AHTC is of the position that two accounting firms – appointed by two different town councils – are effectively duplicating each other’s work and funded by public purse in reviewing the accounts of Punggol East ward.
How interesting!
Pritam Singh is describing a situation created by AHTC.
They created this situation where work is duplicated and unnecessary costs incurred because they rejected HDB's advice to jointly appoint accountant.
They created this situation when they rejected PRPTC's proposal to jointly appoint KPMG.
AHTC also refused to attend meetings the HDB had called to coordinate the work of the two accountants.
How did this outing at the Appeal Court arise?
HDB said that AHTC had refused to give PRPTC access to documents for it to carry out its review of Punggol East's accounts.
For more than 7 months AHTC had dragged their feet and given excuse s for not giving PwC access to the necessary information.
It added that AHTC also requested that HDB first apply to the Court of Appeal to clarify whether PRPTC was bound by the court order to audit Punggol East's books.
HDB said that it had applied for Friday's hearing, given AHTC’s position and the impending Aug 31 deadline for the report on AHPETC’s past payments.
After hearing arguments, CJ Menon said KPMG and PwC should communicate directly with each other and "afford each other such access as may be reasonably required to safeguard each party’s interests".
In short, they can by-pass AHTC in their communication.
Following the direction given by CJ Menon at the hearing, HDB said it expects AHTC and PRPTC to do "all that is necessary to facilitate the work of the accountants, KPMG and PwC," in carrying out the orders of the court.
References:
http://
http://
http://
No comments:
Post a Comment