Issues and Lessons For The Organisation and Members
Our 26 year experience fighting for truth and justice has brought to the surface many lessons that members and the organisation may chose or not to take notice of.
We believe by drawing these issues to the attention of anyone interested, we have discharged our moral obligation in hope that no one is ever treated as we have been in the future. We hope members in the future will be protected, treated with respect and their rights fully acknowledged.
The subjects covered in the mini blogs below cover the following subjects mainly involving Subud enterprises and their relationship with the organisation of Subud and its members:
2. First Principles re enterprises
4. Using members as commodities
5. Right of Inquiry
6. Influence without Responsibility
7. Human Rights
8. Protection of members
9. Rights of members
10. Conflict of Interest.
11. Duty of Care
12. Importance of Categorisation of Enterprises
13. Importance of Law, Facts Truth, Decency & Morality
14. Spiritual Values
15. Lives Entwined
16. Three Wise Men Principle
17. Building To Destroy
18. Importance of the Relationship Between Enterprise and Organisation
19. Walking Away – defying and betraying the guidance of the Founder of Subud
Four further blogs:
Issues To Be Noted
The Governance – harmed us
Subud Becomes Dangerous – feral behaviour
Disappearance of the £2 Million
Issues To Be Noted
I have asked members to look seriously at very important issues relating to the Subud enterprises. Issues highlighted from our 24 year experience.
I have asked members to consider RESPONSIBILITY as present interpretation favours the organisation and betrays the innocent member.
I have asked for research and return to FIRST PRINCIPLES laid down by the Founder of Subud to ensure that present policy and behaviour reflects him and has not travelled unnoticed along wrong lines.
I ask for ACCOUNTBILITY to be discussed. The rights and wrongs of those who make mistakes, break the law being protected whilst the members take the fall without redress. No one should lose their savings, downsize their homes, have their children denied or be denied any form of redress or Inquiry.
Right of Inquiry
I ask members to look seriously at the Right of Inquiry following the collapse of an enterprise. This is the only way truth can be established, standards monitored, lessons learnt an acted upon. Ultimately, the protection of members is paramount and abuse stopped.
Using Members As Commodities
Abuse is tied in with the organisation and its relationship with an enterprise. Failure is too common – but in failure, the organisation distances itself, leaving the members to clean up the mess left behind by others who are not brought to account.
Bringing out the Anugraha story and events has proved to be a good thing. It has highlighted that members were deeply resentful of helping those in need. The members are not to be blamed. The members who helped were placed in an impossible situation by the organisation. It is as if the organisation uses members as a commodity and this is quite wrong.
Those who were helped and those who helped all travelled in a boat named ‘consequence’. A consequence in this instance resulting from the Sharif Horthy’s speech, the none arrival of the £2m from WSC and Samuel Simmonson. Had that arrived – and Horthy not shut the door – not one member would have required assistance. It is therefore imperative that the membership looks at these issues to ensure it never happens again, to protect themselves before placing money in another Subud enterprise.
Influence Without Responsibility
I have called all Subud members to wake up and take control of enterprises and secure their own future. I ask them to look at the following lessons to be learnt from our experience.
1) Categories of Enterprises
2) Responsibility/Relationship with organisation
3) First Principles
5) Right of Inquiry
6) Protection of members and Rights of Members
7) Effects of Influence Without Responsibility
No 7. This is favoured by Subud but not by corporate bodies. Certainly did occur in the decisions re Anugraha. Do those who influence act legally if e.g. change usage or influence events? Do they represent the interests of members involved? I believe this to be a potentially dangerous precedent.
Building to Destroy
I also asked members to seriously look and get answers why the failure rate of the large Subud enterprise is so high.
I also ask them to ask and find out why other organisations can build temples and cities yet Subud can’t even build an International Centre and appear only to build to destroy.
I also ask if Subud can really be proud of it only success Widjojo. A multi-story building in Jakarta and if that really sends out the right message what the organisation is about to the world.
Facts etc Matter
Subud became a scary place for unsound gobbledygook opinions. We suffer as a result
I wish to remind all members FACTS matter TRUTH matters LAW matters ACCOUNTABILITY matters DECENCY matters MORALITY matters HUMANITY matters COMPASSION matters LOVE matters.
The guidance of the Founder matters if you stray from that you are no longer SUBUD.
So what have you become?
The Corruption of a Pure Concept
Anugraha was an ethical charitable project responding to higher principles. Members acting as one responded from the cathedral impulse raising millions to further the aims of Subud in the world. Subud proved itself not up to the job. Where does that leave Subud now?
