Is That All We Have Been Hoping to Hear From the Bishops?

Having struggled for 6 years in wilderness under the leadership of Bishop Albert Vun, the Anglicans in the Diocese of Sabah have not seen any signs of going into the promise land yet.  The House of Bishop has to come here to experience and understand the suffering of the people and should not be easily persuaded by Bishop Vun’s heresy.

Reports of the investigating team must have concluded that Bishop Vun is guilty otherwise he would not be even asked to take leave, right?  Why instead of putting a stop to the extravagance of Bishop Vun, the Diocese has to spend more money just for this problematic person?  How much then is his undisclosed salary drawn by his own discretion?  It must be made known and put on par with other bishops in the other dioceses.  Will he ever come back spotless after his sabbatical leave?  This theory does not work unless only if it is a miracle from God. 

In all profit and non-profit organisations, people will not be asked to go on paid leave if they are problematic.  This will only happen if that person is seriously ill. Do we have a seriously ill (the mental aspect) and spiritually distorted Bishop?

Recommendations made in the Archbishop Pastoral Letter were merely the view of the House of Bishops for the spiritual aspects of Bishop Vun. 

What about the hurts caused to the churches and the people through lies and deceptions?

What about the lack of clarity and lost of confidence in the adherence of governance in decision making and finances resulted in mismanagement of Diocesan funds?

We have far greater mess to clear.  The financials for the past 6 years are in the mess and we must get them sorted and reviewed by independents professionals. Having the assurance from Bishop Vun that his new treasurer will look into them is just merely another delaying tactics to get away with things. Properties were bought everywhere under the Bishop’s personal name with the funds of the Diocese.  These will have to be identified further if any others have not been disclosed. 

The disunity of all the Anglican churches will need a new spiritual leader to take over for regaining that confidence we once lost.  All these will not happen so long Bishop Vun is the Bishop disregard he takes sabbatical leave or not.  We do not believe we still can be under his spiritual covering despite he is told to go on leave. Hurts caused by Bishop Vun to many people cannot be just covered up without proper closures by just getting him to go on leave.

If the House of Bishops is not effective in helping us through, we have to all stand high and tall as Anglicans, be united for the truth and righteousness.  Let all these not dismay us or affect our faith in God.  We should remain steadfast to reform a new beginning for our Diocese.

INSIGHTS OF ADOS FINANCIAL REPORT:

Ezekiel 3:18

When I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade them from their evil ways in order to save their life, that wicked person will die for their sin, and I will hold you accountable for their blood.

Any financial person will ask some of these questions in the Synod if they are given time to read the accounts: 

a)  What is the definition of fixed assets in accounting?  Why was the Bangkok  condominium treated as off balance sheet item? Why was it never a fixed asset?  Who suggested it as revenue expenditure (charged out as expenses) instead of capital expenditure (fixed assets)?

b)    How did the KK land sales of RM236,500 become receivables?  What is this? Land sales from Likas land not fully collected?  ADOS only sold 2 parcels of KK land.  The Likas Land and the road access to the freemason. This amount owing from which buyer?

c)     Why is the Kokol Project Account supposedly monitored by Michael Tong (the treasurer for the project) cost only RM5.1mil but the costs booked in ADOS accounts shows RM6mil? ADOS account shows Kokol cost RM836,000 more than the project account under the project treasurer Michael Tong. How and why? This can only suggests some unknown expenses were booked in as costs to this project in ADOS account.  The Kokol building was completed and dedicated end of August 2010.  Why was there still an addition of RM538,967 costs in 2011?  How could two different figures presented to the Synod? How could the accounts be approved and accepted?

d)    Where has the rental income gone?  ADOS has been receiving rental like from Wisma Anglican, staff apartment and various premises.  Why were these not reported in the accounts?

e)     There was RM38.8mil of bank balances from the close of 2009 financial.  After    having spent RM18.1mil for both 2010 and 2011 and received income RM7.4 of income for the 2 years, there should only have left with RM28.1mil.  This is simple mathematics.  Why there is still RM34.5mil?  How have overnight miracles happened that RM6.4mil just appeared into the bank from nowhere?

f)      Movement of specific fund was all done with wrong accounting.  Why funds utilised (spent) is also funds transferred into this account?  This is not right.  There was RM41mil in the special fund at the close of 2009 financial.  RM3.7mil for 2009 & 2010 from the assessment has been allocated into this fund, a total of RM44.7mil. RM18.1mil have been utilised.  There should only be RM26.6mil.  Why is there still RM37mil?  This is very strange.

g)         Development fund & Kokol were over charged by RM96,728 and RM34,912 in the specific fund.  How could RM131,640 overspent from this account?  How will these discrepancies be accounted for?

