Re: Govt grants decreased by $19.4m after the loss to WP?
The silence of the MIW on this matter is deafening!
Desmond, where are you?
The silence of the MIW on this matter is deafening!
Desmond, where are you?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Desmond Lee - ALL TCs run on deficits. Tg Pagar gets $87 per elector; HATC $43
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
Re: Govt grants decreased by $19.4m after the loss to WP?
Gone Internet hiding? Bwahahahahahahaa
Gone Internet hiding? Bwahahahahahahaa
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
The same scenario has been repeated in every incident involving PAP-run ministries and WP's TC, whether it be the AIM issue ie audit issue, hawker centre ceiling, NEA issue etc.
When PAP failed WP in audit, WP raised AIM, PAP raised FMSS, WP said the issue wasn't about cronyism, it was about the destruction of the TC system. 1-0. When PAP raised hawker centres, WP pointed out that NEA themselves were confused over annual cleaning and spring cleaning and, out of bullets, VB had to stretch the whole incident to claim it was "annual spring cleaning". 2-0. When PAP said WP cannot rent out space for shops, WP asked them to point out the laws. 3-0. TC will most likely be fined, but won the court of opinion.
Even the most "credible" point brought up by GMS on the high arrears might be dismissed if the AHPETC inability to trace the arrears is connected back to the destruction of AIM. When a system is destroyed, AHPETC can never get back the system even if they spend billions, it has nothing to do with competency.
How GMS can claim the totally opposite conclusion, that PAP has won every of those battles (despite claiming to be concerned for the opposition) is beyond me.
The same scenario has been repeated in every incident involving PAP-run ministries and WP's TC, whether it be the AIM issue ie audit issue, hawker centre ceiling, NEA issue etc.
When PAP failed WP in audit, WP raised AIM, PAP raised FMSS, WP said the issue wasn't about cronyism, it was about the destruction of the TC system. 1-0. When PAP raised hawker centres, WP pointed out that NEA themselves were confused over annual cleaning and spring cleaning and, out of bullets, VB had to stretch the whole incident to claim it was "annual spring cleaning". 2-0. When PAP said WP cannot rent out space for shops, WP asked them to point out the laws. 3-0. TC will most likely be fined, but won the court of opinion.
Even the most "credible" point brought up by GMS on the high arrears might be dismissed if the AHPETC inability to trace the arrears is connected back to the destruction of AIM. When a system is destroyed, AHPETC can never get back the system even if they spend billions, it has nothing to do with competency.
How GMS can claim the totally opposite conclusion, that PAP has won every of those battles (despite claiming to be concerned for the opposition) is beyond me.
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
GMS has a chip on his shoulder and has lost complete credibility with most of us re his political commentaries....he will do himself better by focusing on his computer business..
GMS has a chip on his shoulder and has lost complete credibility with most of us re his political commentaries....he will do himself better by focusing on his computer business..
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
Dumbfuck opposition supporting retard. The grants are base on number of Household NOT number of residents. Poor household also gets more than richer household. The reason why AHPETC gets less grant than others is due to the fact that AHPETC has a lot of private estates and Tanjong Pagar has a lot of poor pple who mainly lives in Kreta Ayer
Dumbfuck opposition supporting retard. The grants are base on number of Household NOT number of residents. Poor household also gets more than richer household. The reason why AHPETC gets less grant than others is due to the fact that AHPETC has a lot of private estates and Tanjong Pagar has a lot of poor pple who mainly lives in Kreta Ayer
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
It is time for him to move on - carrying all this emotional baggage is not good for his back.
It is time for him to move on - carrying all this emotional baggage is not good for his back.
Re: Surplus Good and Deficit Bad? SC&C arrears high = Bad?
U are getting swindled by this fact article U dumbfuck opposition supporting retard
U are getting swindled by this fact article U dumbfuck opposition supporting retard
Re: Govt grants decreased by $19.4m after the loss to WP?
Already file a missing person report with the SPF.
Already file a missing person report with the SPF.
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
Hmm... Based on the number of household? Care to shed more light on the demography of AMK GRC vis-a-viz the amount of grant they obtained?
Hmm... Based on the number of household? Care to shed more light on the demography of AMK GRC vis-a-viz the amount of grant they obtained?
Re: Surplus Good and Deficit Bad? SC&C arrears high = Bad?
U have been robbed by the PAP and you don't even know.
U have been robbed by the PAP and you don't even know.
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
How long did it take you to come out with this bs?
How long did it take you to come out with this bs?
