Tagged: Synod
The Mother of All Synods
Diocesan Secretary Paul Liew sent out a notice to all PCCs and their respective secretaries, reminding them to elect their delegates in their upcoming AGMs. Meanwhile, Bishop Albert Vun sent a separate email to Rectors and Priest-in-charge telling them to elect their delegates at a PCC meeting. These two conflicting instructions caused some confusion.
How are Synod delegates elected? At AGMs or at a PCC meeting? Let’s refer to Article XXIII of the Diocesan constitution.
Article XXIII of the Diocesan Constitution.
What is a “Parochial Meeting”? Is it an AGM or a PCC meeting? The Diocesan constitution defines it clearly on page 3.
The definition of a “Parochial Meeting” according to the Diocesan Constitution.
BAV’s attempt to re-define a “Parochial Meeting” as a PCC meeting is problematic in three ways. First, the constitution has already defined a “Parochial Meeting” as a meeting that summons all communicants who are 18 or above. Clearly an AGM is such a meeting and a PCC meeting is not. Secondly, as a convention, Synod delegates have always been elected at AGMs of respective parishes. Senior clergy like BAV, Dean Chak, Moses Chin and even former Bishops can testify to this fact. Finally, PCC is the acronym for Parochial Church Council. It is incomprehensible how Bishop Albert Vun could mistake that, let alone redefining it a Parochial Meeting as a Parochial Church Council meeting. More importantly, why does Bishop Albert Vun want Synod delegates to be elected at a PCC meeting? What is it in for him?
There were a fair amount of manipulation and irregularities in the previous Synod two years ago. No notice for the Synod was filed. BAV instructed the priest to appoint the wardens as delegates, instead of electing the delegates during the AGM. At hindsight, many view this as a tactic to stymie dissenting voices and critical minds.
In the last Synod, the management letter was withheld and the PAC report was under wraps. Now both incriminating evidences are out in the public. The Synod can choose to embrace the truth by redirecting the Diocese to repentance, or ignore the truth by continuing down the path of destruction. Electing delegates with critical thinking and godliness is paramount to restoring the church.
Be wise and prayerful who you want to represent your parish in the coming Synod which is shaping up to be the mother of all Synods.
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.
Apa yang Bishop Albert Vun tak mau anda ketahui – Bhgn 3
Dalam bahagian 3 ini, sya akan menunjukkan lebih banyak lagi percanggahan2 dan soalan2 dalam akaun Diosis yang ditimbulkan oleh surat pengurusan juruaudit. Jikalau kamu belum membacanya, adalah lebih baik jika anda membaca bahagian 1 dan 2 sebelum anda membaca bahagian ini untuk anda mendapatkan gambaran yang betul. Bahagian ini agak panjang, anda mungkin mahu menyediakan minuman kesukaan anda sebelum anda terjun kedalam dunia angka2 yang mengelirukan.
Perkara 4b, SURAT PENGURUSAN
- Perkara 4b, muka 2 surat pengurusan daripada George Lim kepada AJK tertinggi Diosis
Laporan kewangan projek Kokol Prayer Submit yang disediakan oleh Encik Michael Tong menunjukkan bahawa projek itu telah disiapkan dengan harga RM5.17 juta (lihat laporan Synode muka 3 dari belakang). Akan tetapi akaun Diosis yang dibentangkan Encik Paul Chong menunjukkan jumlah yang berlainan. Juruaudit menarik perhatian kepada perbezaan ini dalam surat pengurusannya.
- muka 8, laporan kewangan Diosis Sabah, Synode 2012
Questions:
1. Aapakah kos sebenar projek Kokol Prayer Summit?
2. Bagaimanakah dua orang juruakaun profesional mendapat perbezaan sebanyak RM800,000? Anda boleh membeli sebuah lagi kondominium mewah Bangkok Gardens dengan RM800,000. Apakah yang sedang berlaku disini?
3. Kalaulah kos yang sebenarnya adalah RM6 juta, itu adalah kelebihan 28% daripada budjet asal RM4.7 juta yang dilaporkan kepada Synode 2008 (lihat muka 36, laporan Synode 2008). Apakah sebabs kos melampaui budjet dengan sedemikian banyak? Adakah ini mendapat kelulusan AJK tertinggi Diosis?
MANAGEMENT LETTER: ITEM 4c
Dalam bahasa biasa ini adalah penghutang kepada Diosis yang kita tiada maklumat terperinci. Sepintas lalu ia mungkin satu jumlah yang kecil berbanding dengan perbelanjaan RM18 juta antara tahun 2010 dan 2011. Tetapi bila diteliti ia menimbulkan fakta2 yang membimbangkan.
