-
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.
WTF do WP want?
- Thread starter zeroo
- Start date
In addition to being irresponsible and non-transparent in the spending of public monies belonging to their town council, Workers' Party is also a great waster of taxpayers' money as they take everyone on a merry-go-round just to appoint an independent accountant to oversee the disbursement of grants and to recover lost money for their town council.
First they mounted a rigorous defence against MND's application to the court to ask the court to appoint independent accountants.
The court then asked the town council to appoint their own independent accountant - subject to HDB's approval.
And now the town council has applied to the court to appoint an independent accountant for them.
We are right back where it all began. Sigh!
If the court decides to allow MND's choice of PricewaterhouseCoopers as the accountant, what will Workers' Party do? Fight the court's decision?
One wonders WHY appointing an accountant just to oversee the disbursement of government grants to the town council and to recover whatever money that was lost in the past is such a big issue for WP to waste so much time and taxpayers' money disagreeing over their appointment.
Meanwhile, who suffer? The residents of course.:oIo::oIo:
First they mounted a rigorous defence against MND's application to the court to ask the court to appoint independent accountants.
The court then asked the town council to appoint their own independent accountant - subject to HDB's approval.
And now the town council has applied to the court to appoint an independent accountant for them.
We are right back where it all began. Sigh!
If the court decides to allow MND's choice of PricewaterhouseCoopers as the accountant, what will Workers' Party do? Fight the court's decision?
One wonders WHY appointing an accountant just to oversee the disbursement of government grants to the town council and to recover whatever money that was lost in the past is such a big issue for WP to waste so much time and taxpayers' money disagreeing over their appointment.
Meanwhile, who suffer? The residents of course.:oIo::oIo:
HDB raises concerns about AHTC's choice of accountant....
The town council wants to appoint Business Assurance - a sole proprietorship founded in 2014 - as its accountant, however HDB has raised questions about the expertise and experience of WP's choice.
HDB's lawyer said Business Assurance lacks relevant expertise and experience and does not even have a two-year operational track record. There is also no indication it has experience auditing public institutions that include town councils, and the firm lacks adequate manpower resources for the task at hand, the housing board added.
HDB suggests that one of Singapore's four major accounting firms be appointed instead to fix accounting and governance lapses at the Workers' Party-run town council.
The court ordered an adjournment and directed AHTC to file an affidavit to respond to HDB's queries because AHTC had not responded to a written request sent by HDB earlier this week seeking further information on the town council's proposed accounting agent Business Assurance.
AHTC has until Monday to address HDB's queries on Business Assurance.
MND and HDB also said that AHTC "tried unsucessfully to limit the accountants' terms of reference" and that the Court of Appeal dismissed the town council's attempt to seek legal costs and disbursements from MND and HDB for the hearings before the High Court and the appeals court. Instead, the apex court agreed with HDB and MND's submission that each of the parties should bear their own legal costs.
Can you believe The Workers' Party? In 2011, they boasted about FMSS' 20 years experience in estate management. 4 years later, the town council is in a financial mess.
Now AHTC wants to appoint one man show at Business Assurance that does not even have a two-year operational track record. to clear the mess left over from their friends at FMSS. Business Assurance lacks relevant expertise and experience and there is also no indication it has experience auditing public institutions that include town councils.
It's multi million dollars of public money. Why is AHTC so reluctant to appoint one of the Big 4 accountancy firms to safeguard taxpayers money? Why do they not want to get it right and move on but keep going to n fro this step? What's there to hide?
You should wallop the PAP instead. PAP wants WP to appoint expensive accountant from PWC to control the finances.
Why PWC? PAP should justify why a cheaper accounting firm cannot do the job? Or why not have a government accountant do the job?
Something fishy here. Two partners from PWC did the audit ...one of them was a M&A specialist, not audit. They came out with NOTHING and then just suka suka say something ...make a big brouhaha. Of course, the PAP press and judge have to play along.
If WP has committed a crime, then jail the perpetrators. The PAP has nothing.
The WP should use this episode to shame the PAP. It is time to take the battle up one notch and showcase how the PAP is persecuting the Opposition.
Last edited:
HDB raises concerns about AHTC's choice of accountant....