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
in sim lim? he may resort to selling expensive extended warranties to make a living. :p
in sim lim? he may resort to selling expensive extended warranties to make a living. :p
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
Bro,
It is not bullshit. What wMulew said is true, according to the town council website.
I'm more interested to find out more about AMK GRC's demography vis-a-viz the grants given.
Bro,
It is not bullshit. What wMulew said is true, according to the town council website.
I'm more interested to find out more about AMK GRC's demography vis-a-viz the grants given.
Last edited:
He supports PAP in all the articles. Where got robbed? Maybe even paid per post
AHPETC Deficit Vs Other TC Deficit
It seems that MSM and PAP ministers are barking the wrong tree regarding budget deficit of AHPETC.
By looking into every TC budget, you can clearly see that without the huge grant from Gov., quite few TCs under PAP are worse than AHPETC.
Please see the table in the following link, which is a fair and good analysis for all to understand.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/11/17/desmond-lee-all-town-councils-run-deficits/
It seems that MSM and PAP ministers are barking the wrong tree regarding budget deficit of AHPETC.
By looking into every TC budget, you can clearly see that without the huge grant from Gov., quite few TCs under PAP are worse than AHPETC.
Please see the table in the following link, which is a fair and good analysis for all to understand.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/11/17/desmond-lee-all-town-councils-run-deficits/
Re: Surplus Good and Deficit Bad? SC&C arrears high = Bad?
Do not take extreme view on both position.
Budget surplus or deficit alone cannot judge Gov. performance.
Gov. should be judged for their fairness, well-being of citizens, transparency, accountability etc. etc.
Do not take extreme view on both position.
Budget surplus or deficit alone cannot judge Gov. performance.
Gov. should be judged for their fairness, well-being of citizens, transparency, accountability etc. etc.
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
FUCKwMulew care to show us the facts?
Many poor people residing in Tanjong Pagar as compared to Aljunied GRC? Puah Cheebye, you go to every HDB units at Upper Cross St and make a survey on the monthly incomes of all the residents there issit?? What about Keong Saik St? You got make survey there or not to see if your Ah Ma still soliciting her cheebye?
FUCKwMulew care to show us the facts?
Many poor people residing in Tanjong Pagar as compared to Aljunied GRC? Puah Cheebye, you go to every HDB units at Upper Cross St and make a survey on the monthly incomes of all the residents there issit?? What about Keong Saik St? You got make survey there or not to see if your Ah Ma still soliciting her cheebye?
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
[h=1]What happened to PAP’s “smooth handover” promise?[/h]
By Andrew Loh
The statement and remarks by the Ministry of National Development (MND), in response to the audit report of the Workers’ Party (WP) town council, have raised an important issue with regards to the MND’s fairness in dealing with town councils.
The news first broke on Thursday that the auditors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton, had found that it was unable to “obtain sufficient audit evidence” from the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC), to “determine the accuracy and validity of several items in the accounts.”
The WP’s chairman, Sylvia Lim, issued a statement the next day to explain why some things were not verifiable.
Addressing the issues raised by the MND, Ms Lim said:
Further, Ms Lim’s statement also reveals the role the MND and HDB played in this latest saga – that either or both of them have failed to assist in the matter in any meaningful way.
Indeed, Ms Lim called for the ministry to help resolve the matter.
This latest development between the authorities and the WP is disappointing because of the way the PAP Government has chosen to politicise the matter, instead of helping to resolve the issue for the sake of residents.
The government-controlled media too are not helping by making repeated “insinuations of impropriety” on the part of the AHPETC.
After what was a bitterly-fought contest during General Election 2011, where the WP team dislodged the PAP team from Aljunied GRC, former PAP MP Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” of the town council to the WP.
‘’We will do a proper handover,” she said, a week after Polling Day. “We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly.”
She even dismissed fears that the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team.
“The PAP is not that way,” Ms Phua said then. “It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.”
She promised:
In 2012/2013, there was also the saga involving the termination of computer system service by the PAP-owned company, Action Information Management (AIM). It was then revealed that AIM was a company fully owned by 3 former PAP MPs, and which had provided the accounting system to all PAP town councils.
The issue raised a huge controversy, with many Singaporeans questioning the relationship between the PAP town councils and AIM. It resulted in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is also the secretary general of the PAP and the chairman of the PA, calling for a review of the transaction between the PAP town councils and AIM.
Eventually, the review found that there were no improprieties. PM Lee then subsequently appointed Minister Lee Yi Shyan to conduct another review of the “nature of the town councils” altogether.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan’s report is expected to be released this year.
