Well said. I have added to your points.
-
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.
WP kenna play out again...
- Thread starter BuiKia
- Start date
Well said. I have added to your points.
dua bui cheebye pap dog
where were u when that muland mental case drive across the causeway. conveniently mia.
no negative comments at all for mha? fuck u. tiu lei lo mo chow hai
Your choice of word is very telling. "Unable to determine the validity and accuracy of 20 million" is very different from "20 million missing". The former is open to verification while your words are "definitive" I.e. 20 million gone.
You have also chosen to ignore the "missing" receivable of 1.8 million. This one is probably really missing.
It is all a fixing game and wp is just too crafty. They cannot find answer to the missing 1.12 million receivable from ccc for special project so they want to blow it up to get an answer. They made it inconspicuous by hiding it under sundry debtor. This is a "fake $10". To further decept and fool them, sinking funds were not transfered and expenses on lifts were not substantiated to paint a picture of utter incompetence. These are the genuine 1 cent coin. They drop the fake $10 together with the genuine 1 cent coin on the floor. A smart Alex picked them up and gave them to his master. The poor master also failed to see that the $10 is fake, tried to use it at the market and was embarrassed.
The Chinese educated are best in such game and Lim Kim San is best at it. If he is still around Ltk may be no match.
Last edited:
Source: The Online Citizen
What happened to PAP’s “smooth handover” promise?
February 15 2014 13:05
The statement and remarks by the Ministry of National Development (MND), in response to the audit report of the Workers’ Party (WP) town council, has raised an important issue with regards to the MND’s fairness in dealing with town councils.
The news first broke on Thursday that the auditors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton, had found that it was unable to “obtain sufficient audit evidence” from the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC), to “determine the accuracy and validity of several items in the accounts.”
The WP’s chairman, Sylvia Lim, issued a statement the next day to explain why the some things were not verifiable.
Addressing the issues raised by the MND, Ms Lim said:
She added:
Ms Lim’s statement reveals one important thing – that the former auditors and Managing Agent of the former PAP-led Aljunied Town Council has, apparently, not provided the information sought by the WP town council in order to rationalise or reconcile the accounts.
Further, her statement also reveals the role the MND and HDB played in this latest saga – that either or both of them have failed to assist in the matter in any meaningful way.
Indeed, Ms Lim called for the ministry to help resolve the matter.
The ball is now in the MND’s court.
This latest development between the authorities and the WP is disappointing because of the way the PAP Government has chosen to politicise the matter, instead of helping to resolve the issue for the sake of residents.
The government-controlled media too is not helping by making repeated “insinuations of impropriety” on the part of the AHPETC.
After what was a bitterly-fought contest during General Election 2011, where the WP team dislodged the PAP team from Aljunied GRC, former PAP MP Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” of the town council to the WP.
‘’We will do a proper handover,” she said, a week after Polling Day. “We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly.”
She even dismissed fears that the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team.
“The PAP is not that way,” Ms Phua said then. “It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.”
She promised:
But it has thus far been anything but a “smooth handover”, with disputes between the WP town council arising not only with the former PAP town council, but also with the People’s Association (PA), the constituency’s grassroots organisations and merchants associations – which are all headed by or involve PAP members – and even with the Housing and Development Board, shortly after the elections when the HDB leased out some 26 plots of land in Aljunied GRC to the PA.
In 2012/2013, there was also the saga involving the termination of computer system service by the PAP-owned Action Information Management (AIM). It was then revealed that AIM was a company fully owned by 3 former PAP MPs, and which had provided the accounting system to all PAP town councils.
The issue raised a huge controversy, with many Singaporeans questioning the relationship between the PAP town councils and AIM. It resulted in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is also the secretary general of the PAP and the chairman of the PA, calling for a review of the transaction between the PAP town councils and AIM.
Eventually, the review found that there were not improprieties. PM Lee then subsequently appointed Minister Lee Yi Shyan to conduct another review of the “nature of the town councils” altogether.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan’s report is expected to be released this year.
With regards to the audit issue of the Workers’ Party town council, the WP would have to furnish its explanation on the outstanding matters. At the same time too the MND should be fair and hold to account the former PAP-led ATC as well, and perhaps instruct the Managing Agent of that town council – which is believed to be CPG Facilities Management – to cooperate and handover the relevant information required by the present town council.
