WP Low, Lim, Singh, AHTC & Their Suspiciously Strenuous Objections to the "Big Four" Accountants

[winnipegjets]

…Continuing from Msg 1, 12 & 20

Question: If they have nothing to fear and nothing to hide, why did the triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress apply to the CoA to limit the appointed accountant’s review to “only” lapses identified by the AGO? Wouldn’t any other lapses uncovered and identified be extremely helpful to residents of AHTC and be of enormous help to the triumvirate in their running of AHTC? By applying for such limits and constraints to be placed on the appointed accountant, what exactly were the triumvirate fearful of and/or trying to hide from the residents of AHTC and the public? Could whatever they feared being further uncovered in any way be due to Shameless Low's business interests and theirs as well as FMSS' and FMSIS' conflicted interests vis-a-vis Shameless Low's business interests?

To be continued...

There was nothing to fear. One plausible reason is to not let the PAP snoop around. Would the PAP TC let pro-WP accounting firms (if there are any) to examine their books?

Wasn't the expensive audit supposed to uncover everything? So, the PWC audit didn't do a good job? Just to remind you ...those lapses that

 

[PTADER]

…Continuing from Msgs 1, 12, 20 & 31

By this time (8 Jan 2016), Business Assurance had pulled out citing “intense media scrutiny”. Instead of seizing the opportunity to agree to one of HDB’s Big Four proposal, AHTC very quickly nominated yet another kuching kurap company, MRI Moores Rowland (MRI). Like BA, MRI had only one public accountant. Like BA, it too pulled out; nine days later on Sunday, 17 January 2016.

The triumvirate tried, but failed to prevent HDB from presenting evidence on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 to show that individuals in both these two AHTC’s selected kuching kurap companies had failed their Practice Monitoring Programme*.

Two days (Monday, 18 January 2016) before the CoA hearing (Wednesday, 20 January 2016), Turbanless Tigress had submitted two affidavits which failed to mention that MRI had pulled out a day earlier on Sunday 17th. Turbanless Tigress’s signed and submitted affidavits also stated that MRI Moores Rowland “had not” been selected for a PMP review. This was blatantly untrue. Asked in court, this “had not been selected for a PMP review” in Turbanless Tigress’ affidavit/s now became a I-dunno-shrug - “did not know and was not sure if AHTC had the answer” by AHTC’s counsel, notwithstanding HDB’s evidence.

Question: Why did the triumvirate not inform the Court of Appeal that MRI had pulled out but instead submitted two affidavits indicating the opposite? What were they trying to hide from the CoA?

Question: Why did the transparent-less triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress try to prevent HDB from submitting evidence to show that individuals in AHTC’s two nominated accountants had failed their PMP*? Was this because of Turbanless Tigress’ false affidavit which stated that MRI Moores Rowland had not been selected for a PMP review? Or was it to prevent AHTC’s residents and the public from confirming what what they already knew, or the painfully obvious which had started to dawn on them, i.e., that the triumvirate were dishonest and hopelessly incompetent to the extent that they could not even be relied upon to do something as being truthful in an affidavit, and in carrying out something as simple and as basic as checking the credentials of the accountants that they themselves wish to nominate?

*Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) - the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority carries out inspections of public accounting firms and accountants to ensure compliance with standards and procedures under the PMP.

To be continued...

 

[winnipegjets]

…Continuing from Msgs 1, 12, 20 & 31

By this time (8 Jan 2016), Business Assurance had pulled out citing “intense media scrutiny”. Instead of seizing the opportunity to agree to one of HDB’s Big Four proposal, AHTC very quickly nominated yet another kuching kurap company, MRI Moores Rowland (MRI). Like BA, MRI had only one public accountant. Like BA, it too pulled out; nine days later on Sunday, 17 January 2016.

The triumvirate tried, but failed to prevent HDB from presenting evidence on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 to show that individuals in both these two AHTC’s selected kuching kurap companies had failed their Practice Monitoring Programme*.

Two days (Monday, 18 January 2016) before the CoA hearing (Wednesday, 20 January 2016), Turbanless Tigress had submitted two affidavits which failed to mention that MRI had pulled out a day earlier on Sunday 17th. Turbanless Tigress’s signed and submitted affidavits also stated that MRI Moores Rowland “had not” been selected for a PMP review. This was blatantly untrue. Asked in court, this “had not been selected for a PMP review” in Turbanless Tigress’ affidavit/s now became a I-dunno-shrug - “did not know and was not sure if AHTC had the answer” by AHTC’s counsel, notwithstanding HDB’s evidence.

