clergy, he could forget about convincing the laity. Thus it was never raised at the Synod. All the clergy who attended that “secret” meeting could vouch for this fact.
Very clearly, none of the 3 resolution addressed accountability, transparency, abuse of power, mismanagement of funds that caused this crisis. Many who thought the Bishop would follow up his apologies and tears with real reforms were devastated. True enough the crying and huggings were just a ploy to get through the Synod with minimal opposition.
So what are the resolutions for? I believe Bishop Albert Vun needed these resolutions to as proofs of support when he is summon to meet with the House of Bishop. We know the Advisory Committee has submitted their report to the House of Bishops, and the latter had deliberated. It’s believe Bishop Albert Vun will be summoned, if not already, to meet the House of Bishops.
“See, our Synod has condemned the blogs as lies, so please don’t believe the content. Secondly, the Synod says I am the Lord’s anointed leader, so you cannot sack me. Thirdly, hey I never wanted to pull out from the Province so don’t blame me.”
So can a leopard change its spots? Don’t worry about the leopard. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
UPDATED September 2, 2:40pm
Many of you expressed exasperation and helplessness in the face of blatant abuse of power at the Synod. Some even derided Synod delegates for not standing up for the truth. I want to interject that some priests and many delegates fought bravely over the contentious resolutions. Not everyone who spoke up are mentioned here. We are not LOST. Bishop Albert Vun may have seemingly won some battles, but he will soon lose the war. The house of cards will crumble. Let us finish the job we started several months ago. I will keep writing until manipulation, lies, abuse and coverups are purged from the Diocese of Sabah. Keep praying relentlessly. Don’t give evil a chance to rest.
The Truth 