MQ10 merujuk kepada kos pengubahsuaian ke atas rumah paderi yang baru untuk Christ Church Likas. Ia adalah rumah yang sama yang diubah-suai dengan kos RM300,000 sebagai kediaman untuk keluarga Philip Lo; mereka menggunakannya untuk beberapa bulan sebelum berpindah ke Rumah Dean di Katedral All Saints. Dalam tahun 2007, Christ Church Likas telah bersetuju untuk mengambil alih rumah tersebut dengan harga RM170,000 dan membayarnya secara ansuran selama 4 tahun. (Kos sebnar kepada CCL adalah sekitar RM250,000 jikalau tafsiran diosis yang dikenakan ke atas kutipan untuk projek ini diambil kira.)
Sementara CCL telah lunas membayar pinjaman itu, akaun diosis masih menunjukkan mereka berhutang sebanyak RM111,141.53. Apabila ini dikesan pada tahun 2011, wakil CCL telah mengumpulkan resit2 rasmi untuk menjelaskan perkara ini kepada bahagian akaun diosis dan minta supaya diosis membetulkan rekodnya. Tetapi isu ini timbul kembali dalam surat pengurusan juruaudit setahun kemudian walaupun perkara ini sudah dikira sudah diselesaikan.
Pertimbangkan ini. 1) Anda membayar hutang anda. 2) Mereka melunaskan cek anda. 3) Mereka memberikan resit rasmi. 4) Tetapi rekod menunjukkan kamu masih berhutang. Ini tidak boleh menjadi kesalahan dalam catatan sebab resit rasmi “MQ10” dengan jelas sudah dikeluarkan oleh Diosis. Kita tidak jangka Encik Paul Chong boleh terlepas melihatnya?
Begitu juga dengan penghutang yang dikenali “KK Land Sales” (penjualan tanah KK). Diosis telah menjual dua bidang tanah di KK, satu di Likas dengan harga RM31 juta, dan sebidang tanah kecil untuk jalan masuk ke Freemasons hall (depan Katedral) dengan harga RM661,375. Kedua-dua transaksi telah pun dibayar dengan penuh. Kenapa Diosis meminjamkan wang sebanyak RM236,500 kepada seseorang untuk penjualan tanah? Bagaimana ini terjadi? Kepada siapa pinjaman daripada Diosis ini?
Questions:
1. Money is paid to the Diocese but not credited into the MQ10 receivable account. So where did the money go?
2. Is it possible the payment, instead of crediting into accounts receivables was used to pay off expenses? Is this a form of “creative” accounting that hides expenses and makes the books look better than it really is? How many of items in the Receivable Accounts are used in the same manner?
3. Is this part of the movement of funds highlighted by the auditor? If it is, then MQ10 can be a tip of the iceberg for a set of account that was done seemingly to conceal rather than reveal the real state of the Diocese’s finances.
4. RM236,500 for “KK Land Sales”. Is this an agent’s commission or facilitator’s fee? Who is the borrower? Why hasn’t the Diocese demanded for repayment? Who signed the cheques? Where are the supporting documents for the issuance of payment?
Soalan:
1. Wang yang dibayar kepada Diosis tetapi tidak dikreditkan ke dalam MQ10 hutang belum diterima. Ke manakah wang itu pergi?
2. Mungkinkah pembayaran ini yang sepatutnya dikreditkan ke dalam akaun penerima digunakan untuk membayar perbelanjaan2 yang lain? Adakah ini satu kes “perakaunan kreatif” yang cuba menyembunyikan perbelanjaan yang akan memberikan satu gambaran akaun yang lebih baik daripada keadaan yang sebenarnya? Berapakah daripada senarai dalam akaun penerima yang digunakan untuk tujuan ini?
3. Adakah ini sebahagian daripada pergerakkan dana yang dinyatakan oleh juruaudit? Jikalau ini benar, MQ10 hanyalah sebahagian kecil daripada laporan kewangan ini yang kelihatan cuba menyembunyikan keadaan sebenar kewangan Diosis.
4. RM236,500 dari “KK Land Sales”. Adakah ini komisyen ajen atau yuran pemudahcara? Siapakah peminjam ini? Kenapa Diosis tidak menuntut pembayaran ini? Siapakah yang menandatangani cek ini? Dimanakah dokumen penyokong untuk pembayaran ini? Atau ini hanyalah sesuatu yang diwujudkan untuk mengimbangkan akaun?