Question: Why did the triumvirate not inform the Court of Appeal that MRI had pulled out but instead submitted two affidavits indicating the opposite? What were they trying to hide from the CoA?

Question: Why did the transparent-less triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress try to prevent HDB from submitting evidence to show that individuals in AHTC’s two nominated accountants had failed their PMP*? Was this because of Turbanless Tigress’ false affidavit which stated that MRI Moores Rowland had not been selected for a PMP review? Or was it to prevent AHTC’s residents and the public from confirming what what they already knew, or the painfully obvious which had started to dawn on them, i.e., that the triumvirate were dishonest and hopelessly incompetent to the extent that they could not even be relied upon to do something as being truthful in an affidavit, and in carrying out something as simple and as basic as checking the credentials of the accountants that they themselves wish to nominate?

*Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) - the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority carries out inspections of public accounting firms and accountants to ensure compliance with standards and procedures under the PMP.

To be continued...

You take slanted info, of course it looks bad on WP. Give us some balance lah.

 

[winnipegjets]

…Continuing from Msgs 1, 12, 20 & 31

By this time (8 Jan 2016), Business Assurance had pulled out citing “intense media scrutiny”. Instead of seizing the opportunity to agree to one of HDB’s Big Four proposal, AHTC very quickly nominated yet another kuching kurap company, MRI Moores Rowland (MRI). Like BA, MRI had only one public accountant. Like BA, it too pulled out; nine days later on Sunday, 17 January 2016.

The triumvirate tried, but failed to prevent HDB from presenting evidence on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 to show that individuals in both these two AHTC’s selected kuching kurap companies had failed their Practice Monitoring Programme*.

Two days (Monday, 18 January 2016) before the CoA hearing (Wednesday, 20 January 2016), Turbanless Tigress had submitted two affidavits which failed to mention that MRI had pulled out a day earlier on Sunday 17th. Turbanless Tigress’s signed and submitted affidavits also stated that MRI Moores Rowland “had not” been selected for a PMP review. This was blatantly untrue. Asked in court, this “had not been selected for a PMP review” in Turbanless Tigress’ affidavit/s now became a I-dunno-shrug - “did not know and was not sure if AHTC had the answer” by AHTC’s counsel, notwithstanding HDB’s evidence.

Question: Why did the triumvirate not inform the Court of Appeal that MRI had pulled out but instead submitted two affidavits indicating the opposite? What were they trying to hide from the CoA?

Question: Why did the transparent-less triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress try to prevent HDB from submitting evidence to show that individuals in AHTC’s two nominated accountants had failed their PMP*? Was this because of Turbanless Tigress’ false affidavit which stated that MRI Moores Rowland had not been selected for a PMP review? Or was it to prevent AHTC’s residents and the public from confirming what what they already knew, or the painfully obvious which had started to dawn on them, i.e., that the triumvirate were dishonest and hopelessly incompetent to the extent that they could not even be relied upon to do something as being truthful in an affidavit, and in carrying out something as simple and as basic as checking the credentials of the accountants that they themselves wish to nominate?

*Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) - the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority carries out inspections of public accounting firms and accountants to ensure compliance with standards and procedures under the PMP.

To be continued...

If WP trio submitted false affidavits, they can be charged. Why government no charge?

 

[Hypocrite-The]

I wonder why pap soo quiet about this..



Pasir Ris-Punggol resident asks MPs if town council funds were used to engage Davinder Singh to sue WP MPs
By
Jewel Stolarchuk
-
November 6, 2018
18019
Share on Facebook
Tweet on Twitter

• 
  

A Pasir Ris-Punggol resident has asked her Members of Parliament (MPs) whether any town council funds were used to engage top lawyer Davinder Singh to represent the town council in their lawsuit against the three Workers’ Party (WP) MPs Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh.
The three WP MPs have clarified that they have paid for their legal representatives out of their own pocket and out of the funds that the public have donated to them. Low, Lim and Singh added that they have not used any town council funds or even party funds for the trial costs.
The ruling party parliamentarians running Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC), however, have allegedly remained silent over whether they have used town council funds to hire senior counsel at top law firm Drew & Napier and former PAP MP Davinder Singh to represent their town council in the trial.
PRPTC is run by PAP MPs Teo Chee Hean (Deputy Prime Minister), Ng Chee Meng (Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office), Janil Puthucheary, Sun Xueling, Teo Ser Luck, and Zainal Sapari.