Why has not the MND asked the director of CPG, Jeffrey Chua, who also happened to be the town council’s general manager then, to provide the necessary information to the WP town council?
Surely, the resolution of such issues does not require so much back and forth, and loudhailing over the media?
Aljunied residents, and Singaporeans in general, deserve much better than this constant fault-finding by the PAP.
Let’s focus on more important things, shall we?
Here is the Straits Times report in May 2011 in which Ms Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” to the WP.
Cynthia Phua promises proper handover
Teo Wan Gek
12 May 2011
Straits Times
ALJUNIED Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua yesterday said the People’s Action Party (PAP) team will ensure there is ample time for the Workers’ Party (WP) to take over the town council so there will be a smooth transition.
‘We will do a proper handover. We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly,’ she said.
She is in the process of compiling a list of current contracts between the town council and service providers. She will ask them if they wish to continue the contracts with the new town council team, to be led by Mr Low Thia Khiang and the four other newly elected MPs.
Should contractors wish to terminate their contracts, she will alert the WP team at first notice, to give them sufficient time to find new contractors and ensure there is no lapse in the provision of services, she said.
‘We will take care of residents’ interests,’ she added.
Madam Phua was an MP for Aljunied GRC from 2001 until the recent polls, and has chaired the town council since 2003.
Yesterday, she also rubbished a complaint that has surfaced online that the town council seems to have stopped removing rubbish, at least from a particular block in the estate.
‘There has been no termination of contracts,’ she said. ‘The contracts are all existing and still under the current management. If the contractors are not performing, they should be reported to the town council staff.’
She added: ‘It’s only been four days since Polling Day. What changes could possibly have been made?
‘Have faith in us. It’s our responsibility to the residents of Aljunied GRC to ensure a smooth handover.’
On concerns the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team, Madam Phua said: ‘The PAP is not that way. It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.’
Aljunied Town Council is now managed by CPG Facilities Management, with whom the town council signed a three-year contract last year.
CPG managing director Jeffrey Chua is the town council’s general manager. As the town council managing agent, CPG engages the services of other companies for services such as cleaning, maintenance and lift rescue.
Most of the PAP town councils are managed by one of three companies: CPG, EM Services and Esmaco Township Management.
The Straits Times understands that the Hougang Town Council is managed by staff directly hired by the town council, which Mr Low has chaired since 1991.
The WP team could decide to merge the Aljunied and Hougang town councils, since the two constituencies are located next to each other.
Yesterday, Mr Low said in an e-mail reply that he and his team had met HDB’s town council secretariat to discuss and seek advice on the handover.
Mr Low said they had not met the town council secretary, who is Mr Chua, the general manager.
Mr Low also confirmed that the WP team plans to ask for a renewal of the tenancy agreement with HDB for the three town council offices.
Meetings and talks with existing employees of the town council ‘will be done in due course’, he added.
Under the Town Councils Act, ‘new Towns need to be gazetted after the 14th day from the publication of the General Election results’. The law requires a constituency’s new management to take over a town council within 45 days.
What happened to PAP’s “smooth handover” promise?
February 15 2014 13:05
The statement and remarks by the Ministry of National Development (MND), in response to the audit report of the Workers’ Party (WP) town council, has raised an important issue with regards to the MND’s fairness in dealing with town councils.
The news first broke on Thursday that the auditors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton, had found that it was unable to “obtain sufficient audit evidence” from the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC), to “determine the accuracy and validity of several items in the accounts.”
The WP’s chairman, Sylvia Lim, issued a statement the next day to explain why the some things were not verifiable.
Addressing the issues raised by the MND, Ms Lim said:
“We do understand the auditors’ plight, as there were information gaps that existed at the handover after the General Election 2011 which to date are still not filled. “
She added:
“At FY 2011, the auditors had tried to request information from former auditors, unsuccessfully. Repeated attempts by the Town Council (TC) to obtain information from the former Managing Agent (MA) and government authorities, such as asking MND / the Housing and Development Board regarding $1.12 million which the PAP-run Aljunied TC had recorded as receivables from the Citizens Consultative Committees (CCCs) for Town Improvement Projects, did not yield answers.
“Attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.
“Unless those agencies with the required information furnish them to the TC, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year. In this regard, we note that MND could well be the best party to assist the TC to resolve some of the key information gaps.”
“Attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.