With regards to the audit issue of the Workers’ Party town council, the WP would have to furnish its explanation on the outstanding matters. At the same time too the MND should be fair and hold to account the former PAP-led ATC as well, and perhaps instruct the Managing Agent of that town council – which is believed to be CPG Facilities Management – to cooperate and handover the relevant information required by the present town council.
Why has not the MND asked the director of CPG, Jeffrey Chua, who also happened to be the town council’s general manager then, to provide the necessary information to the WP town council?
Surely, the resolution of such issues does not require so much back and forth, and loudhailing over the media.
Aljunied residents, and Singaporeans in general, deserve much better than this constant fault-finding by the PAP.
Let’s focus on more important things, shall we?
—————–
Here is the Straits Times report in May 2011 in which Ms Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” to the WP.
Cynthia Phua promises proper handover
Teo Wan Gek
12 May 2011
Straits Times
ALJUNIED Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua yesterday said the People’s Action Party (PAP) team will ensure there is ample time for the Workers’ Party (WP) to take over the town council so there will be a smooth transition.
‘We will do a proper handover. We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly,’ she said.
She is in the process of compiling a list of current contracts between the town council and service providers. She will ask them if they wish to continue the contracts with the new town council team, to be led by Mr Low Thia Khiang and the four other newly elected MPs.
Should contractors wish to terminate their contracts, she will alert the WP team at first notice, to give them sufficient time to find new contractors and ensure there is no lapse in the provision of services, she said.
‘We will take care of residents’ interests,’ she added.
Madam Phua was an MP for Aljunied GRC from 2001 until the recent polls, and has chaired the town council since 2003.
Yesterday, she also rubbished a complaint that has surfaced online that the town council seems to have stopped removing rubbish, at least from a particular block in the estate.
‘There has been no termination of contracts,’ she said. ‘The contracts are all existing and still under the current management. If the contractors are not performing, they should be reported to the town council staff.’
She added: ‘It’s only been four days since Polling Day. What changes could possibly have been made?
‘Have faith in us. It’s our responsibility to the residents of Aljunied GRC to ensure a smooth handover.’
On concerns the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team, Madam Phua said: ‘The PAP is not that way. It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.’
Aljunied Town Council is now managed by CPG Facilities Management, with whom the town council signed a three-year contract last year.
CPG managing director Jeffrey Chua is the town council’s general manager. As the town council managing agent, CPG engages the services of other companies for services such as cleaning, maintenance and lift rescue.
Most of the PAP town councils are managed by one of three companies: CPG, EM Services and Esmaco Township Management.
The Straits Times understands that the Hougang Town Council is managed by staff directly hired by the town council, which Mr Low has chaired since 1991.
The WP team could decide to merge the Aljunied and Hougang town councils, since the two constituencies are located next to each other.
Yesterday, Mr Low said in an e-mail reply that he and his team had met HDB’s town council secretariat to discuss and seek advice on the handover.
Mr Low said they had not met the town council secretary, who is Mr Chua, the general manager.
Mr Low also confirmed that the WP team plans to ask for a renewal of the tenancy agreement with HDB for the three town council offices.
Meetings and talks with existing employees of the town council ‘will be done in due course’, he added.
Under the Town Councils Act, ‘new Towns need to be gazetted after the 14th day from the publication of the General Election results’. The law requires a constituency’s new management to take over a town council within 45 days.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/02/what-happened-to-paps-smooth-handover-promise/
[h=1]What happened to PAP’s “smooth handover” promise?[/h]
By Andrew Loh
The statement and remarks by the Ministry of National Development (MND), in response to the audit report of the Workers’ Party (WP) town council, have raised an important issue with regards to the MND’s fairness in dealing with town councils.
The news first broke on Thursday that the auditors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton, had found that it was unable to “obtain sufficient audit evidence” from the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC), to “determine the accuracy and validity of several items in the accounts.”
The WP’s chairman, Sylvia Lim, issued a statement the next day to explain why some things were not verifiable.
Addressing the issues raised by the MND, Ms Lim said:
“We do understand the auditors’ plight, as there were information gaps that existed at the handover after the General Election 2011 which to date are still not filled. “
She added:
“At FY 2011, the auditors had tried to request information from former auditors, unsuccessfully. Repeated attempts by the Town Council (TC) to obtain information from the former Managing Agent (MA) and government authorities, such as asking MND / the Housing and Development Board regarding $1.12 million which the PAP-run Aljunied TC had recorded as receivables from the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) for Town Improvement Projects, did not yield answers.
“Attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.
“Unless those agencies with the required information furnish them to the TC, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year. In this regard, we note that MND could well be the best party to assist the TC to resolve some of the key information gaps.”