Sharing a screenshot of the email allegedly sent to PRPTC by a friend, People’s Power Party member Augustine Lee asked whether the town council can use funds as they please without informing residents, if it indeed used town council funds to hire Davinder Singh.
Revealing that PRPTC did not reply his friend for two weeks and that they only said that they cannot comment due to the ongoing trial, Lee further asked whether the town council is required to procure three quotations before engaging Singh and whether the town council breached any rules, if it indeed used town council funds to engage Singh:

“My friend wrote to her town council PRPTC to ask if any funds are used for the lawsuit as they have engaged one of the most expensive lawyer. They did not reply to her emails after 2 weeks. After repeating calling, they said on the phone that they will not reply when the court case is ongoing.
1. Can the TC choose to spend big amount on whatever non estate expenses depending on their own wishes without informing the residents?
2. Can the TC withhold information on big expenses from their residents?
3. Did the TC gather 3 quotations before deciding on which lawyer to choose?
4. Did the TC breach any TC rules and regulations?
Please help to share as we need more accountability in handling of residents money.”​

In the email, the resident refers to news that PRPTC has engaged Singh to represent it against the three WP MPs as she asked:
“I would like to know whether any of our town council’s money is used for the legal fees. If the council’s money is used, may I know how much is paid and what is the estimation of the entire legal fees?”


The resident’s email to PRPTC comes as the three WP MPs launched a fundraising appeal for help to fight the lawsuits they have been slapped with. The MPs said that they had paid for the costs of the trial out of pocket before the fundraising appeal and that they have not used town council or party funds.

Donations poured in and the MPs closed the appeal just over three days later. The MPs have been faithfully updating the public in how they have paid their lawyers the bulk of the $1.1 million they raised.





My friend wrote to her town council PRPTC to ask if any funds are used for the lawsuit as they have engaged one of the most expensive lawyer. They did not reply to her emails after 2 weeks. After repeating calling, they said on the phone that they will not reply when the court case is ongoing.
1. Can the TC choose to spend big amount on whatever non estate expenses depending on their own wishes without informing the residents?
2. Can the TC withhold information on big expenses from their residents?
3. Did the TC gather 3 quotations before deciding on which lawyer to choose?
4. Did the TC breach any TC rules and regulations?
Please help to share as we need more accountability in handling of residents money.

http://theindependent.sg/pasir-ris-...-used-to-engage-davinder-singh-to-sue-wp-mps/

 

[PTADER]

I wonder why pap soo quiet about this../

You should be asking why the ordinary men and women in the streets, residents, activists and other oppositionists are raising such questions when the WP triumvirate are "soo quiet" and are not using the "platform" they have in Parliament to ask this (and other questions) especially when Lying Lim had bragged:

“But we are in Parliament, they [other oppositionists] are not. We will make use of the platform we have.” WP Chairman Sylvia Lim's declaration to Lianhe Zaobao on 06 May 2012​

​

The triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress seem terrified of saying anything unless they are fondling and licking the PAP's testicles, or when they are making public declarations about the PAP's "competence", giving "credit" to the PAP, or declaring that they want to form a "coalition government" with the PAP:

"I think we have a competent Government... we need to allow time for the Government to work, and I hope, eventually, the policies will take effect on the ground, people's lives will be improved and we have a better Singapore." Low Thia Khiang in "By-election win not sign of trend for GE: Low", 147th Prostitute Press 28 January 2013​

​

“You have to give credit where credit is due,” she said.“I think the PAP is very proactive in macro-economic issues ​

and finding niches to make Singapore globally relevant and competitive." WP Sylvia Lim, "Lim in Opposition​

Praising Singapore's Economy Seeks Change", Bloomberg, 03 October 2012​

​

"Perhaps I may have overreached myself by saying we need to get 44. It may be the case in the future that the PAP only wins 30 seats and they have to form a coalition government, and realise there is only a finite number of individual parties they want to work with. Let's not rule out the prospects of the PAP being forced into coalition politics. And coalition governments don't mean things don't happen... (there) could be unity government... There is a huge political space there for us to actually think about, insofar as how politics in Singapore... is going forward." "WP clarification comes one day after remarks at IPS forum on party renewal," 147th Prostitute Press, 10 July 2011​

​

I will leave it to the WP gongkias and cultists like the one below to try to put two-and-two together and figure out why the triumvirate are behaving the way they do. Here's a clue for the WP gongkais and cultists: Follow the money trail.