“Unless those agencies with the required information furnish them to the TC, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year. In this regard, we note that MND could well be the best party to assist the TC to resolve some of the key information gaps.”
Ms Lim’s statement reveals one important thing – that the former auditors and Managing Agent of the former PAP-led Aljunied Town Council has, apparently, not provided the information sought by the WP town council in order to rationalise or reconcile the accounts.
Further, her statement also reveals the role the MND and HDB played in this latest saga – that either or both of them have failed to assist in the matter in any meaningful way.
Indeed, Ms Lim called for the ministry to help resolve the matter.
“As MND has expressed its concerns over our accounts, we seek its assistance in resolving the issues raised by our auditor, by helping us verify and confirm the various opening figures handed over from the former Aljunied TC,” Ms Lim said. “We also welcome any audit by MND which it deems necessary.”
The ball is now in the MND’s court.
This latest development between the authorities and the WP is disappointing because of the way the PAP Government has chosen to politicise the matter, instead of helping to resolve the issue for the sake of residents.
The government-controlled media too is not helping by making repeated “insinuations of impropriety” on the part of the AHPETC.
After what was a bitterly-fought contest during General Election 2011, where the WP team dislodged the PAP team from Aljunied GRC, former PAP MP Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” of the town council to the WP.
‘’We will do a proper handover,” she said, a week after Polling Day. “We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly.”
She even dismissed fears that the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team.
“The PAP is not that way,” Ms Phua said then. “It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.”
She promised:
“Have faith in us. It’s our responsibility to the residents of Aljunied GRC to ensure a smooth handover.”
But it has thus far been anything but a “smooth handover”, with disputes between the WP town council arising not only with the former PAP town council, but also with the People’s Association (PA), the constituency’s grassroots organisations and merchants associations – which are all headed by or involve PAP members – and even with the Housing and Development Board, shortly after the elections when the HDB leased out some 26 plots of land in Aljunied GRC to the PA.
In 2012/2013, there was also the saga involving the termination of computer system service by the PAP-owned Action Information Management (AIM). It was then revealed that AIM was a company fully owned by 3 former PAP MPs, and which had provided the accounting system to all PAP town councils.
The issue raised a huge controversy, with many Singaporeans questioning the relationship between the PAP town councils and AIM. It resulted in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who is also the secretary general of the PAP and the chairman of the PA, calling for a review of the transaction between the PAP town councils and AIM.
Eventually, the review found that there were not improprieties. PM Lee then subsequently appointed Minister Lee Yi Shyan to conduct another review of the “nature of the town councils” altogether.
Mr Lee Yi Shyan’s report is expected to be released this year.
With regards to the audit issue of the Workers’ Party town council, the WP would have to furnish its explanation on the outstanding matters. At the same time too the MND should be fair and hold to account the former PAP-led ATC as well, and perhaps instruct the Managing Agent of that town council – which is believed to be CPG Facilities Management – to cooperate and handover the relevant information required by the present town council.
Why has not the MND asked the director of CPG, Jeffrey Chua, who also happened to be the town council’s general manager then, to provide the necessary information to the WP town council?
Surely, the resolution of such issues does not require so much back and forth, and loudhailing over the media?
Aljunied residents, and Singaporeans in general, deserve much better than this constant fault-finding by the PAP.
Let’s focus on more important things, shall we?
Here is the Straits Times report in May 2011 in which Ms Cynthia Phua promised a “smooth handover” to the WP.
Cynthia Phua promises proper handover
Teo Wan Gek
12 May 2011
Straits Times
ALJUNIED Town Council chairman Cynthia Phua yesterday said the People’s Action Party (PAP) team will ensure there is ample time for the Workers’ Party (WP) to take over the town council so there will be a smooth transition.
‘We will do a proper handover. We will ensure that all the existing contracts that we have are handed over to the new management properly,’ she said.
She is in the process of compiling a list of current contracts between the town council and service providers. She will ask them if they wish to continue the contracts with the new town council team, to be led by Mr Low Thia Khiang and the four other newly elected MPs.
Should contractors wish to terminate their contracts, she will alert the WP team at first notice, to give them sufficient time to find new contractors and ensure there is no lapse in the provision of services, she said.
‘We will take care of residents’ interests,’ she added.
Madam Phua was an MP for Aljunied GRC from 2001 until the recent polls, and has chaired the town council since 2003.