Ms Lim’s statement reveals one important thing – that the former auditors and Managing Agent of the former PAP-led Aljunied Town Council have, apparently, not provided the information sought by the WP town council in order for it to rationalise or reconcile the accounts.“Attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.
“Unless those agencies with the required information furnish them to the TC, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year. In this regard, we note that MND could well be the best party to assist the TC to resolve some of the key information gaps.”
Further, Ms Lim’s statement also reveals the role the MND and HDB played in this latest saga – that either or both of them have failed to assist in the matter in any meaningful way.
Indeed, Ms Lim called for the ministry to help resolve the matter.
“As MND has expressed its concerns over our accounts, we seek its assistance in resolving the issues raised by our auditor, by helping us verify and confirm the various opening figures handed over from the former Aljunied TC. We also welcome any audit by MND which it deems necessary.”
The ball is now in the MND’s court.
This latest development between the authorities and the WP is disappointing because of the way the PAP Government has chosen to politicise the matter, instead of helping to resolve the issue for the sake of residents.
The government-controlled media too are not helping by making repeated “insinuations of impropriety” on the part of the AHPETC.
After what was a bitterly-fought contest during General Election 2011, where the WP team dislodged the PAP team from Aljunied GRC, former PAP MP Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” of the town council to the WP.
‘’We will do a proper handover,” she said, a week after Polling Day. “We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly.”
She even dismissed fears that the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team.
“The PAP is not that way,” Ms Phua said then. “It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.”
She promised:
“Have faith in us. It’s our responsibility to the residents of Aljunied GRC to ensure a smooth handover.”
But it has thus far been anything but a “smooth handover”, with disputes between the WP town council arising not only with the former PAP town council, but also with the People’s Association (PA), the constituency’s grassroots organisations and merchants associations – which are all headed by or involve PAP members – and even with the Housing and Development Board, shortly after the elections when the HDB leased out some 26 plots of land in Aljunied GRC to the PA.
In 2012/2013, there was also the saga involving the termination of computer system service by the PAP-owned company, Action Information Management (AIM). It was then revealed that AIM was a company fully owned by 3 former PAP MPs, and which had provided the accounting system to all PAP town councils.
The issue raised a huge controversy, with many Singaporeans questioning the relationship between the PAP town councils and AIM. It resulted in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is also the secretary general of the PAP and the chairman of the PA, calling for a review of the transaction between the PAP town councils and AIM.
Eventually, the review found that there were no improprieties. PM Lee then subsequently appointed Minister Lee Yi Shyan to conduct another review of the “nature of the town councils” altogether.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan’s report is expected to be released this year.
With regards to the audit issue of the Workers’ Party town council, the WP would have to furnish its explanation on the outstanding matters. At the same time too the MND should be fair and hold to account the former PAP-led ATC as well, and perhaps instruct the Managing Agent of that town council – which is believed to be CPG Facilities Management – to cooperate and handover the relevant information required by the present town council.
Why has not the MND asked the director of CPG, Jeffrey Chua, who also happened to be the town council’s general manager then, to provide the necessary information to the WP town council?
Surely, the resolution of such issues does not require so much back and forth, and loudhailing over the media.
Aljunied residents, and Singaporeans in general, deserve much better than this constant fault-finding by the PAP.
Let’s focus on more important things, shall we?
—————–
Here is the Straits Times report in May 2011 in which Ms Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” to the WP.
Cynthia Phua promises proper handover
Teo Wan Gek
12 May 2011
Straits Times
ALJUNIED Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua yesterday said the People’s Action Party (PAP) team will ensure there is ample time for the Workers’ Party (WP) to take over the town council so there will be a smooth transition.
‘We will do a proper handover. We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly,’ she said.
She is in the process of compiling a list of current contracts between the town council and service providers. She will ask them if they wish to continue the contracts with the new town council team, to be led by Mr Low Thia Khiang and the four other newly elected MPs.
Should contractors wish to terminate their contracts, she will alert the WP team at first notice, to give them sufficient time to find new contractors and ensure there is no lapse in the provision of services, she said.
‘We will take care of residents’ interests,’ she added.
Madam Phua was an MP for Aljunied GRC from 2001 until the recent polls, and has chaired the town council since 2003.
Yesterday, she also rubbished a complaint that has surfaced online that the town council seems to have stopped removing rubbish, at least from a particular block in the estate.
‘There has been no termination of contracts,’ she said. ‘The contracts are all existing and still under the current management. If the contractors are not performing, they should be reported to the town council staff.’
She added: ‘It’s only been four days since Polling Day. What changes could possibly have been made?