 

[PTADER]

So you are very proud of yourself in exposing what you were once privy to?

Yes I am. Incredibly so in fact.

Tan Cheng Bock was once in PAP do you see him running down the party the way you do?

I am not interested in "whataboutery" or "whataboutism". See "Who is the forum expert in Whataboutery?"

Where's your principle?

Judging from your twisted desire to keep hopeless incompetence, wrongdoings, likely criminal conduct, abuse and misuse of public funds and residents money, etc under wraps and tight secrecy, you should instead be asking yourself: "Where are my principles?"

BTW, more on the way. If there is nothing to hide, there should be nothing to fear. So standby for more "exposure".

 

[winnipegjets]

You should be asking why the ordinary men and women in the streets, residents, activists and other oppositionists are raising such questions when the WP triumvirate are "soo quiet" and are not using the "platform" they have in Parliament to ask this (and other questions) especially when Lying Lim had bragged:

“But we are in Parliament, they [other oppositionists] are not. We will make use of the platform we have.” WP Chairman Sylvia Lim's declaration to Lianhe Zaobao on 06 May 2012​

​

The triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress seem terrified of saying anything unless they are fondling and licking the PAP's testicles, or when they are making public declarations about the PAP's "competence", giving "credit" to the PAP, or declaring that they want to form a "coalition government" with the PAP:

"I think we have a competent Government... we need to allow time for the Government to work, and I hope, eventually, the policies will take effect on the ground, people's lives will be improved and we have a better Singapore." Low Thia Khiang in "By-election win not sign of trend for GE: Low", 147th Prostitute Press 28 January 2013​

​

“You have to give credit where credit is due,” she said.“I think the PAP is very proactive in macro-economic issues ​

and finding niches to make Singapore globally relevant and competitive." WP Sylvia Lim, "Lim in Opposition​

Praising Singapore's Economy Seeks Change", Bloomberg, 03 October 2012​

​

"Perhaps I may have overreached myself by saying we need to get 44. It may be the case in the future that the PAP only wins 30 seats and they have to form a coalition government, and realise there is only a finite number of individual parties they want to work with. Let's not rule out the prospects of the PAP being forced into coalition politics. And coalition governments don't mean things don't happen... (there) could be unity government... There is a huge political space there for us to actually think about, insofar as how politics in Singapore... is going forward." "WP clarification comes one day after remarks at IPS forum on party renewal," 147th Prostitute Press, 10 July 2011​

​

I will leave it to the WP gongkias and cultists like the one below to try to put two-and-two together and figure out why the triumvirate are behaving the way they do. Here's a clue for the WP gongkais and cultists: Follow the money trail.

Parliament is a joke. Questions have to be submitted weeks ahead of time. And not all questions will be answered. The PAP decides what they wish to answer and who can speak. That is a fact.

 

[tyudm]

You are a dangerous guy. Once thing doesn't turn out the way you expected you have no qualms in throwing even you best friend under the bus.

 

[winnipegjets]

Yes I am. Incredibly so in fact.



I am not interested in "whataboutery" or "whataboutism". See "Who is the forum expert in Whataboutery?"



Judging from your twisted desire to keep hopeless incompetence, wrongdoings, likely criminal conduct, abuse and misuse of public funds and residents money, etc under wraps and tight secrecy, you should instead be asking yourself: "Where are my principles?"

BTW, more on the way. If there is nothing to hide, there should be nothing to fear. So standby for more "exposure".

In the spirit of transparency, spill all beans and let us decide the relevancy of those beans. You can continue with your vitriol against the WP but at least give fair minded people here the opportunity to see the beans before you cook it your way.

 

[PTADER]

In the spirit of transparency, spill all beans and let us decide the relevancy of those beans. You can continue with your vitriol against the WP but at least give fair minded people here the opportunity to see the beans before you cook it your way.