KEHILANGAN FAEDAH SIMPANAN TETAP DAN SEWA
Ini adalah fakta yang tidak dilaporkan oleh juruaudit tetapi dikesan oleh sumber yang tidak bernama. Dua sumber pendapatan telah hilang daripada akaun 2011: faedah daripada simpanan tetap dan sewa yang dikutip Diosis. Akaun yang sama menunjukkan bahawa Diosis memiliki simpanan tetap berjumlah RM33.7 juta. Lihat angka dalam kotak merah.
- Diambil daripada muka 4 &9 laporan kewangan Diosis sabah kepada Synode 2012.
Questions:
1. RM33.7 juta x 3% faedah = RM1,011,000. Ini adalah faedah minima yang sepatutnya diperolehi Diosis dalam tahun 2011. Kenapa ia hilang sekaligus dalam akaun 2011? Ke mana ia pergi?
2. RM356,482 adalah faedah yang dijanakan dalam tahun 2010 di atas simpanan tetap RM34.3m juta? Ini adalah mengikut faedah 1%. Sesuatu yang tidak betul disini. Sekali lagi sebahagian besar faedah yang dijanakan telah hilang. Ke mana ia pergi?
3. Atau kenyataan yang lebih menakutkan…kita masih ada RM33.7 juta dalam simpanan tetapkah? Berapakah sebenarnya yang kita ada? Bolehkah sesiapa mengesahkan hal ini?
4. Wisma Anglikan mengutip sewa daripada Katedral All Saints and Akademi All Saints untuk pengunaan ruang untuk pejabatnya. Sekali lagi, mereka mempunyai rekod pembayaran dalam kenyataan kewangan mereka. Kenapda sewa yang dikutip tidak terdapat dalam kenyataan akaun 2011?
5. Kehilangan faedah dan sewa berjumlah RM1.4 juta. Apa yang telah terjadi kepada wang ini? Tidakah Encik Paul Chong, Bendahari Kehormat melihat perkara yang begitu ketara?
6. Pertimbangkan fakta2 ini dengan MQ10 dan akaun penerima. Adakah ini satu sistem memindahkan dana untuk menutupi perbelanjaan atau untuk menutup pengurangan persepuluhan dan persembahan?
Kenyataan akaun Diosis terkini memberikan lebih banyak tanda soalan daripada jawapan. Ia hanya diberikan kepada para perwakilan Synode pada permulaan Synode. Ini menghalang para perwakilan Synode kesempatan meneliti dan mengkajinya. Apakah yang sebenarnya sedang berlakudalam Diosis? Dua minggu selepas ia dibentangkan, kita masih mendapat banyak percanggahan, ketidakseragaman dan banyak soalan yang tidak terjawab.
Hanya Encik Paul Chong, Bishop Albert Vun atau pasukan audit forensik yang dapat memberikan kita gambaran yang benar. Siapa mahu dahulu?
What BAV doesn’t want you to know – Part 3
In part 3, I will show you more discrepancies and questions in the Diocese accounts highlighted by the auditor’s management letter. Highly recommend you read Part 1 & Part 2, to get a better picture, if you hadn’t already. This installment is quite long. You may want to get a hot beverage before you dive into a maze of numbers.
MANAGEMENT LETTER: ITEM 4b
item 4b, page 2 of the management letter from George Lim to the Standing Committee
Kokol Prayer Summit financial report presented by Michael Tong concluded the project at RM5.17 million (see Synod 2012 report, 3rd page from the back). However the Diocesan accounts presented by Paul Chong to the Synod gave a different figure. The auditor pointed out this discrepancy in his letter.
pg. 8, Diocese of Sabah financial report, Synod 2012
Questions:
1. What is the exact cost of the Kokol Prayer Summit?
2. How did two experience and professional accountants come to over RM800,000 apart? You can get another unit of Bangkok Gardens with RM800,000. What is going on here?
3. If it indeed cost RM6 million, that is 28% over the original budget of RM4.7 million reported in Synod 2008 (see pg. 36, Synod 2008 report). What were the reasons for such cost over run? Was this approved by the Standing Committee?
MANAGEMENT LETTER: ITEM 4c
In plain English, there are a bunch of debts owe to the Diocese which we are unsure of its details and accuracy. At a glance, they may seem petty in an organization that spent RM18 million between 2010 and 2011. Yet with a closer examination I discovered some disturbing facts.