‘Have faith in us. It’s our responsibility to the residents of Aljunied GRC to ensure a smooth handover.’
On concerns the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team, Madam Phua said: ‘The PAP is not that way. It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.’
Aljunied Town Council is now managed by CPG Facilities Management, with whom the town council signed a three-year contract last year.
CPG managing director Jeffrey Chua is the town council’s general manager. As the town council managing agent, CPG engages the services of other companies for services such as cleaning, maintenance and lift rescue.
Most of the PAP town councils are managed by one of three companies: CPG, EM Services and Esmaco Township Management.
The Straits Times understands that the Hougang Town Council is managed by staff directly hired by the town council, which Mr Low has chaired since 1991.
The WP team could decide to merge the Aljunied and Hougang town councils, since the two constituencies are located next to each other.
Yesterday, Mr Low said in an e-mail reply that he and his team had met HDB’s town council secretariat to discuss and seek advice on the handover.
Mr Low said they had not met the town council secretary, who is Mr Chua, the general manager.
Mr Low also confirmed that the WP team plans to ask for a renewal of the tenancy agreement with HDB for the three town council offices.
Meetings and talks with existing employees of the town council ‘will be done in due course’, he added.
Under the Town Councils Act, ‘new Towns need to be gazetted after the 14th day from the publication of the General Election results’. The law requires a constituency’s new management to take over a town council within 45 days.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2014/02/what-happened-to-paps-smooth-handover-promise/
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
Aljunied’s surplus transferred to sinking fund when PAP lost to WP?
By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the article “Lim on arrears: What’d happen if WP were in charge of SG?” (TR Emeritus, Nov 16).
It states that:
As a resident of Aljunied, I am curious as to why there was no mention that under Section 34 of the Town Council Act, when a different party takes over a town council after an election, 100% of the accumulated operating surplus has to be transferred to the sinking fund.
This in effect, deprives the residents of the surplus for operating expenditure in the future.
Why would any Parliament pass such legislation on town councils?
So, what was the amount of accumulated surplus that was transferred to the sinking fund, when the Workers’ Party won Aljunied in the last elections?
Aren’t the remarks arguably somewhat misleading, as it may give the impression that the AHPETC had squandered the operating surplus of $3.3 million after it took over the town council, when in fact – was it transferred to the sinking fund?
Editor’s note:
Part VI section 34(3) of the Town Councils Act, “Transfer of surpluses after Parliamentary election”, states that:
Aljunied’s surplus transferred to sinking fund when PAP lost to WP?
By Leong Sze Hian I refer to the article “Lim on arrears: What’d happen if WP were in charge of SG?” (TR Emeritus, Nov 16).
It states that:
“Mr Lim (Boon Heng) said that the WP-run town council’s (AHPETC) swing from an operating surplus to a deficit in the short span of 3 years is worrying. “It begs many questions,” he told reporters who were present.
The Aljunied Town Council had an operating surplus of $3.3 million in the 2010 financial year, when it was under PAP. In contrast, AHPETC had a deficit of $734,000 in the 2012 financial year.”
100% of accumulated surplus transferred to sinking fund when PAP lost to WP? The Aljunied Town Council had an operating surplus of $3.3 million in the 2010 financial year, when it was under PAP. In contrast, AHPETC had a deficit of $734,000 in the 2012 financial year.”
As a resident of Aljunied, I am curious as to why there was no mention that under Section 34 of the Town Council Act, when a different party takes over a town council after an election, 100% of the accumulated operating surplus has to be transferred to the sinking fund.
This in effect, deprives the residents of the surplus for operating expenditure in the future.
Why would any Parliament pass such legislation on town councils?
So, what was the amount of accumulated surplus that was transferred to the sinking fund, when the Workers’ Party won Aljunied in the last elections?
Aren’t the remarks arguably somewhat misleading, as it may give the impression that the AHPETC had squandered the operating surplus of $3.3 million after it took over the town council, when in fact – was it transferred to the sinking fund?
Editor’s note:
Part VI section 34(3) of the Town Councils Act, “Transfer of surpluses after Parliamentary election”, states that:
Where there is an election in any or every whole constituency within a Town without any prior alteration to the boundaries of such constituency, the Town Council for the Town shall, subject to subsection (7), transfer its surpluses in the following manner:
(a) if the Member or Members elected and the previous Member or Members for the constituency stood in elections for the same political party — 80% of its surpluses relating to such area of the Town comprised in that constituency shall be transferred to the prescribed sinking funds of the Town Council relating to that area; or
(b) if the Member or Members elected and the previous Member or Members for the constituency stood in elections for different political parties — all its surpluses relating to such area of the Town comprised in that constituency shall be transferred to the prescribed sinking funds of the Town Council relating to that area.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...nsferred-to-sinking-fund-when-pap-lost-to-wp/(a) if the Member or Members elected and the previous Member or Members for the constituency stood in elections for the same political party — 80% of its surpluses relating to such area of the Town comprised in that constituency shall be transferred to the prescribed sinking funds of the Town Council relating to that area; or
(b) if the Member or Members elected and the previous Member or Members for the constituency stood in elections for different political parties — all its surpluses relating to such area of the Town comprised in that constituency shall be transferred to the prescribed sinking funds of the Town Council relating to that area.