Yesterday, she also rubbished a complaint that has surfaced online that the town council seems to have stopped removing rubbish, at least from a particular block in the estate.
‘There has been no termination of contracts,’ she said. ‘The contracts are all existing and still under the current management. If the contractors are not performing, they should be reported to the town council staff.’
She added: ‘It’s only been four days since Polling Day. What changes could possibly have been made?
‘Have faith in us. It’s our responsibility to the residents of Aljunied GRC to ensure a smooth handover.’
On concerns the PAP may sabotage the incoming WP team, Madam Phua said: ‘The PAP is not that way. It has always been a fair and responsible party. We are direct and transparent in our actions.’
Aljunied Town Council is now managed by CPG Facilities Management, with whom the town council signed a three-year contract last year.
CPG managing director Jeffrey Chua is the town council’s general manager. As the town council managing agent, CPG engages the services of other companies for services such as cleaning, maintenance and lift rescue.
Most of the PAP town councils are managed by one of three companies: CPG, EM Services and Esmaco Township Management.
The Straits Times understands that the Hougang Town Council is managed by staff directly hired by the town council, which Mr Low has chaired since 1991.
The WP team could decide to merge the Aljunied and Hougang town councils, since the two constituencies are located next to each other.
Yesterday, Mr Low said in an e-mail reply that he and his team had met HDB’s town council secretariat to discuss and seek advice on the handover.
Mr Low said they had not met the town council secretary, who is Mr Chua, the general manager.
Mr Low also confirmed that the WP team plans to ask for a renewal of the tenancy agreement with HDB for the three town council offices.
Meetings and talks with existing employees of the town council ‘will be done in due course’, he added.
Under the Town Councils Act, ‘new Towns need to be gazetted after the 14th day from the publication of the General Election results’. The law requires a constituency’s new management to take over a town council within 45 days.
I intentionally threw a red herring to see if it will catch. For PAP supporters and anti-WP opposition supporters who alleged intentionally indirectly that WP MPs and / or their FMSS have siphoned and pocketed the money, they intentionally omitted to mention that there were surpluses in other items like receivables and commercial funds. If WP MPs were corrupted in the way they described these will not appear. It seems they are also guilty of selected mentions.
If you trace back our arguments, the highlighting of aspects in the audit (not refusal to sign off audit) has nothing to do with FMSS appointments and conflicts on interest but the tidyness of the accounts. Along the way, you pulled in this invalid argument. BTW the audit has to be signed before submission to MND.
Last edited:
On business trip to Bekasi Indonesia, I didnt find out about the case until much later
Dude your hallucination problem is serious. There were 13 points as to why the auditors refuse to sign off. 1 of which was the unaccounted for 20M(it could be a case of someone misplacing the invoice or the entire lift that was suppose to be upgraded), one of the reason was the extra 1.something million that was came up from the handover. One of the reason was the conflict of interest of the TC agent owner. If you only believe in Sylvia Lim's weak excuse which convinently left out all but one, there is no point in continuing this debate. I'll leave U off with this
News item no. 1 on “respected” firm at this link post #42:
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...-s-financial-statements&p=1790234#post1790234
News item no. 2 on “respected” firm here:
Law360, New York (November 18, 2013, 4:10 PM ET) -- A Kentucky judge has ordered accounting giant Grant Thornton LLP to pay hotelier Bill Yung over $100 million in damages, after the company knowingly sold him a bogus offshore tax shelter that the Internal Revenue Service later found to be abusive.
On Nov. 8, Kentucky Circuit Court Judge Patricia Summe found that Grant Thornton's fraud spanned from 2000 to the end of the monthlong trial, and that the accounting firm harmed Yung's reputation and prevented his hotel company, Columbia Sussex Corp., from receiving licensure from the Missouri Gaming Commission in 2005.
In her opinion, Judge Summe ruled that Grant Thornton owed Yung almost $20 million in compensatory damages for fraud and misrepresentation and slapped the accounting firm with an additional $80 million in punitive damages.
“There were so many acts of gross professional negligence committed by Grant Thornton ... the court finds that an assessment of punitive damages will deter Grant Thornton and its agents from similar reckless and wanton behavior in the future,” according to the 210-page opinion.
Yung, his family and his hotel company used Grant Thornton to prepare and review almost 100 tax returns per year, and in 2000 Grant Thornton recommended that the Yungs participate in a cash repatriation scheme called “Lev301,” the order said.