MQ10 refers to the renovation cost to the new priest house. It is the same house that was renovated for RM300,000 for Philip Lo’s family; they occupied it for a few months before relocating to the Deanery. In 2007, Christ Church Likas agreed to take over the house at RM170,000, and pay it over four years. (Actual cost to CCL was closer to RM250,000 when you include the assessment levied on top of the fund raised for this project.)
While Christ Church had paid up the loan completely, the Diocese accounts still showed it to be outstanding by RM111,141.53. When this was detected in 2011, Christ Church representatives gathered all the official receipts, clarified with the Diocese’s accounts department and asked the Diocese to rectify the records. It was assumed correction was done until, a year later, the Management Letter surfaced to show otherwise.
Consider this. 1) You pay all your debts. 2) They cashed you cheques. 3) They issued you receipts. 4) But the records show you still owe them money. It cannot be an entry mistake because the receipts issued by the Diocese clearly stated “MQ10”. We do not expect Paul Chong to miss that right?
Also, suspicious is a receivable accounts called “KK Land Sales”. The Diocese sold two pieces of land in KK, one in Likas sold for RM31 million, and another a small piece for the access road to the Freemasons hall for over RM661,375. Both transactions were settled in full. Why would the Diocese lend RM236,500 to someone over for land sales? How did this happen? How did the Diocese lend this to?
Questions:
1. Money is paid to the Diocese but not credited into the MQ10 receivable account. So where did the money go?
2. Is it possible the payment, instead of crediting into accounts receivables was used to pay off expenses? Is this a form of “creative” accounting that hides expenses and makes the books look better than it really is? How many of items in the Receivable Accounts are used in the same manner?
3. Is this part of the movement of funds highlighted by the auditor? If it is, then MQ10 can be a tip of the iceberg for a set of account that was done seemingly to conceal rather than reveal the real state of the Diocese’s finances.
4. RM236,500 for “KK Land Sales”. Is this an agent’s commission or facilitator’s fee? Who is the borrower? Why hasn’t the Diocese demanded for repayment? Who signed the cheques? Where are the supporting documents for the issuance of payment?
MISSING FIXED DEPOSIT INTERESTS & RENTALS
This is a fact not reported by the auditor but detected by an anonymous source. Two key income sources were missing from the 2011 accounts: fixed deposit interests earned and rentals collected by the Diocese.The same accounts show the Diocese to be holding RM33.7 million in fixed deposit. See the figures boxed in red.
taken from pg. 4 & 9 of Diocese of Sabah financial report from Synod 2012.
Questions:
1. RM33.7 million x 3% interests = RM1,011,000. That’s the minimum the Diocese should have collected in 2011. Why is it missing entirely from the accounts in 2011? Where did it go?
2. RM356,482 interests earned in 2010 on RM34.3m deposit? That’s a 1% return. Something is not adding up here. Again, a big chunk of interests earned was missing. Where did it go?
3. Or a scarier notion…do we really have RM33.7 million in fixed deposit? How much do we really have? Can anybody verify?
4. Wisma Anglican collects rental from All Saints Cathedral and All Saints Academy for using its office space. Again, they have financial records to prove payment. Why is rental collection not reflected in 2011?
5. Missing interest earned and rentals amount to RM1.4 million. What has happened to this money? Didn’t Paul Chong, the Treasurer, notice this glaring issue?
6. Evaluate these facts with MQ10 and receivable accounts. Can this be a systematic way of moving funds to cover up expenditures and drop in tithes and offering?
The latest Diocese accounts pose more questions than answers. It was distributed to delegates hours after Synod started, thus depriving the delegates the ability to study and scrutinize the accounts. What is really going on here? Two weeks after it was presented, we are still finding discrepancies, inconsistencies and a lot of unanswered questions.
Only Mr. Paul Chong, Bishop Albert Vun or a forensic audit team can give us the real picture. Who wants to go first?
The 3 Motions
The Diocese announced via its FB page that it will answer every allegations of the blogs via the Diocese’s official website. For now, only the 3 motions voted in by the Synod was published. On Facebook, it promised “more to come”. I welcome a rational debate, backed with facts, with the Diocese’s official media team. I also welcome the promise to answer every allegation. However I must point out the so called “allegations” was actually a report and management letter by the auditor appointed by the Diocese. Keen to see the Diocese dispute their own auditor.
What BAV doesn’t want you to know – Part 1
UPDATED 9:05pm, September 4
If you had read the earlier version, please scroll to the bottom of the post for the expanded content. Otherwise just start from the top so you get the full picture.
