Lions Club’s response to Newspaper report

The Lions Club of Kota Kinabalu Host claims it responded within 24 hours upon receiving a show cause letter from the Registrar of Societies on issues it believes “were purely administrative and do not warrant deregistration”

My comment: Why would The Lions Club of Kota Kinabalu Host respond within 24 hours when the matter is of such grave importance?

Should the matter not have been discussed at a BOD meeting or even at an EGM where all members’ opinions had been sought?

Who is the one who responded to ROS and who is the real author of this letter to the Daily Express?

“…ROS made no mention of misappropriation of funds, the office lot, furniture and fittings”

My comment: Just because ROS did not mention about the misappropriation of funds does not absolve the club from this accusation.

It is a fact that the office lot, furniture and fittings and the bank balances from the extra 3 bank accounts have not been disclosed to ROS. Neither have they ever been disclosed to most of the members of the club including most of the past directors (including me).

“We have given a signed statement to the police that misappropriation of funds will require, firstly, non-authorisation, secondly no accountability and thirdly, one party must gain and one party must lose”

My comments:

i.                   Non-authorisation – who authorized the payment for the purchase of Air-Conditioners and payment for office renovation amounting to almost RM15.000? In fact who authorised all payments from the three bank accounts that are unknown to most members? If the bank accounts are not even known to the BOD and most members how can the expense be authorized by the Board of directors? In the first month of each financial year the bank accounts operated by the club will be named in the minutes and the approved signatories listed. Did the payment for the air conditioners and the renovation expense come from the two bank accounts known to all members?

ii.                No accountability – how is it accounted for? I do not see the office lot and air conditioners in the balance sheet of the club nor was it submitted to the ROS. The 3 extra bank accounts have never been accounted for either to the BOD or ROS during and before my time as director.

iii.              One party must gain and one party must lose – the Club or members of Past President Council gained from the purchase of air conditioners and expenses paid for renovation of the office lot. They also gained from all others payments for administrative purposes during the many years the extra bank accounts have been operated.The losers are the people for whom the funds were provided for.

The newspapers said that it was Francis Liew who made the statement above. But who does Francis Liew take instructions from? Should it be from one individual or from the BOD?

“Copies of the AGM were given to the police. No charges have been made against us after more than a year’s investigation”

My comments: What does the AGM say? Does it say that there are 3 bank accounts not audited by the auditors of the club? Does the AGM or accounts show the balances in the 3 extra bank accounts? Does the AGM or accounts submitted at the AGM or to ROS show the fixed deposit in the bank?

The police have been hoodwinked by the club or its representative into believing that since the statement showing the purchase of air conditioners have been signed by John SF Ho as chairman and Joseph Chai as treasurer of the Past Presidents Council that it was approved by the BOD or members. 

Were the police informed that this council is an illegal entity which is not registered with ROS?

The police have been misled into believing that since the money was used to purchase air conditioners for the club and the renovation expenses was for the club and not to an individual then it is not a Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT). However, my lawyer friends will tell me that this is CBT. Money meant for the needy used by a club to renovate its office is definitely criminal breach of trust. 

He also denied that they received on average RM100,000 a year in donations, sponsorship and corporate contributions.  

Let us assume that there was zero amount received in the 3 years leading to 2016/2017 (which is not the case), the RM600,000 received in 2016/2017 on an average over 3 years is already more than RM100,000. 

The funds for the rural water projects and the hostel for needy students come from an overseas Lions Club and Lions Club International.

My comment: Was this amount received from overseas reported to ROS as per the Societies Act?

Don’t the club members know that it is an offence against the Societies Act not to report amounts received from overseas?

Perhaps ROS has overlooked this point and perhaps I should point this out to them.

 “For all these projects, all funds shortages or excesses are for the account of our club”?

There is nothing in the constitution to say that excesses are for club account. On the contrary it clearly says that any excess fund should not be used for administrative purposes.

Were the investigating officers from the police deceived into believing that excesses from any project fund can be utilized by the club for administrative account?

Any Lion reading this may confirm with Lions Club International. Is it true that any excess from any project may be utilized by the club for Administrative purposes?

  

“All our bank accounts have been approved by our Board of Directors” he said, adding that the ROS letter only stated that the club had infringed Article 7 relating to non-compliance of rules in the appointment of club officials during the AGM and intentionally violating the club’s constitution in appointing of exco members.

My comments: This is an outright lie. I was directors for year 2015/2016 and I was only told that there were 2 bank accounts. All minutes of meetings have only 2 bank accounts mentioned. The same is true for AGM’s.

Let us not forget that it was because of my inquiry into the possibility of the extra bank accounts that got me expelled. John SF Ho had specifically asked me to prove the extra bank account in Alliance bank. I proved that as well as an additional 2 bank accounts in Hong Leong Bank and a fixed deposit account.

The report ends with the words that a ROS official had told Daily Express that the club had to prove they have not violated regulations set by the Registrar of Societies.

Leaving all the above anomalies and many more discrepancies is it not sufficient that violation of regulations set by ROS is grave enough?

It is my opinion that responding to the newspaper report when the case is still pending is akin to the Malay proverb, "Meludah ke langit" which simply means spitting into the sky.