Jump to content

MND Press Statement on AHPETC

Camrysfa

By Camrysfa,
in Lite & EZ

 Share

Recommended Posts

Camrysfa

Camrysfa

Turbocharged

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/auditors-unable-to/996438.html

 

 

SINGAPORE: The Ministry of National Development (MND) has flagged its concerns over the latest financial statements of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) for the financial year ended March 31, 2013.

The independent auditors -- Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton -- engaged by AHPETC said in a report that the town council had not complied with the provisions of the Town Councils Act and the Town Councils Financial Rules.

The town council, run by the Workers' Party, had submitted its statements on Monday, nearly six months late and after seven reminders.

All town councils had been required to submit their financial statements by August 31, 2013.

The auditors also made what's described as a "Disclaimer of Opinion", which means they were unable to express an opinion on the financial position of the town council due to insufficient evidence.

Disclaimers of Opinion are issued by auditors when they refuse to sign off on financial statements completely, due to lack of information.

In the case of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council, the auditors listed 13 points in its disclaimer.

A key area highlighted was related party transactions.

The independent auditors said the town council had not made available details of project management service fees paid to a related party.

The town council had said in its financial statements that it had appointed FM Solutions and Services as its Managing Agent after the 2011 General Election.

The managing director of the company, Mr Danny Loh, is also the secretary of the town council.

Mr Loh’s wife, Ms How Weng Fan, is a director of the company and also acted as the town council's general manager.

The company had been paid a management agent fee of some S$5.3 million.

Related party transactions refer to those where the town council’s key management personnel have a personal financial interest.

Among the other areas cited in the auditors' report were the town council's opening balances, lift repair balances and lift upgrading expenses.

The auditor also noted that the town council had not transferred monies into its Sinking Funds as was required under the Town Councils Financial Rules.

There were also questions over the validity of receipts collected.

The auditors said they were unable to determine the validity and accuracy of various items in the town council's accounts, including receivables of some S$1.8 million, lift repair and lift upgrading expenses of some S$20 million, and temporary unidentified receipts from residents and the HDB of about S$308,000.

Other items included advance receipts from residents in respect of conservancy and service charges of some S$507,000.

There were also unidentified differences of GST payable of some S$518,000 and unreconciled differences of some S$63,000 in cash and bank balances.

The town council had also received nearly S$521,000 from the Citizens Consultative Committee but the receipts could not be identified and matched to other records.

The auditors also said AHPETC had not made available to the auditors its latest management accounts and records of minutes subsequent to the financial year-end, to allow the auditors to ascertain whether AHPETC's financial statements properly reflected adjustments or disclosures needed in light of relevant subsequent events.

The Ministry of National Development noted that the financial statements had only been submitted after seven reminders, and that this was the second year the town council's auditors have submitted a disclaimer of opinion on its accounts.

The ministry said in a statement that this is a "cause for concern".

The independent auditors have submitted their report to the Auditor-General as required under the law.

MND press statement on AHPETC's FY2012 audited financial statements (PDF 190.44KB)

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Vulcann

Vulcann

6th Gear

Don't look good for Ah Low and his team [shakehead]

 

First time run a GRC kena this type of negative report.

 

Nagging feeling on the conflict of interest situation where its managing agent also take up key posts in the TC.

 

Hope the hammer gang have plausible reasons to exprain.

 

Score so far: MND-1 WP-0

 

 

 

 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodooman

Voodooman

Supersonic

The related party transaction, coupled with all those market talks of WP taking care of its supporters in conducting its business in AHPETC, are troubling. LTK better has a good explanation.

 

The usual you have to rely on your trusted people, thus sacrificing open tenders, as the opposing side is all out to fix you may not work very well as Singaporeans by and large have a very rule based mindset.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Watwheels

Watwheels

Supersonic

Aiya, politics at play. Late submission only mah. Pay fine loh.

 

MRT trains so many breakdowns and delays, the transpork minister only voice disappointment but neber do anything. Late paperwork vs train breakdowns, why nobody go disturb the more important issue?

  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mustank

Mustank

Hypersonic

Aiya, politics at play. Late submission only mah. Pay fine loh.

 

MRT trains so many breakdowns and delays, the transpork minister only voice disappointment but neber do anything. Late paperwork vs train breakdowns, why nobody go disturb the more important issue?

 

i think not so simple

 

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/wp-where-hell-has-money-gone-4575890.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kar_lover

Kar_lover

Supercharged

Aiya, politics at play. Late submission only mah. Pay fine loh.

 

MRT trains so many breakdowns and delays, the transpork minister only voice disappointment but neber do anything. Late paperwork vs train breakdowns, why nobody go disturb the more important issue?

 

There were many other issues other than "late submission only" - conflicts of interest, missing funds, etc. to the extent their own self-appointed independent auditor did not want to sign off and issued disclaimer.

 

Or is it you just want to see what you want to see?

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Baal

Baal

Supersonic

It doesn't bother me, From 2011, I have seen improvements like, new playgrounds, road widening, sheltered walk ways, increased open air car park lots. Rightfully these are suppose to be the norm. But because, such works were unseen previously, hence I feel glad when it should be done w/o asking.

 

And of course those charges came from? Hence, I will just ignore & treat as 154th.

 

Even if charges are true....I still cant deny the benefits. In fact I will then question in my head, for those grcs who collected their $ efficiently, ??

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mustank

Mustank

Hypersonic

i think auditor should provide detailed report on the items which they were unable to verify

 

and

 

wp should come clean with a detailed report on the same items

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
LoverofCar

LoverofCar

6th Gear
(edited)

Maybe WP should appoint a personal guard dog president to secure their fund....just like PAP got KFC MAN...haha ..knn...we Singaporean really Hong kong liao... both parties also sucks..who to vote for in 2016?....maybe I go take part as independent candidate... :D

Edited by LoverofCar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...