My brothers and sisters in Christ, friends in the community and abroad, I write this post with great heaviness. When I first came across the information that you are about to read, I could not believe my eyes. If this come to light, the name of the church will be dragged through sewers and many may abandon their faith in disgust. Yet, I am comforted there is a time to cry and a time to laugh. A time to die and a time to live. A time to tear down, and a time to build. A time for war and a time for peace. It is my heart and prayer this series of exposé will cause sin to die and righteousness to flourish once again amongst Anglican churches in Sabah.
To Christians who are not Anglicans, I hope in God you will find the grace to forgive the grief and shame the Anglicans had brought on to the community. I ask you to pray for us, as we seek to purge evil, expose corruption, restore the church to righteousness. Remember there are many of us who are hurting and crying daily for God’s salvation. Stand in the gap with and for us that God will be merciful. When do you do this for the least in the Kingdom, you do it for our Lord Jesus.
To all the priests, pastors and intercessors in the Diocese of Sabah, I pray God will remove the scales that prevent us from seeing God’s truth. We are a big family. In whose name do we serve? Wasn’t Jesus that died for us? Yet today, you and I face must draw a line. Where does our allegiance lies? With God or with men?
Finally, I pray all of us can see beyond the ugly facts and feel the grieving heart of God at this time…
What you are about to see here is a part of the much sought after Management Letter from the honorary auditor, George Lim. This letter came with the auditor’s report. While the auditor’s report was published in full in the Diocese’s financial report, former Diocesan Treasurer Paul Chong refused to disclose this Management Letter to the Synod. This letter holds the key understanding and identifying problematic areas in the Diocese accounts.
Thanks to a whistleblower, this blog has obtained this key evidence. If in doubt, you are welcome to verify the authenticity of the information with the auditor. The Management Letter should not have been kept secret from the Synod delegate. Yet if you read it, you will figure out why the authorities fought hard to bury its content.
item 7 of the management letter from honorary auditor, George Lim
RM10.6 million, under Project Fund, was used between 2010 & 2011, and parts of it without any details. Anyone auditing the account will need to see where the money went with supporting documents. The auditor also could not find any Standing Committee approvals for the use/transfer of funds. Neither did Synod approve any budget for such expenditure. Questions:
1. If the Standing Committee and Synod did not approve it? Who approved it then?
2. More importantly, where did the money go?
3. How did the Treasurer Paul Chong issue payment without supporting document?
4. Who are the other signatories? Is Canon Yong Thiam Choy one of them?
5. How did Canon Yong Thiam Choy who is not a member of the Standing Committee get to sign cheques when he has no privy of the transactions and decision making of the Standing Committee?
6. Is it a crime under Malaysian law to authorize payment without the necessary supporting documents?
7. If you were a manager and this this letter was addressed to your branch. What do you think would happen to you as a manager?
The Synod missed a golden opportunity to query the account because this key evidence was withheld. Would it have approved the accounts if they had seen this letter? At hindsight, the whole Synod was rigged with key leaders covering for each other so that damaging information was withheld. Any delegates feel they had been misled?
The only way to see the real movement of funds is to conduct a forensic audit with full access to all the accounts & ledgers. It can be a time consuming and expensive exercise.
In the Bishop’s pastoral letter on May 27, 2012.
In the Bishop’s pastoral letter on May 27, 2012, the Bishop claimed he merely carried out mandate by Synod and he was guided by the Standing Committee in all his transactions. Yet this statement is contradicted by the auditor when he scrutinize the accounts. Either the Bishop was lying or the auditor was wrong.
Another point from item 7 in the Management Letter
UPDATED 11am, September 5
A phone call (+603-2148-8222) to Thai embassy revealed Thailand never had a Second Home visa. All types of Thai visas are available to Malaysian passport holders for FREE. There are no Thai visas that required a deposit.
This finding begs a lot of questions:
a) Why did the Bishop recorded the RM85,000 for a visa application that does not exist?
b) Since the visa is free, how was the RM85,000 spent?
c) Has Bishop refunded the money to the Diocese?
UPDATED 9:05pm, September 4
It’s a lot of legal and accounting jargons to process. So let me try to illustrate actual facts/numbers through a fictional story (italicized).