At that time, Grant Thornton accountants knew there was a 90 percent chance that the IRS would reject the Lev301 tax shelter plan, but hid this information from Yung, the court found at trial. After Yung expressed concern about the tax shelter, Grant Thornton accountants overcame his fears by falsely claiming the firm successfully used Lev301 with General Electric Co. and Proctor & Gamble Co. to save them millions in tax liability.
Before making the final sale of Lev301 to Yung, Grant Thornton's own legal review of the transaction found it had an overwhelming chance of being deemed an illegal tax shelter, the court said.
But tax accountants and managers persisted, hiding the negative legal opinion and saying in an email, “Do not share this opinion with anyone, internally or externally, as we are trying to maintain control of its distribution. The attached copy should be shredded here on Monday morning."
Just five days after Yung made $30 million in expenditures under the Lev301 scheme, the IRS issued a ruling specifically invalidating past and future Lev301 transactions. Grant Thornton brushed this notice aside, according to the court's findings, until the IRS conducted an audit of Yung's 2001 tax returns and assessed millions in back taxes, penalties and interest.
“It was a very long, hard-fought litigation," said Yung counsel Kevin Murphy of Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP. "We are very, very pleased with the verdict, and believe strongly that it will be upheld on appeal.”
A Grant Thornton spokesperson said of the court's decision, "We are disappointed in the court's ruling and believe we have strong grounds for an appeal, which we will pursue."
Although the $100 million verdict currently stands, the parties filed numerous motions for sanctions due to discovery and other misconduct, and these motions will be taken up by the court in the coming weeks.
Grant Thornton representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
Yung is represented by Kevin Murphy with Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP.
Grant Thornton is represented by Sheryl G. Snyder and Theresa A. Canady of Frost Brown Todd LLC.
The case is Yung et al. v. Grant Thornton LLP et al., case number 07-CI-2647, in the Kenton County Circuit Court, Fourth Division, Commonwealth of Kentucky.
http://www.law360.com/articles/489340/grant-thornton-must-pay-100m-in-tax-shelter-fraud-case
Last edited:
A mature and measured response. If only the rabid WP dogs were as level headed as you. I have added to your points.
News item no. 1 on “respected” firm at this link post #42: http://www.singsupplies.com/showthr...-s-financial-statements&p=1790234#post1790234
News item no. 2 on “respected” firm at post #67 of this thread.
News item no. 3 on “respected” firm here:
Grant Thornton has been accused of maliciously misleading the UK’s anti-fraud prosecutor and potentially perverting the course of justice in explosive court documents filed as part of a high-profile damages claim brought by Vincent Tchenguiz against the Serious Fraud Office.
In a series of letters, seen by the Financial Times, lawyers for Mr Tchenguiz catalogue extensive allegations against the accountancy firm, including possible “criminal wrongdoing” and providing “misleading information” that triggered the arrests of the property tycoon and his brother Robert in March 2011 at their Mayfair homes.
The accusations are the latest twist in a two-and-a-half year legal drama that has left the SFO nursing its already battered reputation as it tries to defend a £300m damages claim – the largest in its 26-year history – and which now looks certain to embroil Grant Thornton in a separate action that Mr Tchenguiz is planning to file.
In the first of four letters, dated March 2012, Mr Tchenguiz’s lawyers state that “many of the factually inaccurate criminal allegations made against Vincent Tchenguiz by the SFO . . . must have emanated from GT”. The 28-page epistle goes on to accuse the accountant of “operating with a clear conflict of interest”.
The issue of Grant Thornton’s potential conflicts of interest has come under sustained inquiry by the Tchenguizs’ lawyers, both in court hearings during the past two years and in the letters.
The investigation into the brothers centred on their role in the 2008 collapse of Kaupthing, the Icelandic bank at the heart of the country’s financial crisis. However, as the case against them foundered last year, it emerged that Grant Thornton, upon whose information the SFO had relied heavily, was not only the receiver of Kaupthing, but was simultaneously locked in a £2bn civil litigation against the brothers.
The most recent letter accuses Grant Thornton of putting “its interests in earning fees and generating profits above all other professional, ethical and legal considerations”, before adding: “[Grant Thornton’s] conduct has repeatedly crossed the line from proper ethical practice into areas of ethical, civil and potentially criminal wrongdoing”.