The town council wants to appoint Business Assurance - a sole proprietorship founded in 2014 - as its accountant, however HDB has raised questions about the expertise and experience of WP's choice.
HDB's lawyer said Business Assurance lacks relevant expertise and experience and does not even have a two-year operational track record. There is also no indication it has experience auditing public institutions that include town councils, and the firm lacks adequate manpower resources for the task at hand, the housing board added.
HDB suggests that one of Singapore's four major accounting firms be appointed instead to fix accounting and governance lapses at the Workers' Party-run town council.
The court ordered an adjournment and directed AHTC to file an affidavit to respond to HDB's queries because AHTC had not responded to a written request sent by HDB earlier this week seeking further information on the town council's proposed accounting agent Business Assurance.
AHTC has until Monday to address HDB's queries on Business Assurance.
MND and HDB also said that AHTC "tried unsucessfully to limit the accountants' terms of reference" and that the Court of Appeal dismissed the town council's attempt to seek legal costs and disbursements from MND and HDB for the hearings before the High Court and the appeals court. Instead, the apex court agreed with HDB and MND's submission that each of the parties should bear their own legal costs.
HDB got so much time to investigate which accounting firm has expertise?
So, would HDB have any objection if WP TC hires an international firm?
It's really a sad day for Singapore to witness how our local politics has sunk to this level of puerile antics. From the surface, this may look as though the underdog WP is trying blatantly to hire a small but experienced and qualified Accounting Firm to handles their Town Council Accounts. What possible reasons are there for WP to so? Think first and foremost, let's look at COST. Small firm vs a BIG International Accounting firm or BIG 4 or 3 now? Saving cost for the Town Council means saving tax payers money. The intention is good. The next reason I can think of is precedence. If I remember correctly, the whole Town Council Saga started right after the 2011 General Election. The company AIM if anyone could remember, is a 2 dollars company setup to undertake and manage the Town Council software for Singapore. However, AIM the company has neither the experience, track record, qualification nor expertize to handle it but somehow or other they got the deal, despite the availability of BIG local and international IT companies in Singapore. I wonder what was the secret abilities that AIM processes that the others are lacking. Maybe, the owners of AIM, who incidentally happened to be Hard-cored veteran PAP cadres, can shed some light on these. Maybe they were smoking the same weed? Who knows. Well, if AIM can so can BA. So why are they still bickering?
Last edited:
GE 2015 was over more than 100 days yet the smear campaign remains 
GE 2015 was over more than 100 days yet the smear campaign remains
This monster was created to help the PAP win the election. They can't put it back. WP, if it has any brains, should use this to tarnish the reputation of the PAP globally. Make this into international news to flag the PAP as a dictatorship. Pinky doesn't like his reputation to be tarnished.
By the way, where is the source that this Alex Chai failed his PMP?
WP, on one hand, gives impression that they are cooperating with HDB/MND. On the other hand, privately, they are refusing to work with MND/HDB to resolve the issues. Always playing the victims. Now, have to waste court's time to compel them to provide HDB the information required.
WP is an utter waste of time and taxpayers money. This is why MND wanted the Court to appoint the independent accountant, AHPETC deals directly with the Courts, and not engage in endless argy-bargy with MND.
What is WP trying to hide?
The following are the info the court ordered WP to provide by Monday:
[The Court of Appeal has directed AHTC to provide the following information on Business Assurance to HDB:
(a) Size of Business Assurance;
(b) Whether the team proposed by Business Assurance are Chartered Accountants, and their respective years of experience in each of the areas of (i) regulatory investigations, (ii) forensic services, and (iii) audits of public institutions including Town Councils;
(c) A list of all notable engagements undertaken by members of the team proposed by Business Assurance in the areas of (i) regulatory investigations, (ii) forensic services, and (iii) audits of public institutions including Town Councils; and
(d) Latest ACRA’s Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) inspection results of members of the team proposed by Business Assurance ]
It's as good as saying, while WP is trying hard to save tax payers money, PAP (HDB) on the other hand is offering to help spend on WP's behalf, on BIG FOUR with tax payer money BIG TIME!
We all know without tax payers money that would be no PAP or HDB. This shows PAP has taken for granted that tax payers money is their money, so can anyhow spend without second thought.