A bishop and his assistant together with their wives flew to New York. The official reasons was to recruit a teacher for a school the diocese is running, and to preach in a couple of churches. Why did the wives come alone? Well, the bishop’s wive runs the Diocesan Academy Board. But why did the assistant bishop & his wife went as well? It was a mission trip. By the way, the quartet bumped into the bishop’s former personal assistant and her husband in New York too. What a small world!
Well, between preaching in two Sunday services, and meeting up with the teaching candidate, the 3 couples went shopping at 5th Avenue, caught Jeremy Lin at a NBA game, had great meals in five star hotels, watched a musical, took a dinner cruise around New York Harbour, Brooklyn Bridge and Ellis Island. Then they headed south for some Jazz music at New Orleans and more sightseeing. The bill come up to around RM180,000. It was charged to the Mission Fund because the trip was about recruiting a teacher and visiting some Christian schools; and the Diocesan Academy Board operates under this fund.
Come the time for audit, the accountant noted RM921,533 was spent in Mission Funds in 2011. The RM180,000 bill was just a lump sum expenditure under “Diocesan Academy’s study visit and recruitment” with no receipts to back up the amount.
Here ends the fictional story. Do you get a better picture what perhaps the auditor was saying?
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.
Going for The Kill
Bishop Albert Vun has successfully swayed the Synod with tears, sorries & hugs. I am hearten to see Christians so quick to accept the Bishop’s apologies and extend forgiveness. It proves the people never had a personal agenda against the Bishop, but only wanted accountability, transparency & godliness restored. With the Synod at his finger tips, there are speculations the Bishop may go for the kill–getting James Chhoa to drop his complaint to the House of Bishop.
A motion could be proposed at the Synod to resolve the crisis internally now that Bishop Albert Vun had apologized. If such a motion were to be endorsed by the Synod, the Bishop would go to the House of Bishop with “the mandate of the people” to resolve the crisis in house. Then the many months of investigation by the Advisory Committee will never see day light. More importantly, we are setting a terrible example that a leader can do all the wrongs in the world, “repent” at the 11th hour, get off scott free and exempted from taking any responsibilities at all. We can mismanage God’s money, abuse spiritual authority and get off by crying.
If this indeed happen, I believe many of us may have to reconsider where we worship.
UPDATED August 30, 6:30pm
If you do not support this hypothetical scenario, please get off your computer, call and text your Synod delegate about your stand. The delegates represent you and your parish, just like a member of parliament representing his constituents. I propose we let justice takes its due course. The House of Bishop must finish what they started. Otherwise we are aborting justice .
God, this is your church. You love her more than all of us combined. Restore your righteousness to her. Cleanse her, flush out all the wickedness, manipulation and lies. We have done everything humanly possible. It’s all in your hands now.
Beware of Statistics
Dear Synod delegates,
Bishop Albert Vun will definitely use statistics to impress you. He will show you growth charts, and lull you into concluding God’s favour is with him as he has the figures to back it up. The numbers don’t lie, he would say. True, but numbers must be compared and understood in a context.
A fictional example, Apple sold 10 million & 15 million iPhones in 2011 & 2012 respectively. That’s a 50% growth! Is that good or bad? We can’t tell unless we compare it with Samsung who sold 20 million and 40 million smartphones in 2011 & 2012. With comparison, we know Samsung is market leader and is outgrowing Apple.
Next we must seek the context. Apple enjoys a margin of 50% or $200 per phone, while Samsung has a margin of 10% or $50 per phone. So Apple enjoys a profit of $3 billion in 2012 vs Samsung’s $2 billion. Now as an investor, which stock is more attractive?
Let’s measure the Bishop’s performance based on statistics: church attendance as published in the Synod Report 2010 & 2012. Instead of looking at the absolute attendance numbers only, I measure the growth rate of church attendance before during Bishop Albert Vun’s leadership.
Between 2000-2006, attendance grew from 16428 to 20214 or 2.7%; and in 2006 to 2012, attendance grew from 20214 to 28921 or 6.1%. It is impressive to enjoy 6.1% growth rate.
If you scrutinize the context, you will notice the big spikes came from 4 mission districts: Tongud, Kuala Sapi (later split into Kuala Sapi and Beluran), Nangoh & Penangah. If we remove these mission districts from the equation, the overall growth of the Diocese seems ordinary. More importantly, the mission districts are the areas that require more resources and support, not the RM30 million Celebration Center.
