By Kenneth Jeyaretnam

The Auditor General’s Report for the financial year 2011/12. arrived in the President’s in- tray in July of this year and is now publicly available.   The  objective of the report is stated clearly in the mission statement that precedes it.


To audit and report to the President and Parliament, in accordance with the law, on the proper accounting of public moneys (sic) and use of public resources so as to enhance public accountability.”

It’s a long report almost all of it vital and essential but my attention was drawn  in particular to Part 1B which is an audit of Government Ministries, Organs of State and Government Funds.  Astonishingly the AGO observes that the MOF breached Article 144 of the Constitution.

Under  the heading, ” Ministry of Finance,  you will find the report headed: President’s Concurrence Not Obtained for Promissory Note issued….. 

On 04th January 2012 the Ministry of Finance issued a promissory note for US$16.34 million to the International Development Association.  The International Development Association, by the way is the soft lending arm of The World Bank. By soft lending I  mean that it lends money on concessionary terms to the poorest countries. By  concessionary terms I mean it virtually  gives the  money away. In March of this year the IDA encashed US$2.94 million from the note.

Again let me make this  clear just as I did with the case of the IMF loan. The problem is not the Association (IDA) or the end recipient of the monies. I am not against The IDA  or its mission per se and Singapore needs to be a player on the global stage.  Also, as I said in my second affidavit,  it is equally clear that the sum of money involved is also not material.

The problem with this promissory note to the IDA (which may be a loan or an outright grant) is that the MOF breached Article 144 of the Constitution. Isn’t this what I have been saying all along about the IMF loan?

You can read the full report here.

Page 16 says:

“The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1999  revised edition) includes safeguards to protect past reserves of the Government.  One such safeguard, set out in Article 144, requires the President’s concurrence  for the granting of certain loans and guarantees. 

AGO found that the Ministry of Finance did not comply with Article 144 of the Constitution when it issued a promissory note without obtaining the  required President’s concurrence. (sic)”

The Audit clearly pulls the MOF up for breaching the Constitution. It seems the MOF breached the Constitution and gave away our money, blatantly ignoring any requirement for a safeguard.

The AGO’s wording is interesting here. Note,  he doesn’t separate loans and guarantees and interpret it to be  the raising of one versus the giving of the other. This report merely states that the President’s concurrence must be obtained for “the granting of certain loans and guarantees. “

You will be familiar with the Indonesian Loan case from 1997 by now.  If the Auditor -General is correct here then the Attorney General who pronounced in the 1997 loan to Indonesia case was wrong.  I always thought so and have often thought  that my upcoming  IMF case would be very embarrassing for him. The validity of the Indonesian loan rationale after all, has never been tested in a Court of Law. Interestingly that Chief Justice from 1997, Mr. Chan Sek Kheong announced a couple of days ago that he was stepping down.  He will be 75 in November anyway but this will save him from having to recuse himself from my case.

So how was this Constitutional breach  allowed to happen? The Minister (of Finance) gives two excuses in the report for the breach of the Constitution

1. It wasn’t me it was an administrative oversight by an officer who wasn’t familiar with the procedures because we don’t give away money that frequently.

2. It didn’t come from our past reserves anyway, it came from the MOF operating budget for the financial year 2011/2012.

So, that’s how it happened. Let’s move on. What happens subsequently when a Minister (or his Ministry officer)  breaches the Constitution as he did here ?

Well according to the audit  the original promissory note had to be declared invalid. It was scrapped and the MOF subsequently issued a fresh one, this time with the obligatory Presidential concurrence.

According to the AGO, the Ministry then reviewed internal processes following the report’s findings and tightened its standard operating procedures to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

So let’s get this clear. An officer in MOF unknown to the Minister,  gave money away to a foreign organisation from out of  his Ministry’s general operating budget and in breach of the Constitution. When this breach was thrown up by an audit the President signed off on it retrospectively and procedures were then tightened. I wish life was always that simple.

Here is some of what is missing from the report.

  • The Ministry of Finance says there was no draw on past reserves as the money came from  surplus in their own operating expenditure budget. As far as I know any unspent money in the budgeted operating expenditure of Government Ministries stays in the consolidated fund as money not drawn upon.   I can’t see any category in the amount allocated for operating expenditure budget that covers giving money away to foreign lending bodies. Maybe it is covered under the category, International public relations and Communications?
  • The IDA Act section 4  allows for subscriptions or a promissory note in place of a subscription to be given to IDA on behalf of the government. The Act states, “The total subscription to the Association shall not exceed the sum of US$1 million unless increased  with the approval of Parliament signified by resolution.”   The AG only speaks about the President’s concurrence NOT having been obtained. When and how was Parliamentary approval for the US$16.34 million obtained? Where does the authority for the larger sum of money come from?
  • The original promissory note was invalid. If the original note was invalid so was the encashment.  Did the IDA therefore repay the encashed US$2.94 million from the note?
  • The IDA encashed US$2.94 million but where would the money have come from if they had encashed the whole amount of US$16.34 million?  A promissory note is the same as a bank-note and allows the whole amount to be encashed at any time. US$16.34 million is about 2.5% of the total operating expenditure budget  of the MOF. Since when did we allow our Government  Ministries to under spend by US$20 million and then to give that money away rather than return it to State coffers?
  •  How could a Minister failing to obtain Presidential concurrence and  committing a basic breach of the Constitution, thereby rendering the President’s role as a safeguard redundant  be dismissed as an administrative error?
  • What happened to the Officer responsible for the oversight and doesn’t the buck end with the Minister?
  • What does the President intend to do about this?  Is he satisfied with the Minister by -passing him and is he satisfied that the new tightening of operational procedures will prevent this occurrence in future.
  • Presumably the new procedures came into place after the encashment of March and after the publication of the report in July. Does this mean that the new tighter operational procedures weren’t in place when the IMF loan was pledged in March this year?