Grant Thornton said it was restricted in its response to the FT owing to confidentiality obligations, but that it was not an adviser to the SFO and had “acted appropriately, and in accordance with its professional responsibilities and legal obligations throughout”. It added: “The fact that we are unable to provide any comment, or respond to any specifics, should not be taken to mean that we accept any allegations that may have been made.”
Questions also arise on the SFO’s seeming over-reliance on Grant Thornton, not only in the Tchenguiz matter but also in other flawed investigations. The letters point out that Grant Thornton assisted the agency in its inquiries into the UK operations of Bernard Madoff, the convicted Ponzi scammer; Dynamic Decisions ; and Weavering Capital. The SFO initially dropped all of these investigations.
David Green, the new director of the agency, reopened its examination of Weavering last year and has charged Magnus Peterson, the collapsed hedge fund’s founder, with fraud. Mr Peterson denies wrongdoing and awaits trial.
The SFO declined to comment, citing current legal proceedings. Mr Green has, however, previously stated his intention to sharpen up the agency’s processes, including the review of third-party reports.
Last Friday, the court demanded that senior Grant Thornton employees hand over internal company reports that the SFO used as the basis for its investigation into the Tchenguizs.
The SFO has always maintained that Grant Thornton provided correct information in reports it made about the relationship between Kaupthing and the Tchenguizs, but that the agency’s staff repeatedly misinterpreted it. However, relations between the two parties have become frayed, and this month Grant Thornton employees threatened legal action against the SFO if it used copies it had made of the reports.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b96aa256-f775-11e2-a618-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tN8k72NZ
Last edited:
Even MND just admitted that 9 and not 13 were not related to handover. In the first place they tried to fault WP AHPETC on all 13. Then now it's 9, but fell silent on assisting AHPETC on the 4 matters. One of the 9 was the sinking fund, which AHPETC admitted was an oversight.
Possible. So, it's no longer "missing"?
"Details of project management to related party" (if the related party refers to FMSS) is not the same as "appointment of FMSS", "appointment of MA without tender", "conflict of interest in appointing MA", "appointment of MA whose director is GM of TC" etc. There are so many ways to write to point to this, rather than "details of project management". How that is interpreted to a conflict of interest subject is beyond me. BTW in 2011 AHPETC appointed FMSS without a tender due to the urgency but also carried out a special audit relating to the appointment. One auditor is unlikely to challenge another in the same industry relating to the appointment itself.
No need to tell me what to do or how to think. I said earlier that AHPETC should have obtained the assistance of a financial consultant after taking over Aljunied. Some mistakes in the accounts (the 9 issues) was clearly miscategorisation and misparking of money. A point none from PAP or anti-WP opposition even brought up. That is objective criticism.
Last edited:
If one cannot reconcile own cash and bank records with that of bank statements, and not clear about debtors and creditors............even a surplus of $1000000000000million is not worth anything.:(
It's becoming obvious you've never been in a position to manage large project or budgets and finances. It's not as simple as U think. If it was as simple as u put it, the auditors would have signed off a long time ago. FYI if auditors don't sign off they don't get paid.
As for tender or whatever, I never mentioned a word of it nor did MND. However the Auditors did mention that TC had outsource work that were done by other companies own by TC agent Owners. Translation, same issue as AIM. Maybe there is nothing wrong going on, same with the case of AIM, but there is conflict of interest.
It's pointless to continue since U simply waive off anything remotely negative about the case and go as far as to think an auditor refusing to sign off an audit for more than 6 mths is trival.
As for tender or whatever, I never mentioned a word of it nor did MND. However the Auditors did mention that TC had outsource work that were done by other companies own by TC agent Owners. Translation, same issue as AIM. Maybe there is nothing wrong going on, same with the case of AIM, but there is conflict of interest.
It's pointless to continue since U simply waive off anything remotely negative about the case and go as far as to think an auditor refusing to sign off an audit for more than 6 mths is trival.
Last edited:
Don't bother with these twits. They don't debate issues they just recite the same old "WP good PAP bad" mantra in different forms ad nauseum till they've brainwashed themselves.
Just say your piece and move on. You don't need to rebut every response as the quality of your posts will stand the test of time no matter how many ridiculous retorts are thrown your way.
Don't bother with these PAPIBs. They don't debate issues they just recite the same old "PAP good OPPO bad" mantra in different forms ad nauseum cos they are paid to do so.