Is it willing to learn the lessons however late?
I believe Anugraha is giving everyone a lesson in ‘oneness’. A concept introduced by Bapak as far back as the late 70s and now a concept for many on the path of understanding and science.
I wish to take law out of all references using only the concept of ‘oneness’ and how, through disassociation, everyone has contributed to this situation. It is as if the sense of brotherhood has been betrayed. The organisation and Helpers appear to be working for themselves. Failing in its duty of care toward members. Members are disposable but the aims of the organisation are not.
It seems – from our experience and observations over the 26 years – members and officers of the organisation and Helper network have behaved in certain ways and those ways fall into 5 main categories:
CAT 1: Those who had proof of wrong doing, knew why Anugraha fell, yet chose to do nothing. I believe these people to be the wicked. Colluding with wrongdoing ultimately brings the organisation into disrepute and the name of the Founder into disrespect. They have made Bapak a liar and a fraud.
CAT 2: Those who had no proof but were told facts and various details. They too chose to do nothing; they colluded and are responsible for bringing the organisation and the Founder into disrepute.
CAT 3: Those who actively sought to find out why they lost their International Centre and were fobbed off. They learnt the basic lesson, as we did, that there are not many people in Subud who can be trusted or perceived as honest or highly principled. These people seeking truth should no have given up so easily. They should have stood by us and fought for an Inquiry denied by the organisation.
CAT 4: Those who believe they should remain in a quiet state, turned their backs. Not wanting controversy. Nothing to do with me. Whether ignorant of the facts or not, they too colluded, allowing evil to prevail. Evil certainly took place. They cannot avoid responsibility.
CAT 5: Nothing to do with me. Happened a long time ago. Wrong! The future of Subud may depend on you. It is important to learn the lessons. Expand your connection. Represent higher standards and protect members in the future.
So what category are you?
Using members with evolved consciences as a commodity to clear up messes made by others is WRONG. Using members as a commodity especially if the organisation is proved to have gained as a result of a failed enterprise is CRIMINAL.
Anugraha story shows that Sharif Horthy and others did the UNFORGIVEABLE and WALKED AWAY. Such actions should receive zero tolerance as they place members at risk and bring Founder and the organisation into disrepute. If members are not prepared to face and deal with these issues Subud’s reputation will gravely suffer, justifiably.
The WSC, National Committees, International and national Helpers have all failed in their duty of care towards their members by not investigating, allowing Inquiries and protecting members.
Conflict of Interest
I have touched on this subject already. I questioned how the problem of ‘conflict of interest’ had contributed to this Anugraha situation and cover-up.
I now ask another question: Is it really possible for a member to hold a position in the organisation when he/she has held a position in an enterprise? Are they able to perform in the interests of members correctly?
How is that member /officer to represent the members? How are they able to perform their duty of care in disputes over an enterprise, act in their duty of care, protect member’s interests if they themselves had an association, involvement or have secrets with the enterprise(s) in question.
Anugraha story shows clearly members/officers can’t. So what is to be done? To sort out what is essentially corruption.
Is there not a case to ban all members involved in enterprises from taking up positions within the organisations so objectivity and right action can be assured?
Subud can’t have it both ways. It cannot harness a sense brotherhood only to betray when things go wrong. It cannot incite members to get their money and then abandon them on loss. That I believe is CRIMINAL. That is what Subud is doing. Members are at risk. It must be stopped.
Three Wise Men Principle
I have been told that it is virtually impossible for anyone to break into an organisation that chooses to wall-up
Over these years Subud, Nationally and Internationally, did. There is no complaints dept, ombudsman or anyone to approach to receive help with a problem or difficulty.
What happens to the member in that situation? Does Subud hope they will simply go away? Do they not care about the consequence to that person or how it reflects upon the organisation?
Our experience does highlight the importance of Subud adopting the Three Wise Men Principle to help members resolve difficulties they may be experiencing with the organisation or Helpers.
The qualities of the wise men should be defined. They must be respected people not only within the organisation but outside in the wider community. Someone who has been recognised or a celebrity if that is not possible. One must be a professionally qualified preferably in law and another with an unblemished record with experience in finance, administration or business.
These people work confidentially. Accepted by the organisation as negotiators and are accessible to every member when in need. Their services are free bringing benefit to the organisation and members.
I really request the Subud organisation seriously consider this proposal to help members in the future.
Placed in libraries and on the Internet this document was sufficiently substantial to have brought about an Inquiry in its own right. Ignored by the organisation, it failed.
I hold everyone responsible who were recipients or saw the document for no taking the approriate and correct action.