What "vitriol"??? If they are false, there is zero "vitriol". Also, it's not my job as someone opposed to the fake opposition that the Wayang Party is, and someone opposed to their incompetence, dishonesty and abuse and misuse of public funds, to do what the triumvirate has lovingly done for the PAP - sucking up to them (why so? - remove your blindfold and start connecting the dots).

But I will humour you with just three, from three generations of PAP Prime Minsters and a Prime Minister in-waiting (there's nothing preventing you from doing this yourself). So here's some "balance":

​

"Balance" from Lee Kuan Yew​

​

"I [Lee Kuan Yew] find Chiam See Tong, Low Thia Khiang and Steve Chia friendly and agreeable." Lee Kuan Yew, "This is who I am", 147th Prostitute Press, 14 September 2003"​

​

"Balance" from Lee Hsien Loong​

​

"Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has commended Workers' Party (WP) secretary-general Low Thia Khiang for a speech he made earlier this week during the Budget debate. Mr Lee said on Saturday (March 3) that it was "cogent and balanced, firmly based on Singapore's interests and perspectives", as he shared the video of Mr Low's speech on Facebook [...] "But I [Lee Hsien Loong] am sharing Mr Low's speech to highlight and commend the rest of it, which could have been delivered by a PAP MP." PM Lee commends Low Thia Khiang for "cogent and balanced" speech on China", 147th Prostitute Press, 03 March 2018​

"Balance" from Chan Chun Sing​

"At this point, in a rare move, he [Chan Chun Sing] placed on record the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) leaders' appreciation for Mr Low, 61, who led the Workers' Party (WP) for 17 years as its secretary-general until last month when he handed over the reins to Mr Pritam Singh." Chan Chun Sing, " Minister thanks opposition veteran Low Thia Khiang", 147th Protitute Press, 15 May 2018​

 

[Kopi0Kosong]

笑面虎

 

[PTADER]

I want to take a break today from "exposing" the triumvirate and WP. Instead, I thought I should show the human side of the triumvirate, particularly the Honourable Mr Low Thia Khiang when he displays his keen sense of humour and is at his comical best. So here's an example of the Honourable Mr Low Thia Khiang's surreal sense of humour:

"Opposition MPs would be able to check on how well the country's finances are managed and prevent abuses by corrupt government officials, said Mr Low Thia Khiang, the Workers' Party candidate for Hougang.​

​

Urging voters to support the opposition, he said at a WP rally in Hougang last night that no one - not even those in the People's Action Party - was incorruptible "in the face of wealth and power".​

​

Nothing could guarantee that "a group of ambitious men" within the PAP would not swindle Singaporeans of their hard-earned money, he said. ​

​

In his view, the opposition's watch-dog role was necessary because the Government's investments were made up of the country's reserves, which were generated by Singaporeans.​

​

It was also needed because the Government now controlled a large segment of the economy and had a "complex maze of investment structure". "Opposition 'can keep an eye on S'pore's finances', 147th Prostitute Press, 30 August 1991​

 

[PTADER]

笑面虎

Thank you. It's very apt. The guy in black reminds me of JBJ; the smiling tiger in white with that sharp dagger - the Honourable Mr Low Thia Khiang.

"The WP under Low Thia Khiang must take this opportunity, having got rid of Jeyaratnam, to begin the​

process of getting the WP to First World standards." "Singapore is First World and so is its Government:MM", 147th Prostitute​

Press ("Today" Division), 26 April 2006​

 

[Bad New Brown]

笑面虎

Bro, you are a talent and you are absolutely right

In this society, those people that are close to us are often our enemies and wanted to harm us.

While our true friends are often faraway from us

 

[PTADER]

You are a dangerous guy. Once thing doesn't turn out the way you expected you have no qualms in throwing even you best friend under the bus.

It certainly didn't turn out the way I expected.

The triumvirate, leaders of a political party who are supposed to fight for transparency and the working class, have now been so engorged with collective assets and income streams to the tune of millions which they choose to hide from the public as they shamelessly ask for "donations" from them, including from gullible, simple-minded, low-income HDB dwelling folks, to deal with problems arising out of their own dishonesty, conflicts of interests and hopeless incompetence.

If you think there's only one of me amongst the electorate who can see though the triumvirate's bullshit, or who is discerning enough, you are living in a seriously deluded fantasy world.

 

[Bonut]

It certainly didn't turn out the way I expected.