Just say your piece and move on. You don't need to rebut every response as the quality of your posts will stand the test of time no matter how many ridiculous retorts are thrown your way.
Nonsense. If auditors operate in such a way that they get paid if they see good accounts and not paid if they don't, no one in the world will want to be this industry because when I take a job, I will never know how the accounts is like.
When I first asked you what is the difference between PAP and WP appointments, you said one passed the audit, one did not. Here, you are saying that for FMSS and AIM, both are right but there is a conflict of interest. PAP town councils had AIM running their system since 1984, how did they pass the audit? You need to be more coherent.
To add, what the auditor wanted was the details, not that these projects are in conflict. Why AHPETC could not furnish that, I do not know. If it is the right thing to do, then AHPETC should carry it out. That's it.
We are all entitled to our views, but you are saying here that my views are valid only if I do not express anything negative against the views you share. I leave it to forummers to judge. BTW I never said refusing to sign an audit is not serious. I find that absurd in the first place. It's like asking me if I find a frog with horns interesting; I would not reply "yes" or "no".
Last edited:
On business trip to Bekasi Indonesia, I didnt find out about the case until much later
Dude your hallucination problem is serious. There were 13 points as to why the auditors refuse to sign off. 1 of which was the unaccounted for 20M(it could be a case of someone misplacing the invoice or the entire lift that was suppose to be upgraded), one of the reason was the extra 1.something million that was came up from the handover. One of the reason was the conflict of interest of the TC agent owner. If you only believe in Sylvia Lim's weak excuse which convinently left out all but one, there is no point in continuing this debate. I'll leave U off with this
Seriously, if 20 million disappeared as you so claimed, the auditors would have already made a police report, lest they get caught up when WP is taken to task. If you are insistent that 20 million disappeared mysteriously under their watch, I recommend you make a police report as this is a very serious misuse of town council funds.
Use your brain la, the auditors don't sign off if the figures don't tally. If records show 20 million were spent and they only have receipts for 19.9999 million. They have the right to not sign off as there is a shortfall of $100 and they cannot prove that this $100 was spent upgrading the lifts. Please don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
This is clearly another go at fixing the opposition. Government lost a GRC for the first time in history, they are reeling in shock and finding ways to prevent WP from gaining more ground. So they turn to the PAP rulebook's rule no.6, if threatened by the opposition, dig up their dirty secrets and use the state-owned press to create a big hoo-haa to undermine them. If that fails, there is always rule no.7: If unable to find dirty secrets, make something up and nitpick on the smallest thing you can find, it can be something as mundane as birdshit on the roof, always make use of all state-owned apparatuses such as the police force, mainstream media, government bodies or even grassroot supporters to give legitimacy to your complaints.
I hope PAP keeps up this momentum and continual try to bullshit the people and assassinate the character of WP. Wait 2016, you see WP lose more support or PAP lose more support lo.
Good job, please stir up more shit, it is helping the opposition cause. The more you try to explain, the more people realise this is just another sad attempt by PAP to fix the opposition. Thank you Char_Azn, please do not go back to writing your lameshit travelogues or begging for points. I much prefer you to do what you do best, which is to regurgitate the Shit Times and exclaim it as the gospel truth. It makes it so much more unbelievable.
The PAP does not need to fix the opposition. The performance of the opposition is so pathetic that they need no help fixing themselves and digging their own grave.
I fully agree and you know what ... ... the chief executive of Grant Thornton also agrees. This is what he was quoted by The Standard, a respected newspaper in Hong Kong, as having said:
The chief executive of the world's fifth largest audit firm, Grant Thornton International, Nusbaum said he was personally invited by executives [not in Hong Kong] to help fabricate numbers on company's balance sheets.
"Under such circumstances, the only thing an auditor could do is resign immediately," he told The Standard.
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_...4&sid=40177053&con_type=1&d_str=20130819&fc=1
The fact that that a "respected" firm like Grant Thornton did not resign and took pains to indicate that gaps in information are not the fault of current management albeit in ambiguous language so as not to in turn expose itself to defamation suits and what not by the previous management SPEAKS VOLUMES.
Last edited:
The PAP can carry on fixing the Opposition. The performance of the PAP is so pathetic that the only way for them the savage the situation is to put the Opposition down by creating mountains out of molehills.
Similar threads
