Supreme Court to WP: Time to carry HDB's bidding

blueRad

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Jan 1, 2016
Messages
656
Points
18
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/court-orders-ahtc-to/2447430.html

SINGAPORE: The Supreme Court has ordered the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) to nominate a "Big 4" accounting firm, after their latest nomination was rejected by by the Housing and Development Board of Singapore (HDB) as they were "not suitably qualified".

In court on Friday (Jan 22), lawyer Peter Low, who is representing AHTC, said that they were recommending Mr Calvin Teo, Mr Terence Ng and Mr Sarjit Singh from Ardent Accounting to undertake the work required.

Mr Low said Mr Teo and Mr Ng were both chartered accountants, have forensic experience in accounting and litigation support, have acted as expert witnesses, are members of Chartered Certified Accountants and also have law degrees.

However, HDB lawyer Aurill Kam said that the accountants did not have relevant expertise. Ms Kam also mentioned that a third accountant - Mr Sarjit Singh - was also put forth at 11pm on Thursday night and that there was little time to consider his qualifications. Mr Singh was not brought up earlier by Mr Low.

Ms Kam also requested that the accountants nominated be subject to the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority's (ACRA) Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) - a regulatory instrument in promoting audit quality – which the first two accountants are not subject to.

She said that the PMP results still remain relevant as HDB's request for a public accountant who can sign off on statutory audits is reasonable.

Ms Kam also reiterated the HDB's request to nominate a major firm, saying that there was too little time to do due diligence on the newly-nominated accountants.

However, Mr Low said that the request was neither relevant nor necessary, adding that WP felt that since it was up to them to choose an accountant, there was no need to choose one from the big four accounting firms.
 
WP cannot cover anymore, leave it to the Forensic Auditors
means End times for them!
 
12496276_956664411056234_1442392097637619796_o.jpg
 
The ongoing saga on AHTC’s finances made headlines again this week.

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal, Singapore’s highest court, made scathing comments about AHTC’s recent conduct.

Here is what happened -

- In a judgment last year, the Court directed the appointment of independent accountants to fix the various breaches and lapses in the Town Council’s accounts.

- AHTC’s initial choice was a sole proprietorship called Business Assurance (“BA”), run by Mr Alex Chai (“Chai”).

- The Town Council told the Court that BA was amply qualified for the job, and claimed that Chai had “extensive experience”.

- But, when the Court ordered the Town Council to provide further information about BA’s expertise and experience, BA withdrew its nomination the very next day.

- AHTC then tried to nominate a new candidate, MRI Moores Rowland (“MRI”).

- But, when similar questions were asked about MRI’s expertise and experience, the firm followed suit, and again withdrew from nomination.

This is a disturbing pattern of conduct.

The Town Council assured the Court that BA and MRI were suitable candidates. But both firms promptly withdrew, when basic questions were asked.

Why were they so afraid to answer these questions? What were they trying to hide?

The Court expressed concern “that all facts may not have been provided in a candid manner”.

- Mr Pritam Singh told the Court, on more than one occasion, that BA’s withdrawal was due to “intense media scrutiny”.

- But the Court said that this “could only be half the story”.

- The other half, which Mr Singh did not disclose? Mr Chai wanted to keep private his grading in a regulatory Practice Monitoring Programme (“PMP”) review conducted by ACRA.

- The Town Council also says that MRI withdrew on 17 January - the day before Mr Singh’s latest two affidavits were filed.

- But Mr Singh’s affidavits made no mention of MRI’s withdrawal. And continued to suggest that MRI was still being put forward for nomination.

- Based on this timeline, the Court said that Mr Singh’s non-disclosure was “troubling”.

Mr Singh lied, and tried to mislead the Court, by suppressing critical information. This, despite the fact that he is a qualified lawyer, and officer of the Court.

Appalling conduct, by any count.

Yet, AHTC’s lawyer has the gall to say that this is “water under the bridge”.

Is this what the Worker’s Party means by transparency and accountability?
 
I hope one of the Big 4 accounting firm will uncover all the dirt in the Aljunied Town Council's books. Time for WP MPs to run road like Phey Yew Kok years ago?
 
Very shady and evasive. Something stinks in here eh?
 
I hope one of the Big 4 accounting firm will uncover all the dirt in the Aljunied Town Council's books. Time for WP MPs to run road like Phey Yew Kok years ago?

They brought in a forensic auditor and a M&A expert to audit and came out with NOTHING. What a waste of our tax dollars!
 
The ongoing saga on AHTC’s finances made headlines again this week.

On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal, Singapore’s highest court, made scathing comments about AHTC’s recent conduct.

Here is what happened -

- In a judgment last year, the Court directed the appointment of independent accountants to fix the various breaches and lapses in the Town Council’s accounts.

- AHTC’s initial choice was a sole proprietorship called Business Assurance (“BA”), run by Mr Alex Chai (“Chai”).

- The Town Council told the Court that BA was amply qualified for the job, and claimed that Chai had “extensive experience”.

- But, when the Court ordered the Town Council to provide further information about BA’s expertise and experience, BA withdrew its nomination the very next day.

- AHTC then tried to nominate a new candidate, MRI Moores Rowland (“MRI”).

- But, when similar questions were asked about MRI’s expertise and experience, the firm followed suit, and again withdrew from nomination.

This is a disturbing pattern of conduct.

The Town Council assured the Court that BA and MRI were suitable candidates. But both firms promptly withdrew, when basic questions were asked.

Why were they so afraid to answer these questions? What were they trying to hide?

The Court expressed concern “that all facts may not have been provided in a candid manner”.

- Mr Pritam Singh told the Court, on more than one occasion, that BA’s withdrawal was due to “intense media scrutiny”.

- But the Court said that this “could only be half the story”.

- The other half, which Mr Singh did not disclose? Mr Chai wanted to keep private his grading in a regulatory Practice Monitoring Programme (“PMP”) review conducted by ACRA.

- The Town Council also says that MRI withdrew on 17 January - the day before Mr Singh’s latest two affidavits were filed.

- But Mr Singh’s affidavits made no mention of MRI’s withdrawal. And continued to suggest that MRI was still being put forward for nomination.

- Based on this timeline, the Court said that Mr Singh’s non-disclosure was “troubling”.

Mr Singh lied, and tried to mislead the Court, by suppressing critical information. This, despite the fact that he is a qualified lawyer, and officer of the Court.

Appalling conduct, by any count.

Yet, AHTC’s lawyer has the gall to say that this is “water under the bridge”.

Is this what the Worker’s Party means by transparency and accountability?

A kangaroo court ...doing the bidding of the PAP. When the revolution starts, the judges should all rounded up and make to confess their crimes against sinkees. Let the revolution begin.
 
They brought in a forensic auditor and a M&A expert to audit and came out with NOTHING. What a waste of our tax dollars!

This saga proves that it doesn't pay to be an opposition in Singapore. The lightning will try all means to discredit you once they sense you are a threat, and the electorate doesn't support you especially when you need their votes most to counter the bullying by the whites.

Any black done by the white will still be white. And any white done by the black will still be black. There is no electoral justice in this shit hole populated by lazy, dumb and daft sinkies. I give up. And so should everyone.
 
Back
Top