Re: TC Annual Reports - $8 Khaw sets up and scores own goal
[h=1]PAP’s Aljunied TC failed to provide financial records to new TC[/h] By Terry Xu
In the Worker’s Party’s press statement on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC) 2012/2013 annual report, it emphasized that the independent auditors gave the town council a “qualified report” and not an “adverse report.” Apart from the 13 specific observations, the town council’s books, accounts and records have been kept in accordance with the Town Councils Act.
The full audited report can be viewed here.
With regards to the 13 points highlighted by the auditors, the AHPETC explained that since Financial Year 2011, the auditors had tried to request information from the former Managing Agent of the town council when it was under the charge of the People’s Action Party (PAP).However, such requests were unsuccessful.
The party acknowledges the oversight of transferring monies to the Sinking Fund and said it has since rectified the oversight. It added that the oversight did not result in any loss of monies or unauthorized spending.
MND released a press statement on Friday evening and said that there were nine new issues of concern which were raised by the auditor for the Financial Year 2012. The ministry said that such failures are not related to handover issues.
However, in the financial report of AHTC 2011/12, the auditors wrote in the auditor’s basis of disclaimer:
While the Workers’ Party has yet explain points 12 and 13, the MND would have to give an explanation on why the previous town council has not shared its audited documents with the current town council to reconcile the accounts.
In fact, it is more troubling to know that the outgoing town council management can withhold crucial financial documents from the incoming management. Would that not be holding the residents ransom?
And what should one think of the People’s Action Party (PAP) which is making a mountain out of a mole hill from problems created by its own party to begin with?
We attach below a summary of the 13 points observation brought up by the auditors in the financial report of AHPETC.
______________
1) Opening Balances
Auditor wrote that they were unable to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion on the financial statements of Aljunied Hougang Town Council for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 and they were also unable to deter if the opening balances of the Town Council and comparatives in the current year’s financial statements were derived from the financial statements for financial year ended 31 March 2013 are fairly stated.
2) Receivables from various stakeholders.
Citizens Consultative Committee
a) The auditors note that in the current financial year, the Town Council received $520,926 from the Citizens Consultative Committee. But the receipts for this sum cannot be identified and matched to the receivable balance of $1,118,574. The Town council had recorded this amount received of $520,926 in other payables as at 31 March 2013 which the auditors are unable to determine if this was appropriate.
b) Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”)
Auditor note that the Management of the Town Council does not have any supporting documents to substantiate the receivables due from IRAS amounting, $110,735 in the accounts that was handed over by the previous managing agent.
c) Sundry Debtors
Auditors were unable to carry out audit procedures for the balance of $1,831,094 recorded in the Sundry Debtors.
TOC’s note – Note that the amount was brought over from year 2011 (view note)
3) Conservancy and Service receivables
Auditors unable to ascertain the credit risk characteristics of the conservancy and service receivable as Management unable to provide an aging analysis or information on the credit profile of individual units.
Town council provide for impairment losses for outstanding conservancy and service receivables when the receivables are more than seven years in arrears.
4) Lift repair expenses
Auditors unable to determine accuracy of lift repair expenses of $1,630,298 recorded in the year under audit as Management did not ascertain the quantum of 2012’s expenses that was included in 2013’s financial statements.
5) Lift Upgrading Program (LUP)
Expenses relating to the previous financial year were included in the LUP expense of $18,612,857, under the sinking funds expenditure, caused the current year’s LUP expenditure to be overstated.
As the management did not ascertain the quantum of prior year’s expenses that was included in the current year’s financial statements, the auditors were unable to determine accuracy of the expenses recorded in the year of audit
6) Creditors and Accrued Expenses
a) No Standard Operating Procedures to enable timely recording of liabilities therefore auditors are unable to ascertain the completeness of the liabilities.
b) Auditors unable to ascertain validity of an amount of $338,379 pertaining to “Accrual without work orders” brought forward from Aljunied Town Council in August 2011 as the Town Council was unable to provide details of the amount.
c) Auditors unable to ascertain payables amounting to $307,715 in temporary unidentified receipts from residents and Housing and Development Board as Town council was unable to provide details of the amount.
