Uncle Chua: FAP Traitors Trying to Destroy WP Before Next GE!

[makapaaa]

[h=2]AHPETC – A battle for transparency and propriety[/h]

February 22nd, 2014 |

Author: Contributions

Ng Eng Hen is furious with the poor verdict of Transparency International on how his ministry spent money on the purchase of weapons. TI ranked Singapore together with Afghanistan and Iraq, in another word, our integrity in procurement is at the same level at these 3rd World countries, or at least in the Defence Ministry. The implications of such a rating are very serious, and many times more serious than the audit report of AHPETC.

Khaw Boon Wan had written a letter to Tharman to instruct the Auditor General to conduct an audit on AHPETC’s account quoting a “Disclaimer of Opinion” from its auditor, implying serious issues in the town council’s financial and accounting system. The Auditor General will now have to comb through AHPETC’s books to verify on all the misgivings and non compliance of Town Council’s regulations.

What we are seeing is the PAP wanting to set a very high standard of accountability and transparency for all town councils. And all town councils will be judged using the same standard of accountability, nothing less. On the other hand many critics are crying foul, that this is another political scam of the PAP to run down its political enemies, probably getting them disqualified from the next GE or, if serious enough, could see some of them behind bars. If this is indeed a political ploy, one can expect the PAP to extract the full mileage possible with the timing of the findings, the penalties and punishment, to ensure the WP suffers untold damage that it would become a lame duck when the GE is called.

Putting this expected and understandable perception of PAP critics aside, the involvement of the Auditor General to audit a town council’s account would set a series of precedents that would then be applicable to all the other town councils. To be consistent and be seen as fair and impartial, and standing on moral high grounds, the Auditor General would also have to conduct the same investigations on all town councils with the same ratings from their auditors or worse, like Adverse Opinion in auditing terms. The opposition parties and netizen investigative journalists in social media must be busy scouring the auditor’s reports for the same gradings to be tabled to Boon Wan and the Auditor General. And should there be such findings, the PAP would now be compelled, or at least Boon Wan would be duty bound to make similar requests to Tharman for the Auditor General’s audit.

Would this high standard of transparency and accountability also be applicable to similar or comparable institutions like the People’s Association? In a Breaking News TRE editorial, it posted an article stating that the auditors had given the PA several years of “Adverse Opinions” that were technically worse than the “Disclaimer of Opinion” in the AHPETC’s audit. Why was there no calls for the Auditor General to investigate? All eyes will now be focussed on Boon Wan to do the necessary to PA. Would he or would he not request Tharman to do the same?

With the issue of transparency and accountability high in everyone’s agenda, how far would these issues be pushed to vindicate Singapore’s standing as one of the top nations in incorruptibility? Would there be any other town council fitting the bill for an Auditor General’s audit? Would PA be put under the microscope as well?

For Boon Wan to take such a drastic action, he must be very sure that his own house is in order, ie all the town councils’ audit were beyond reproach. Like the bible said, ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone….’ We have several embarrassing episodes involving the WP and the PAP when the ball curved back to slam the attackers. Retribution came fast and swift at times. How would this incident turn out and who would have the last laugh?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean

* The writer blogs at mysingaporenews.blogspot.com.

 

[makapaaa]

From The Online Citizen: http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...estion-in-2008-on-pas-adverse-accounts-rating/
[h=2]Low Thia Khiang’s question in 2008 on PA’s “adverse” accounts rating[/h]

February 21
[SIZE=+0]23:14[/SIZE] [SIZE=+0]2014[/SIZE]

?Print This Article ?Share it With Friends
??by onlinecitizen ? 2 Comments







In 2008, then Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC, Low Thia Khiang, had asked about the People’s Association (PA) being given an “adverse opinion” rating by its auditors for its Financial Statement.
Here is the parliamentary question he posed, and the answer given by the then Minister of State for Finance, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua:
Mr Low Thia Khiang:

Madam, the financial statement of the People’s Association ending 31st March 2007 has been qualified with an adverse opinion by the auditor. This was because PA did not provide audited financial information on its more than a thousand grassroots organisations (GROs) in its financial statement. The auditor is unable to assess the financial impact on the financial statement of the PA arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs. These qualifications are in relation to non-compliance with Singapore’s Financial Reporting Standard 24 as well as FRS 27, consolidated and separate financial statements. I understand that this arises from the Ministry of Finance allowing statutory boards to be exempted from certain disclosure requirements of related parties through its minutes or circulars.