The triumvirate, leaders of a political party who are supposed to fight for transparency and the working class, have now been so engorged with collective assets and income streams to the tune of millions which they choose to hide from the public as they shamelessly ask for "donations" from them, including from gullible, simple-minded, low-income HDB dwelling folks, to deal with problems arising out of their own dishonesty, conflicts of interests and hopeless incompetence.

If you think there's only one of me amongst the electorate who can see though the triumvirate's bullshit, or who is discerning enough, you are living in a seriously deluded fantasy world.

WP also tiam tiam when Amos Rao was caught with his pants down.

 

[PTADER]

…Continuing from Msgs 1, 12, 20, 31 & 42

After the pullout by Business Assurance and MRO Moores Rowland, the triumvirate tried, yet again, at the CoA’s hearing on 22 January 2016, to appoint another virtually unknown kuching kurap accounting firm, Ardent. Very suspiciously, the Big Four, global professional services network which handle the vast majority of audits for public and private companies because of their considerable expertise and experience, including in forensic accounting, were toxic and anathema to the triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress.

By this time, the Court of Appeal appeared to have had enough of the triumvirate’s nonsense and objections. It directed AHTC to appoint one of the Big Four. Notwithstanding, the triumvirate stubbornly continued with their tedious and strenuous objections. They objected to PwC on the grounds that it was “involved” in the AGO’s special audit. They objected to Deloitte on the grounds that a partner in Deloitte was “involved” in grassroots work including having given a media interview on AHTC's accounts. When asked about the remaining two of the Big Four (KPMG and Ernst & Young), they were unable to cough out any “involved” excuses. Their ground for their strenuous objection to these two was that they should have the “right to choose” the accountant they wanted.

Question: Why was the Big Four (or the remaining two of the Big Four after their objections to two), such an anathema to the triumvirate? What expertise and experiences of these Big Four, which are the biggest and most reputable global professional services network in the world, were they exactly terrified of? Were they terrified of the Big Four’s considerable skills, expertise and experience (especially in “forensic accounting”) to investigate and uncover misdeeds, fraud and embezzlement? Surely, if the triumvirate of Shameless Low, Lying Lim and Turbanless Tigress have nothing to hide, they should then have nothing to fear. The converse holds true. If they are fearful if not terrified, it simply means that they have something, if not many things, to hide and which they wish to remain hidden and hope to remain uncovered.

Question: What exactly were/are the triumvirate hiding and hoping to remain hidden and uncovered?

Stay tuned to connect the dots.

To be continued...

 

[PTADER]

WP also tiam tiam when Amos Rao was caught with his pants down.

I am not at all surprised.

These dishonest WP crooks and unprincipled clowns don't stand for anything, anyone or any principles except when it comes to enriching themselves or protecting their sacred MP allowance. They engage in and peddle lies, cover ups, half-truths, etc. They are dishonest.

Beyond the wayang and theatrics at their rallies which fool a lot of starry-eyed gongkias, Shameless Low, Lying Lim, Turbanless Tigress plus the rest of the WP clowns will tiam tiam when it comes to anything else, even their own AIM issue where activists and other opposition parties were the ones raising their voices. In fact when you are down, not only will they not help you but they will kick you further in the teeth as Thum Ping Tjin learn very quickly when these clowns stated that he got his just deserts and deserved the "consequence" from the PAP, for standing up to the PAP

“As much as I agree PJ (Thum PingTjin) was singled out, he also singled out the PAP for special treatment in his representation. There was no way they were going to let that stand on the parliament record, unrebutted. ​

Singling out the PAP was PJ’s prerogative, consequences included.” Turbanless Tigress, September 2018​

​

​

.

 

[PTADER]

…Continuing from Msgs 1, 12, 20, 31, 42 & 58

On 20 January 2016, the Court of Appeal (CoA) stated that it would decide on the accountant the triumvirate had to appoint by Friday, 22 January 2016 if no decision was made. Instead of one of the Big Four, the triumvirate once again tried their luck. On the deadline, 22 January 2016, they announced their choice of Ardent to the CoA. This was another kuching kurap accounting firm, similar to the previous two kuching kurap firms that they had appointed, both of which had pulled out.

Have had enough, the CoA set a deadline of “within two weeks” (by Friday 05 February 2016) for AHTC to appoint one of the Big Four. It also set a deadline of 15 April 2016 for the triumvirate’s selected accountant (to be selected only from the Big Four) to submit its first monthly progressive report to HDB.

To be continued...