7)Conservancy and service fees received in advance
Auditors unable to determine the validity and accuracy of the advance receipts from residents in respect of conservancy and service charges amounting to $507,809.
8) Income Taxes
Auditor unable to determine the validity and accuracy of tax provisions amounting $756,383 as there were no provision for tax payable by Hougang Town Council during the time of handover of operations on 26th May 2011 and there is a difference between the income paid by the Aljunied Town Council and provision for tax recorded in 2011 and 2012.
9) Goods and Service Taxes (GST)
Auditors unable to determine the validity and accuracy of GST payable of $518,707 due to unexplained differences between the GST balances recorded in the Town Council’s accounting records and GST returns submitted to comptroller of GST.
10) Cash and Bank Balances
$63,458 out of $67,589 unexplained difference noted during the March 2012 bank reconciliation remained un-reconciled. The balance has been included in other payables.
11) Transfer to Sinking Funds
Town council did not comply with Town council financial rules by not transferring any amounts of conservancy and service charges to the bank account of the sinking funds during the current financial year.
12) Related Party transaction
Auditors unable to determine the completeness of related party disclosures as the town council had not made details of the project management services fees paid to a related party available to them.
13) Subsequent events review
As the Town Council had not made its latest management accounts and records of minutes subsequent to the financial year end to the auditors. They were unable to carry out the audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence as to whether events occurring between date of financial statements and date of the auditor reports that require adjustment are properly reflected in the current set of financial statements in accordance to the Singapore financial reporting standards.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ailed-to-provide-financial-records-to-new-tc/
[h=1]PAP’s Aljunied TC failed to provide financial records to new TC[/h] By Terry Xu
In the Worker’s Party’s press statement on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC) 2012/2013 annual report, it emphasized that the independent auditors gave the town council a “qualified report” and not an “adverse report.” Apart from the 13 specific observations, the town council’s books, accounts and records have been kept in accordance with the Town Councils Act.
The full audited report can be viewed here.
With regards to the 13 points highlighted by the auditors, the AHPETC explained that since Financial Year 2011, the auditors had tried to request information from the former Managing Agent of the town council when it was under the charge of the People’s Action Party (PAP).However, such requests were unsuccessful.
“Repeated attempts by the Town Council (TC) to obtain information from the former Managing Agent (MA) and government authorities, such as asking MND / the Housing and Development Board regarding $1.12 million which the PAP-run Aljunied TC had recorded as receivables from the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) for Town Improvement Projects, did not yield answers. Further attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.”
The Workers’ Party said that unless those agencies with the required information furnished them to the town council, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year. The party said that the Ministry of National Development (MND) would be the best party to assist the town council to resolve some of the key information gaps.
The party acknowledges the oversight of transferring monies to the Sinking Fund and said it has since rectified the oversight. It added that the oversight did not result in any loss of monies or unauthorized spending.
MND released a press statement on Friday evening and said that there were nine new issues of concern which were raised by the auditor for the Financial Year 2012. The ministry said that such failures are not related to handover issues.
However, in the financial report of AHTC 2011/12, the auditors wrote in the auditor’s basis of disclaimer:
“The accompanying financial statements include the Income and Expenditure statement, sinking funds, town improvement and project fund and government grants whose figures include those stated in the statement of income and expenditure and receipts and payments for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 July 2011 of Aljunied Town Council.”
“This statement was audited by another firm of auditors and we were not allowed access to the auditor’s audit documentation. We were also not able to obtain the supporting accounting documents from the previous managing agent of the Aljunied Town Council prior to the reconstitution. As a result, we were unable to determine whether the income and expenses and receipts and payments for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 July 2011 for Aljunied Town Council that are included in the accompanying financial statements are fairly stated.”
For clarity, points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 is as follow“This statement was audited by another firm of auditors and we were not allowed access to the auditor’s audit documentation. We were also not able to obtain the supporting accounting documents from the previous managing agent of the Aljunied Town Council prior to the reconstitution. As a result, we were unable to determine whether the income and expenses and receipts and payments for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 July 2011 for Aljunied Town Council that are included in the accompanying financial statements are fairly stated.”
- 3. Conservancy and Service receivables
- 4. Lift repair expenses
- 5. Lift Upgrading Program (LUP)
- 7. Conservancy and service fees received in advance
- 8. Income Taxes
- 9. Goods and Service Taxes (GST)
- 11. Transfer to Sinking Funds
- 12. Related Party transaction
- 13. Subsequent events review
While the Workers’ Party has yet explain points 12 and 13, the MND would have to give an explanation on why the previous town council has not shared its audited documents with the current town council to reconcile the accounts.