In the urban churches (both parish and non-parish ones), the growth has decelerated during Bishop Albert Vun’s tenure. From 2000-2006 urban churches grew from 10101 to 12497, or 3.4% per annum. From 2006-2012, they went from 12497 to 14152, or 1.9% per annum. This is a 44% drop in growth rate. The urban churches are growing below Sabah annual population growth of 2.1% (see page 4, Statistic Department report). This is alarming as the country is being urbanized rapidly and the church is being outpaced by natural population growth, despite placing his proteges and trusted lieutenants in-charge of major urban churches.
How do we interpret this? Is this an indication urban churches are not receptive of Bishop Albert Vun’s leadership style? Or perhaps his methods and strategies are not working in the urban areas? When you move further away from the epic center of the Bishop’s influence, Anglican churches thrived in the remote jungles of Borneo! We must recognize the hard work of evangelists and clergy serving in the interior and support them.
We must give credit where it is due. The 6.1% average annual growth between 2006-2012 is something we must be thankful to God. Yet we must put this stats into perspective. How do we compare versus other denomination?
28,000 worshippers sound like a lot, yet it dwarfs when compared to 59,500 (as of 2009) worshiping at Basel Church each week. In 2005, the Basel church has 48,000 worshippers; 30,000 in Chinese and English congregation, 18,000 in BM. By 2009, it grew to 59500 at a rate of 6% per year. So while we should rightly rejoice for the growth God has given to the Anglican church, we must not be deceived to think that God is only working in the Anglican church or only via Bishop Albert Vun. The Basel church has experienced this sort of growth, 4 years ahead of us.
Numbers is not the only thing God looks at. He desires holiness, honesty and integrity which is very lacking in the top leadership of the Diocese. Don’t be hoodwinked by statistics without context and comparison.
Beware of Half-Truths
Dear Synod delegates,
The Bishop will likely start the day trying to sway the crowd to his side by playing victim to gain the pity of the delegates. He may do so by listing false accusations that can be easily fended off to conclude that he has been wrongly accused. Bishop John Yeo had done the same in Tawau. Some examples:
“I was only buying a car which I am entitled to and they persecuted me.”
No, you are given a hard time because you bought an Alphard which could cost over RM200k without the prior approval of the Standing Committee.
“I was accused of selling a land owned by All Saints Cathedral to support a church in Menggatal.”
Yes, I know that is not true. But is it true you sold your own land in Menggatal to the Diocese? Did you recluse yourself from the meeting that decided the transaction? From the pulpit you challenged members to give their land to the church, why did you not do the same?
“I was accused of pocketing RM15 million. If I had done that, I would have left the country.”
Stick to the real issues that started this crisis. Stick to these questions:
Conflict of Interests
1. Did the Bishop rent his house in Sunway to the rector of FCC for the last 10-12 years? Why is FCC renting only from the Bishop?
2. Did the Bishop sell his family land to the Diocese? Did he recluse himself from the meeting that decided the selling price? Is he not both the buyer and seller in this transaction? Is it not conflict of interests?
3. Did the Bishop shut down a profitable All Saints kindergarten and his wife Mary later started the All Saints Academy?
4. Did All Saints Academy (ASA) receive RM160,000 from All Saints Cathedral? Was ASA subsequently moved under the Diocesan Mission Fund, a fund governed directly by the Bishop’s office? Is the Bishop’s wife is running a school, directly funded by her husband’s office and without the oversight of a board? Does ASA has an audited account to show for the period it is under the Mission Fund?
Governance
5. The Bishop purchased an expensive vehicle, Alphard. Did he purchase it with PRIOR approval from the Standing Committee?
6. All Saints Cathedral ran into a deficit of nearly RM1.2 million between 2010 & 2011. This is equivalent to 40 years of salary for the average wage earner. Can the Bishop, who is also the Dean of All Saints Cathedral, explain how this deficit came about? Can the Bishop tell us when the last time any Anglican church in Sabah accumulated a deficit of RM1.2 million?
7. In light of the RM1.2 million deficit, why did the Bishop who is also the Dean, chose not to attend All Saints Cathedral’s AGM on April 2012? His absence left a lot of questions unanswered and many members seeking accountability confused and angered.
8. Why did the Diocese buy a piece of land in Sipitang at an inflated price? Did the Bishop obtain any valuation report prior to sanctioning the purchase?
9. Did the Bishop at any point willfully under declare the selling price of a property and did so by engaging the service of a non-Christian lawyer?
10. Why was Philip Lo–without a theological degree–ordained a priest despite written protestation from the members? When was the other time the Diocese of Sabah ordained a priest without a recognized theological degree?
