AHTC's Financial Statements for FY2015: still contravene the Town Council Act and Town Council Financial Rules and still qualified!

Contraventions of Town Council Act and Town Council Financial Rules still takes place..

After being flagged by their own external auditors, after being flagged by AGO, after an extensive review by KPMG that is still ongoing, WP-run AHTC is still contravening the Town Council Financial Rules and Town Council Act.

The contraventions included:

• Failure to transfer funds into the sinking fund in a timely manner.

• Failure to ensure that all disbursement of money from the sinking fund were only for the purposes of meeting expenses or liabilities properly attributable to the sinking fund.

• Failure to include a debarment statement in the invitation for quotations or for tenders that no contract shall, in the absence of special reason, be awarded to a contractor if the contractor or any of its directors or employees have been debarred by the Government from participating in the same or all types of contracts. 

"This is the fifth consecutive year that AHTC’s financial statements have been qualified by the town council’s external auditor. This year, the auditor has issued disclaimers in the areas of the town council’s opening balances, conservancy and service fees received in advance, payables and accrued expenses, as well as staff cost," the ministry said. 

Sylvia Lim caught lying big time on conflicts of interest

What's new?

A compact broken again and again by Workers' Party

Why more power for MND to intervene today?

Because the unspoken COMPACT when the town councils were formed 28 years ago has been broken.

That unspoken compact is premised upon elected Town Councillors, recognizing electoral accountability, the visibility to the residents, would do what is right and fix the problem and would pro-actively do it, as many town councils have done.

Town Council framework allows residents to see their MPs in action, if they walk their talk

A neutral training ground for MPs and political parties where their governing style and philosophy are seen in actions.

The WP is all talk about transparency and accountability, but do they demonstrate the same in the running of their town council? This is clear to all.

Why is Workers' Party afraid of MND having more power to regulate town councils?

In Parliament Sylvia Lim questioned MND's independence and appropriateness as regulator of town councils because a minister from a political party is in charge and would favour his own party.

She also alleged that civil servants were afraid to criticize their 'political masters' and those who did so would have to throw in their letters of resignation.

She suggested that AGO be the independent regulator of town councils.

In his reply SMS Desmond Lee demolished all of Sylvia Lim's argument and questioned WP's real position.

1. Political office holders elected to government will helm the executive arm and be in charge of all ministries and agencies including those with regulatory powers. This is just the system and it is not a system unique to us. Indeed, the elected governmemt has the responsibility to make laws that are in the interests of people.

2. Even PAP TCs have been fined when they don't do well ( = no favouritism).

3. History has shown that this is a government that WILL ACT on wrongdoing. Nothing would be swept under the carpet. That persons from none other than the prime minister's own town council are being investigated is testament.

4. Were civil servants from CPIB afraid to investigate PM's town council? Are they timorous souls?

5. Sylvia Lim wanted an independent regulator who is not MND, AND YET fought the application for independent auditors who would report - NOT TO MND - but to the court.

So what exactly is WP's position? Do they sincerely want fair oversight from an independent body ? Or do they have a preference for no oversight because there are real problems in their town council that they don't want investigated?

A blatant lie from Gerald Giam, ex-NCMP from Workers' Party

What a blatant lie from Gerald Giam of Workers' Party.

Now that he is no longer an NCMP, perhaps he feels the freedom to put his spin on what Minister Gan Kim Yong said in parliament in reply to the cost of medications.

There is no profit margin. There is only a margin to offset overheads and operation.

It is also very clear that this is a margin that hardly offsets any cost because the government spent $4.3 BILLION in just one year to fund operations and to keep the cost of healthcare low. Not a paltry sum.

More importantly - and this is the part Gerald Giam does not tell you - ALL Singaporeans receive subsidy in medication in the public sector.

Specifically, Singaporeans holding Chas card receive 75% subsidy, pioneer generation gets another 50% off this subsidised bill. All other Singaporeans receive 50% subsidy in medication.

Then there is the Medication Assistance Fund (MAF) to help eligible patients pay for expensive drugs that are not in the Standard Drug List but have been assessed to be clinically necessary, and covers conditions such as cancer and heart failure.

Does Gerald Giam not know of the subsidy for medication as well as the Medication Assistance Fund?

AHTC pays $4 million in discrepancies in Punggol East's financial statements

No wonder Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council PRPTC) had insisted on having access to financial documents pertaining to Punggol East SMC.

PRPTC had to go to court to ask for the documents to be released to them. Each time, AHTC's excuse is that it is a duplication of work. Just think. Had there been no legal avenue to chase for the documents, Punggol East would stand to lose that $4 million due to them.

In all, AHTC submitted THREE sets of financial statements to PRPTC. The first 2 sets were withdrawn after discrepancies were found.

Under the latest set of financial statements, the amount due from AHTC to Punggol East SMC was slightly more than S$24 million. It had earlier paid S$20 million.

PRPTC sent a demand to AHTC to ask for the balance on Tuesday and received it two days later, it said.

Under the latest set of financial statements, the amount due from AHTC to Punggol East SMC was slightly more than S$24 million. It had earlier paid S$20 million.

PRPTC sent a demand to AHTC to ask for the balance on Tuesday and received it two days later, it said

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ahtc-pays-s-4m-for-discrepancies-in-punggol-east-smc-statements/3584574.html