In fact, it is more troubling to know that the outgoing town council management can withhold crucial financial documents from the incoming management. Would that not be holding the residents ransom?
And what should one think of the People’s Action Party (PAP) which is making a mountain out of a mole hill from problems created by its own party to begin with?
We attach below a summary of the 13 points observation brought up by the auditors in the financial report of AHPETC.
______________
1) Opening Balances
Auditor wrote that they were unable to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion on the financial statements of Aljunied Hougang Town Council for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 and they were also unable to deter if the opening balances of the Town Council and comparatives in the current year’s financial statements were derived from the financial statements for financial year ended 31 March 2013 are fairly stated.
2) Receivables from various stakeholders.
Citizens Consultative Committee
a) The auditors note that in the current financial year, the Town Council received $520,926 from the Citizens Consultative Committee. But the receipts for this sum cannot be identified and matched to the receivable balance of $1,118,574. The Town council had recorded this amount received of $520,926 in other payables as at 31 March 2013 which the auditors are unable to determine if this was appropriate.
b) Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”)
Auditor note that the Management of the Town Council does not have any supporting documents to substantiate the receivables due from IRAS amounting, $110,735 in the accounts that was handed over by the previous managing agent.
c) Sundry Debtors
Auditors were unable to carry out audit procedures for the balance of $1,831,094 recorded in the Sundry Debtors.
TOC’s note – Note that the amount was brought over from year 2011 (view note)
3) Conservancy and Service receivables
Auditors unable to ascertain the credit risk characteristics of the conservancy and service receivable as Management unable to provide an aging analysis or information on the credit profile of individual units.
Town council provide for impairment losses for outstanding conservancy and service receivables when the receivables are more than seven years in arrears.
4) Lift repair expenses
Auditors unable to determine accuracy of lift repair expenses of $1,630,298 recorded in the year under audit as Management did not ascertain the quantum of 2012’s expenses that was included in 2013’s financial statements.
5) Lift Upgrading Program (LUP)
Expenses relating to the previous financial year were included in the LUP expense of $18,612,857, under the sinking funds expenditure, caused the current year’s LUP expenditure to be overstated.
As the management did not ascertain the quantum of prior year’s expenses that was included in the current year’s financial statements, the auditors were unable to determine accuracy of the expenses recorded in the year of audit
6) Creditors and Accrued Expenses
a) No Standard Operating Procedures to enable timely recording of liabilities therefore auditors are unable to ascertain the completeness of the liabilities.
b) Auditors unable to ascertain validity of an amount of $338,379 pertaining to “Accrual without work orders” brought forward from Aljunied Town Council in August 2011 as the Town Council was unable to provide details of the amount.
c) Auditors unable to ascertain payables amounting to $307,715 in temporary unidentified receipts from residents and Housing and Development Board as Town council was unable to provide details of the amount.
7)Conservancy and service fees received in advance
Auditors unable to determine the validity and accuracy of the advance receipts from residents in respect of conservancy and service charges amounting to $507,809.
8) Income Taxes
Auditor unable to determine the validity and accuracy of tax provisions amounting $756,383 as there were no provision for tax payable by Hougang Town Council during the time of handover of operations on 26th May 2011 and there is a difference between the income paid by the Aljunied Town Council and provision for tax recorded in 2011 and 2012.
9) Goods and Service Taxes (GST)
Auditors unable to determine the validity and accuracy of GST payable of $518,707 due to unexplained differences between the GST balances recorded in the Town Council’s accounting records and GST returns submitted to comptroller of GST.
10) Cash and Bank Balances
$63,458 out of $67,589 unexplained difference noted during the March 2012 bank reconciliation remained un-reconciled. The balance has been included in other payables.
11) Transfer to Sinking Funds
Town council did not comply with Town council financial rules by not transferring any amounts of conservancy and service charges to the bank account of the sinking funds during the current financial year.
12) Related Party transaction
Auditors unable to determine the completeness of related party disclosures as the town council had not made details of the project management services fees paid to a related party available to them.
13) Subsequent events review
As the Town Council had not made its latest management accounts and records of minutes subsequent to the financial year end to the auditors. They were unable to carry out the audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence as to whether events occurring between date of financial statements and date of the auditor reports that require adjustment are properly reflected in the current set of financial statements in accordance to the Singapore financial reporting standards.
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ailed-to-provide-financial-records-to-new-tc/
Similar threads