11. Is it true All Saints Cathedral PCC comprises of 10 elected members, and 16 clergy and staff who are co-opted? Is it prudent governance to have employees outnumbering elected members? Is there another Anglican church that has such composition of PCC?
12. All properties of the Diocese within Sabah are registered to the office of the Bishop of Sabah, NOT under the personal name of the Bishop. When the Diocese bought a property in Thailand for the mission work there, it was purchased under the name of Albert Vun Cheong Fui. Is this the standard procedure when the Diocese purchase properties overseas? Is it prudent to buy properties with church funds and register them under the personal name of the Bishop? How can the Diocese ensure the property is transferred from Albert Vun Cheong Fui back to the Diocese at the event of retirement, resignation or death?
13. The Bishop renovated the Bishop’s lodge 6 years ago. How much did the renovation cost? Is there an account for this? Has the Bishop presented the account of the renovation to Standing Committee?
Breach of Trust
14. When the congregation donate into the Diocesan Mission Fund it is with explicit intend of supporting missionary work of the Diocese of Sabah. Today, All Saints Academy & Faith Academy are financed by the Diocesan Mission Fund. Did the Bishop break the trust of the people by using the Mission Fund for purpose other than mission work?
15. During the tenure of Bishop Albert Vun, had he ever used funds (ie Mission Fund, Building Fund, Vocation Sunday offering, Welfare Fund) for purposes other than the original intent for which the funds was raised?
Personal Conduct
16. Why did the Bishop tell the whole Diocese, “This is not an investigation team but an Advisory Committee” in his Pastoral Letter, when Archbishop’s letter stated the Advisory Committee is tasked to investigate the allegations, including re-auditing the Diocese and All Saints Cathedral’s accounts from 2006?
17. The letter from Archbishop was addressed to also to the PCC of All Saints Cathedral. Most of them & most of the clergy hadn’t seen it until it was published on this blog. Why?
Forming 3 Dioceses?
This Synod is very odd. As of 12 noon, 29 August, you have not received the agenda. Besides violating the constitution, don’t you think it is highly unusual and secretively? I must warn you some of the rumblings I’ve heard on the ground. While what you are about to read is yet to be confirmed because the agenda hasn’t been published, I must warn you nonetheless, lest you become a deer staring at the headlights of an oncoming freight train.
Forming 3 Dioceses?
According to the Diocesan Constitution…
Article XXV of Anglican Diocese of Sabah constitution
Over the last 4 years, Bishop Albert Vun has been pushing many interior missions and some urban churches to be upgraded to parish status, pressurizing them to be “self-sufficient”, buying priests houses, etc. In some cases, churches were given to the parish status without them asking. All audited accounts from churches in the Diocese are now submitted annually to to the Diocesan office. By 2012, the Bishop has enough parishes to form 3 dioceses: West Coast, East Coast and Interior.
It was an open secret Bishop Albert Vun tried to pull the Diocese out of the Province in the last Synod but was opposed vehemently at a clergy meeting right before the Synod proper. He didn’t succeed and came this close to being suspended by Archbishop John Chew then. Smart from his failed first attempt, and under the pressure of being investigated by the Province, the Bishop will play his ultimate card.
The Bishop knows he won’t get the support to pull Diocese out of the Province as Anglicans will not abandon the Anglican tradition and become a rouge Diocese. So he moves to Plan B–form 3 dioceses. This move will allay fears of being pulled out of the Anglican communion. Beware of his ultimate goal to form a Province with 3 Dioceses. This is a cunning way to pull Sabah out of the Province. BACKDOOR PULLOUT may I say? This will create 2 additional Bishop posts, and the bishops-to-be will surely work hard to convince their members and delegates to support such a move under the guise of better management, support, supervision and growth.
Who do you think will be the 3 bishops and the Archbishop?
It is believed he will seek the Synod to approve the formation of 3 Dioceses. Perhaps that’s why the agenda has not been published so that the Bishop can catch the delegates unprepared. A priest with legal background has been tasked to draw up the framework and boundaries of the new dioceses. If the Bishop obtained the Synod’s mandate, he would bring it to the Province. How then could the Province deny the wishes of the Synod, the highest governing body of the Diocese?
This is speculation with unconfirmed rumblings I have heard. I hope nothing of this sort will be presented at the coming Synod. If it did, you have been warned.
It is bad enough when Albert Vun is the Bishop. Can you imagine when he became the Archbishop? I hope this remains forever a mere speculation. Yet we have to be shrewd like a serpent, and gentle like dove. Don’t be gullible.
The Truth 