Madam, Singapore is proud to have an efficient and transparent public sector. However, such qualified audited report of the PA does not help to enhance the reputation of the public sector. Moreover, PA handles hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds. I would like to ask the Minister:

1. What is the rationale for MOF to exempt statutory boards from certain disclosure requirements in FRS 24?
2. What has prompted the MOF to issue such an exemption against international standards? Even the private sector listed companies are not exempted from such disclosures of related party transactions.
3. How would this impact the transparency of statutory boards, given that many Government functions are now performed by them as agents of the Government?
4. Does the Ministry of Finance accept that the financial statement of GROs under the management and supervision of the PA be left outside of PA’s financial statements and, effectively, out of the public’s scrutiny and accountability?

The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs Lim Hwee Hua):

Madam, let me now move on to Mr Low’s cut on the statutory boards. Mr Low Thia Khiang has asked for the reasons for change in disclosure requirements for statutory boards and comments by auditors on the People’s Association’s accounts.

Before November 2007, MOF, through the Accountant-General’s Department, issued finance circulars to prescribe the accounting standards for statutory boards. The key guiding framework used has been the Singapore Financial Reporting Standards, or the SFRS. However, these standards are designed primarily for profit making entities in the private sector. Therefore, the relevance and the appropriateness of each standard to statutory boards has [sic] to be examined first before they can be adopted.

In November 2007, this House passed the Accounting Standards Bill, and the Act came into effect, empowering the Accountant-General to prescribe accounting standards for statutory boards. A committee of independent members with representatives from the Auditor-General’s office, the statutory boards, the academic community and the public accounting firms, has been formed to advise the Accountant-General.

New SFRS and amendments to standards will continue to be examined for their relevance and appropriateness to the statutory boards. As such, there has been no change in the substance of preparation and presentation of accounts by statutory boards. Neither has there been any move to change the disclosure requirements of statutory boards. Our arrangements are similar to the UK where the Treasury prescribes the standard for public sector entities.

As regards PA’s non-consolidation of grassroots organisations’ accounts, the auditor, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, has qualified the financial statements of People’s Association on the basis that the accounts of the grassroots organisations were not consolidated. PA’s view is that the accounts of grassroots organisations should not be consolidated for the following reasons.

Firstly, the funds in these accounts belong to the grassroots organisations. Secondly, the Government grants and the cost of staff support are already accounted for in PA’s financial statements. Thirdly, the grassroots organisations are operationally self-funding through revenues from activities, courses and donations. Fourthly, the grassroots organisations decide on how their money should be spent for the benefit of the residents. And, finally, proper procurement procedures, financial control and good corporate governance practices apply to the grassroots organisations.

I would like to clarify that this adverse opinion pays more emphasis to the FRS27, than to the FRS24, which is the general exemption granted to all statutory boards on account of the onerous work that would otherwise be involved in the disclosure of related party transactions. This is because related party transactions are much more onerous for statutory boards compared to private sector entities due to the wide range of Government related entities. I should also add that other countries have similarly found a need to depart from the FRS24. For example, Australia fully exempts its not-for-profit public entities from such disclosures as well. The Accountant-General’s Department and the Ministry of Finance are discussing this FRS27 issue with PA.
​

Parliament Report on March 2008
(Photo by Lawrence Chong)

 

[winnipegjets]

We should also look at the link between the audit firm and the PAP.

Why didn't Ernest Kan comment on the adverse opinion given to the PA previously?

 

[da dick]

WP sabo themselves by being a wayang party with no balls n no powah, only know how to imitate pappy speech n policies so as to win over n cannibalise original pappy voters. fail hard. will nevah win the hearts n minds of majority of sinkies like that.

 

[po2wq]

... For Boon Wan to take such a drastic action, he must be very sure that his own house is in order, ie all the town councils’ audit were beyond reproach. Like the bible said, ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast the stone….’ We have several embarrassing episodes involving the WP and the PAP when the ball curved back to slam the attackers. Retribution came fast and swift at times. How would this incident turn out and who would have the last laugh? ...

dat cow burger is just full of sh*t! ...

his own backyard is full of sh*t yet he wants 2 make comprains about other ppl's ...

he made blind accusations about bhutanese, oni 2 b rebutted soundly by bhutanese demselves ... he craimed wateva dat he's done was bestest n correctest in ze bicycle case, oni 2 b proven dat he was craptest! ...

yet now, he stil wanna continue wif his sh*t! ...

 

[The_Hypocrite]

the title should be PAP trys to destroy Workers Party. they have been trying to do it all the time.

 

[da dick]

bloody wayang partay zap me for telling the truth. if you loose aljunied next time, your own fault orh. dun go blame internet and try to censor it like pappy dogs do!! ffucking chiken shit!