The Ministry of National Development today released a statement berating the Aljunied Hougang Punggol-East Town Council for failing to promptly submit its audited financials for the FY 2012 period.
It further said that there is “cause for concern”, explaining that this is the second time in a row that the independent auditor for the AHPETC financials has submitted a disclaimer of opinion.
The MND explained that the independent auditor had found several lapses in the way AHPETC has organized their finances.
The report started that AHPETC had not transferred money to the sinking fund and that there were missing details from their financial receipts and records on various costs and expenditures such as costs of lift upgrading and repairing and advances of S&CC for residents.
The auditor also reported discrepancies in GST figures and bank records.
This is the full MND statement on the issue:
MND Press Statement on AHPETC’s FY2012 Audited Financial Statements
13 February 2014
1. Town Councils (TCs) are required by law to submit their audited financial statements to the Minister for National Development, for presentation to Parliament. A copy of the audited financial statements and any report made by the Town Council’s auditor shall also be forwarded to the Auditor-General.
2. Town Councils (TCs) are required by law to submit their audited financial statements to the Minister for National Development, for presentation to Parliament. A copy of the audited financial statements and any report made by the Town Council’s auditor shall also be forwarded to the Auditor-General.
3. The AHPETC’s auditors reported that AHPETC had not complied with the provisions of the Town Councils Act and the Town Councils Financial Rules. The auditors reported that:
a) AHPETC had not transferred funds into its Sinking Funds as required under Rule 4(2B)(a) of the Town Councils Financial Rules.
b) the auditors had not been able to determine the completeness of the related party disclosures in AHPETC as the TC had not made available to the auditors details of project management service fees paid to a related party. (Related party transactions refer to transactions where the TC’s key management personnel have a personal financial interest.)
c)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.
d) the auditors were unable to determine the validity and accuracy of various items in AHPETC’s accounts, including receivables of some $1.8 million recorded in Sundry Debtors, lift repair and lift upgrading expenses of some $20 million, temporary unidentified receipts from residents and HDB of some $308,000, and advance receipts from residents in respect of conservancy and service charges of some $507,000. There were also unexplained differences of GST payable of some $518,000 and unreconciled differences of some $63,000 in cash and bank balances.
4. The AHPETC auditors’ observations have led the auditors to submit a disclaimer of opinion on AHPETC’s financial statements. This is the second year that AHPETC’s auditors have submitted a disclaimer of opinion on its accounts. This is a cause for concern. The auditors have submitted their audit report to the Auditor-General on 13 Feb 2014 as required under the law.