h)      What was the reason for no budget was presented during the 2010 Synod?  Is it right that the Chairman had violated the Constitution of the Diocesan and manipulated the Synod? Without the budget from the previous Synod, more than RM6.4 worth of properties had been purchased between last Synod and this.  Was it not Bishop Vun initiated to purchase the Tenom shop lots, Sipitang and Menggatal land worth more than RM2mil? (We all know these RM2mil deals were all with contentious issues). Then, why were these selectively not taken up as fixed assets of ADOS but the Sulaiman and Lahad Datu were booked as assets in ADOS account ?  Who decided the purchase of Sulaiman and the Lahad Datu shoplots worth more than RM4.1mil? 

i)         RM6.3mil was spent for purchase of land and church planting and RM3.4mil as mission and outreach fun. A total of RM9.7mil from the sales of Likas Land has been spent over the past 2-3years.  There should only be RM21.3mil remaining not utilised. How long will this last if the same pattern of spending is practiced for the next 5 years? Have we achieved our purpose from the intention of the Synod to approve the sales of this land?
The Diocesan Academies Board (Hearing it 1^st time)
j)       When was this Board formed? The All Saints Anglican Academy started immediately Bishop Vun was made the Bishop.   Why only now in Synod 2012 then the Diocesan Board was formed?  Who decided on the members of the Board?  There are 8 members on the Board 7 members are directly under the payroll of the Diocesan Bishop.  The members are Stella Lo (Bishop’s representative), Bishop John Yeo, Canon Yong Thiam Choy, Datin Mary Vun(Chairman), Rev Tan Chor Kee, Lily Tan ( Rev Tan’s wife) Mdm Chung Shuk Yong.  The other person is none other than the Diocesan treasurer.  How can the Board make objective decisions when they are all interested parties?
All Saints Anglican Academy (ASAA, the school)
k)       Why all the academy accounts not included as part of ADOS accounts yet funds were transferred out from ADOS’s mission funds expenses to finance the school activities. Why is this account so preferential that need not to be audited?  Who owns the school? Does it belong to Mary Vun ( the chairwoman) or the Diocese?

l)        Salaries for ASAA has increased close to RM90,000 between 2010 & 2011.  If every staff (including Mary Vun) get one month bonus, there is still an unexplained RM45,000.  Was this paid to Mary Vun for being consultants to the China failed mission?

m)      Guess who are the signatories to the cheques of the ASAA?  Is it not Mary Vun?  Together with her, there is a young priest who is also under the payroll of Mary Vun’s husband (the bishop).  Interestingly, this account was not included in ADOS financial.  If it is not part of ADOS, why is ADOS so obligated to transfer funds out to aid ASAA, Sunway and Beijing?  Do you think this is right? Being an interested party to the Bishop, she received the money from her husband.  Why was the formation of the Academy Board only done in 2012 before the Synod? Has it been discussed and approved by the standing committee?

n)    The school (ASAA) venture into China with the Koreans.  Is that all we have invested RM80,000 as reported by the Board secretary?  Inconsistencies: Auditor’s finding was RM650,000 and another RM600,000 without records.  We want the truth to be unfolded.

REMAINING STEADFAST UNTO THE LORD

My soul yearns for you in the night; in the morning my spirit longs for you. When your judgements come upon the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.  Isaiah 26:9.

More truth has been revealed and we are praying earnestly to see an end to all these episodes of crisis currently the Diocese of Sabah is facing. How long more do we have to wait?

What has Synod 2012 achieved other than casting more doubts and conspiracies? Was the Synod a valid one? Has it not contravened the Constitution that no agenda had been circulated before meeting and was it not the Bishop has chaired the meeting while he was still under the court injunction? What was the Chairman trying to achieve other than to solicit sympathy for the defense of his impending investigations from the House of Bishops and the court injunction?

Will the Synod delegates still cast their votes of confidence to their Bishop if the issues highlighted in the Management Letter by the Auditor were made known to them?  How could such proposals come from a member of the standing committee knowing the issues raised in the Management Letter contain fraudulent effect?  We are sorry to say not all lawyers have learned and maintained their ethics.

Why the two qualified accountants in the previous standing committee help to window dress all these transactions? Do we fear God or man? Does it mean by quoting the Bishop has the prerogative you have surrendered all your integrity and professionalism? What do you gain in God by doing this? How could the discrepancies of approximate RM800,000 in the Kokol Prayer Summit come about? How could you allow the Bishop to purchase properties worth approximate RM800,000 in his personal name in Bangkok at the expense of the Diocese? What about funds transferred to his personal account in Bangkok and the RM1.25million under Mission Account with no records? Has all these been done in the dark between the Bishop, the treasurer and his Chancellor only? Who decided these? How have these benefited the Diocese where other low risk avenues could have been adopted?

We are going through many crises but God is Sovereign above all. Let us bring unto God our crises.  Men have failed us and fallen short of His glory but we are renewed in His Spirit through His strength and hope in us.