All of this makes me feel very uneasy . Even when the President’s approval is unequivocally required it appears that it can be simply be overlooked until at the end of the financial year an audit throws up the constitutional breach.   The same due constitutional process must be complied with as mandated under the constitution whether it be for $1 or as in the case of MAS a potential $300 billion under management or in the case of the GOS a minimum of $705 billion; which monies, any and all, belong to the people/citizens of the Republic of Singapore. Here we are dealing with a more manageable US 16.34 million.  True, it is considerably more than the sum involved in the folding bicycle debacle and considerably less than the sum in the IMF loan case. But is is still our money and the MOF and Parliament need to account for it.

This article first appeared on Kenneth Jeyaretnam's blog here.

You May Also Like

133 new cases of COVID-19 infection in S’pore; 21 cases linked to Bugis Junction cluster, 34 unlinked

As of Sunday noon (29 Aug), the Ministry of Health (MOH) has…

高官不满报导 《海时》政治编辑被调职? 华伦澄清乃编采室重组

《雅虎新闻》揭露,《海峡时报》政治组编辑李雪盈(译音),疑似遭高官不满其部分政治新闻报导,而在今年八月被调任财经组。 《雅虎新闻》是根据《海时》内部职员披露消息,指在一则誌期7月20日的公司内部电邮,指出李雪盈在今年8月调任财经组,其职责包括“在《周日时报》和《海时》等平台,生产原创和具影响力的新闻内容。” 《海时》总编辑华伦斐迪南斯,则在同一电邮宣布将组成新加坡新闻组。该编采组将涵盖所有本地的政治、经济和生活新闻,以“促进跨平台的紧密合作”。 目前,新加坡新闻组是由执行编辑Sumiko Tan领军。 在10月29日的一则电邮,《海时》职员则被告知,资深助理编辑Paul Jacob受委为副新闻编辑(政治),他将负责政治和国外新闻的编采工作。不过,政治组编辑至今仍悬空。 《雅虎新闻》收到两名《海时》职员(其中一名已离职)透露消息,指总编华伦是在今年7月中旬,告知政治新闻组,有关李雪盈的调任消息。 据内部消息称,李雪盈的调任原因,可能是基于高官不满她在今年5月6日的一则报导:《王乙康:没有文凭也可当总理》(“A PM without a…

警:已接获18宗投诉 WhatsApp沦为行骗工具

诈骗分子无孔不入,连WhatsApp也沦为行骗工具了。 警方昨日(2月19日)发文告指出,指2019年12月至今,已经接获18宗涉及即时通讯应用程序WhatsApp的诈骗投诉。 歹徒入侵到他人账号中,然后发出WhatsApp简讯给受害者,要求受害者转发六个数字的验证码。一旦受害者转发了该验证码,其账号就会被侵入,而受害者则无法在使用该账号。 歹徒会入侵友人的WhatsApp账户,以各网络商店如Lazada、Shopee或Qoo10的假幸运抽奖游戏,要求受害者协助签署或索取奖金奖品,以便骗取受害者的联络电话、信用卡或提款卡的照片,并要求受害者转发一次性密码。当受害者照做后,不久就会发现自己的信用卡或提款卡遭盗用了。 根据之前报导,也曾有诈骗分子利用类似的策略,通过脸书和Instagram等社交媒体平台行骗。 警方建议民众不要与他人分享账户验证码,并且对通过WhatsApp平台收到的异常请求提高警惕,即便有关的请求是发自自己的联络人。 WhatsApp用户也受促启用该程序的双层验证功能,以防止账户遭他人侵入破坏。

失智老妇不睡觉遭捏手臂殴打 女佣被判5个月监禁

女佣因不满失智老妇晚上不睡觉,捏她手臂并用拳头殴打老妇的头部。老妇虽感到疼痛,却不敢向家人投诉,直至孙子发现老妇身体上的伤痕起疑才揭发此事,女佣畏罪潜逃遭警逮捕。 该虐待老人事件发生在去年的5月12至6月12日期间,38岁印尼女佣阿提卡,在受害者家工作一个月,便开始向75岁受害者施暴,老妇因身体不便与失智症状,平常则仰赖他人看护,所以晚上女佣也会和受害者共住一间房。 据报导指出,老妇晚上睡不着觉,疲惫女佣就多次向她施暴,先是捏她的两只手臂出气,再来更是变本加厉,用拳头殴打老妇的头部,老妇虽感到疼痛,却一直不敢吭声,也不告诉家人。 家中除了住着这位76岁的失智阿嬷,还有她的孙子法汉(32岁)、孙媳妇以及两名曾孙。 直至孙子在去年6月12日帮老妇洗澡时,意外发现老妇头部出现了明显的伤疤,才向老妇询问伤疤的来源,但当时老妇仅回答他在一个月前就已经有擦伤。 然而,孙子却觉得愈发可疑,因为一周前,老妇人头上并没有任何伤疤。接着在孙子继续帮他祖母梳头发时,却因梳子扎到伤口而疼痛抱怨,孙子检查后才发现,头部已经明显肿起,孙子也立即将受害者送往医院,并报警处理。 根据医院的报告指出,该名老妇身上有多处擦伤,手臂、膝盖和头皮均有受伤的痕迹。 而女佣因虐待一事东窗事发,于是趁他们去医院检查时,便逃之夭夭,躲到以前的宿舍中,最后警方找上门后才被逮捕,女佣也招认罪行。 蓄意伤人罪最高可判处三个月监禁,或最高2千500元罚款,或两者兼施,但由于受害者属弱势群体,因此加重罪行,目前被判入狱五个月。