We Singaporeans and other tax payers must take control of the situation right here, right now with your votes.
Last edited:
WP needs to understand that it is an unreliable opposition party that lacks the credibility of the PAP. Hence, PAP can trust a $2 company helmed by PAP directors, but WP's accountant simply cannot be trusted. WP, accept PAP's choice of auditing company to check your messy books!!!
"suppresio veri, suggestio falsi" - suppress key facts, and suggest something which is untrue. Has the responsibility of misleading the public been transferred from Sylvia Lim to Pritam Singh?
Why did Pritam hide that WP tried, unsuccessfully, to limit the accountants’ terms of reference (scope of work)? Instead The court has ORDERED that the accountant carry out all the checks HBD/MND has set out. The rhetoric of Workers’ Party is about saying all the right things for your ears but what they do is another matter altogether.
MND Press release:
The Workers' Party tried, unsuccessfully, to limit the accountants’ terms of reference, to:
(a) Only the non-compliances identified by the Auditor-General’s Report (the “AGO Report”) of Feb 2015, and
(b) Only any improper past payments involving its former managing agent, FM Solutions & Services (“FMSS”) and FM Solutions and Integrated Services (“FMSI”).
The Court disagreed with AHTC, and said that:
(1) The Terms of Reference should include all non-compliances under Section 35(c) of the Town Councils Act which had been identified (i) by the AGO Report, and (ii) by AHPETC’s own auditors, in its subsequent audited financial statements for FY 13/14 and FY 14/15.
(2) The Terms of Reference should extend to examining whether any past payments made by the Town Council were improper and should therefore be recovered, and should not be limited to only transactions involving FMSS and FMSI.
The appeals court also set an Aug 31 deadline for the prospective accountants to submit a report on whether any past payments of the town council were improper.
"suppresio veri, suggestio falsi" - suppress key facts, and suggest something which is untrue. Has the responsibility of misleading the public been transferred from Sylvia Lim to Pritam Singh?
Why did Pritam hide that WP tried, unsuccessfully, to limit the accountants’ terms of reference (scope of work)? Instead The court has ORDERED that the accountant carry out all the checks HBD/MND has set out. The rhetoric of Workers’ Party is about saying all the right things for your ears but what they do is another matter altogether.
MND Press release:
The Workers' Party tried, unsuccessfully, to limit the accountants’ terms of reference, to:
(a) Only the non-compliances identified by the Auditor-General’s Report (the “AGO Report”) of Feb 2015, and
(b) Only any improper past payments involving its former managing agent, FM Solutions & Services (“FMSS”) and FM Solutions and Integrated Services (“FMSI”).
The Court disagreed with AHTC, and said that:
(1) The Terms of Reference should include all non-compliances under Section 35(c) of the Town Councils Act which had been identified (i) by the AGO Report, and (ii) by AHPETC’s own auditors, in its subsequent audited financial statements for FY 13/14 and FY 14/15.
(2) The Terms of Reference should extend to examining whether any past payments made by the Town Council were improper and should therefore be recovered, and should not be limited to only transactions involving FMSS and FMSI.
The appeals court also set an Aug 31 deadline for the prospective accountants to submit a report on whether any past payments of the town council were improper.
With a cursory glance at your first statement, I can conclude that you are trying to mislead readers into believing that the Court has found AHTC guilty of suppressing facts. NO! That not true.
This is just the preliminary steps to define the scope of work. As I have mentioned before, WP is trying hard to save COST.
WP has defined the scope of work based on interpretations originally from the AGO Report.
However, PAP (HBD/MND) felt that it was not enough, that's why AHTC have to seek the Court to come out with a final definition of the Scope of Work.
Simple as that. It like you go to a restaurant and ordered an a la carte meal based on budget that is enough to sate your apetite,
but the restaurant manager insist that you should include more items from the menu to have a wholesome meal,
which is beyond your means so a fight ensued and both of you landed in Court to have the Judge decide on what you should eat.
So don't get too excited yet and start "cumming" all over the forum even before the jugdement is out. You should seek mental help for your constant Premature Conjecture.
Last edited:
Similar threads