As a result, the Governance actually did harm us. It became the final work for its author. Viewed by others as the ‘alternative view’ and sadly assigned to the rubbish bins of many. Intentionally or not, it did add to the ‘cover up’ surrounding Anugraha’s end.
It was after this Andreas was cleverly but evilly got rid of. Cast out into the desert as if the sacrificial goat. Those responsible partied. Anugraha was over. No longer our responsibility.
I was recently asked if Subud was a criminal organisation. My reply was they have certainly behaved as one.
We place our trust in law and an MBE in hope that truth and justice will prevail.
I wish for the return of my home, Andreas to be restored and those who names have been fraudulently used cleared.
Transparency Is The Way
I am wearied by members who wish to remain in the cesspit of ignorance, self-interest and indifference.
It is my preference that they raise themselves. Not to do so offers nothing to the situation or enhances resolution or protects members in the future.
The enterprises were to bring mutual prosperity to the organisation and those who chose to get involved. Instead they have brought sadness, pain, loss, suffering and gravely damaged lives.
The organisation wastes time and money seeking loopholes to avoid responsibility. In so doing they betray the members, the sense of brotherhood, the Founder and the ethos upon which the enterprises were built. The organisation leaves a sense that members are being used as commodities. Simply despicable.
For Subud to lose a Bank, Project Sunrise, its flagship Anugraha, Subud’s International Centre and a Hotel without investigation or public inquiry is outrageously negligent.
The organisation and helpers are failing in their duty of care not protecting the members or the reputation of the organisation by doing nothing.
In 2010, I recall Ibu Rahayu writing an article inciting members to re-engage with enterprises. I believed this to be grossly irresponsible, as Anugraha affairs were still outstanding. No action to establish WHY the failure rate of enterprises was so high had taken place. Members were naively being placed at risk.
Issues requiring discussion should include ACOUNTABILITY of those who make mistakes and those who break the law when enterprises fail. RIGHT OF PUBLIC INQUIRY. NOT WALKING AWAY in accordance with guidance of the Founder. HUMAN RIGHTS of those involved where dispute exists. Effects of INFLUENCE WITHOUT RESPONSIBILITY. Members must be informed of the risks and the relationship between the organisation and the enterprise fully understood
Using members as a commodity is CRIMINAL. Walking away is UNFORGIVEABLE. If ever proven that the organisation has benefited from a failed enterprise then it could be perceived as a SCAM
It is on the basis of failure the rules should be established not on the delusion of success.
Only in transparency will the standards of behaviour be raised throughout the organisation and members be protected in the future.
Subud Became Dangerous
Looking at all this it became clearer what happened. Due to the actions and consequences of Sharif Horthy, his infamous speech, shut down of the World Subud Council and National Committees alongside the Helper network and editorial there was no leadership. The executive lied and evaded taking no action. The organisation failed in its duty of care. The members acted feral, some creating a hostile environment for anyone opposing. Others acting from their consciences to help. The organisation abdicated leaving the problem to members. This must never be allowed to happen again.
Subud must put in safeguards for members in the future. This justifies the adoption of the Three Wise Men Principle. Subud must respect the law of the land, the culture in which it resides and the human rights of each individual in accordance with law and the guidance of the Founder
I ask members who are interested to take these issues up with those responsible for the organisation. It is only through you voice and others things may change.
Disappearance of the £2 Million
In all that has been written let us not forget what happened to the £2M for Hardship and the houses following the collapse of Anugraha.
To walk away from ones members, break away from the guidance of ones founder, break promises that hurt and harm innocent people is despicable – offensive to any decent person. It is unforgivable.
Subud has always had the money. Depending on what happened to it, whether fraud, theft or malicious intent, one only has to consider the interest over all these years. Someone gained. It is even more interesting why all these years not one Chairman, Helper or member has asked any question or demanded an investigation into the loss of such a huge amount of money.
If my memory serves, I believe after the Hardship Cases and the Houses were sorted any change from the £2M was to go to Subud Charity. So they lost out too.
I even heard a member of Subud Britain exec say. ‘Well we might have promised it but we aren’t legally responsible’. Does this mean that the organisation is untrustworthy and become so corrupt it will even harm its own members?
I believe the Inquiry panel will uncover further evidence very likely to place the responsibility for the missing money onto the Subud organisation.
What lessons, though, and warnings are required to be heeded by members regarding the nature of the Subud Organisation, how it is run, those who run it and those who influence it?
It is important that every member demand the truth and ask the right questions regarding this issue. No one must be silent.
Things have to change. The act requires a clean-up.