By Terry Xu
In the Worker’s Party’s press statement on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol-East Town Council (AHPETC) 2012/2013 annual report, it emphasized that the independent auditors gave the town council a “qualified report” and not an “adverse report.” Apart from the 13 specific observations, the town council’s books, accounts and records have been kept in accordance with the Town Councils Act.
The full audited report can be viewed here.

With regards to the 13 points highlighted by the auditors, the AHPETC explained that since Financial Year 2011, the auditors had tried to request information from the former Managing Agent of the town council when it was under the charge of the People’s Action Party (PAP).However, such requests were unsuccessful.

“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. Further attempts in FY 2012 to get the information were also unsuccessful.”

The Workers’ Party said that unless those agencies with the required information furnished them to the town council, it is likely that information gaps will remain and the accounts will continue to be qualified every year. The party said that the Ministry of National Development (MND) would be the best party to assist the town council to resolve some of the key information gaps.
The party acknowledges the oversight of transferring monies to the Sinking Fund and said it has since rectified the oversight. It added that the oversight did not result in any loss of monies or unauthorized spending.

MND released a press statement on Friday evening and said that there were nine new issues of concern which were raised by the auditor for the Financial Year 2012. The ministry said that such failures are not related to handover issues.

However, in the financial report of AHTC 2011/12, the auditors wrote in the auditor’s basis of disclaimer:

“The accompanying financial statements include the Income and Expenditure statement, sinking funds, town improvement and project fund and government grants whose figures include those stated in the statement of income and expenditure and receipts and payments for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 July 2011 of Aljunied Town Council.”
“This statement was audited by another firm of auditors and we were not allowed access to the auditor’s audit documentation. We were also not able to obtain the supporting accounting documents from the previous managing agent of the Aljunied Town Council prior to the reconstitution. As a result, we were unable to determine whether the income and expenses and receipts and payments for the period 1 April 2011 to 31 July 2011 for Aljunied Town Council that are included in the accompanying financial statements are fairly stated.”

For clarity, points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 is as follow

  • 3. Conservancy and Service receivables
  • 4. Lift repair expenses
  • 5. Lift Upgrading Program (LUP)
  • 7. Conservancy and service fees received in advance
  • 8. Income Taxes
  • 9. Goods and Service Taxes (GST)
  • 11. Transfer to Sinking Funds
  • 12. Related Party transaction
  • 13. Subsequent events review

Therefore, apart from points 11,12,13, the “new” points of observation that MND was pointing at were already highlighted in the above disclaimer of the prior year’s financial report. And that this coincides with what the Workers’ Party has mentioned in its press statement.
While the Workers’ Party has yet explain points 12 and 13, the MND would have to give an explanation on why the previous town council has not shared its audited documents with the current town council to reconcile the accounts.
In fact, it is more troubling to know that the outgoing town council management can withhold crucial financial documents from the incoming management. Would that not be holding the residents ransom?
And what should one think of the People’s Action Party (PAP) which is making a mountain out of a mole hill from problems created by its own party to begin with?
We attach below a summary of the 13 points observation brought up by the auditors in the financial report of AHPETC.
______________
1) Opening Balances

Auditor wrote that they were unable to obtain sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion on the financial statements of Aljunied Hougang Town Council for the financial year ended 31 March 2012 and they were also unable to deter if the opening balances of the Town Council and comparatives in the current year’s financial statements were derived from the financial statements for financial year ended 31 March 2013 are fairly stated.
2) Receivables from various stakeholders.

Citizens Consultative Committee

a) The auditors note that in the current financial year, the Town Council received $520,926 from the Citizens Consultative Committee. But the receipts for this sum cannot be identified and matched to the receivable balance of $1,118,574. The Town council had recorded this amount received of $520,926 in other payables as at 31 March 2013 which the auditors are unable to determine if this was appropriate.

b) Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“IRAS”)

Auditor note that the Management of the Town Council does not have any supporting documents to substantiate the receivables due from IRAS amounting, $110,735 in the accounts that was handed over by the previous managing agent.

c) Sundry Debtors

Auditors were unable to carry out audit procedures for the balance of $1,831,094 recorded in the Sundry Debtors.

TOC’s note – Note that the amount was brought over from year 2011 (view note)

3) Conservancy and Service receivables
Auditors unable to ascertain the credit risk characteristics of the conservancy and service receivable as Management unable to provide an aging analysis or information on the credit profile of individual units.
Town council provide for impairment losses for outstanding conservancy and service receivables when the receivables are more than seven years in arrears.
4) Lift repair expenses
Auditors unable to determine accuracy of lift repair expenses of $1,630,298 recorded in the year under audit as Management did not ascertain the quantum of 2012’s expenses that was included in 2013’s financial statements.
5) Lift Upgrading Program (LUP)
Expenses relating to the previous financial year were included in the LUP expense of $18,612,857, under the sinking funds expenditure, caused the current year’s LUP expenditure to be overstated.
As the management did not ascertain the quantum of prior year’s expenses that was included in the current year’s financial statements, the auditors were unable to determine accuracy of the expenses recorded in the year of audit
6) Creditors and Accrued Expenses

a) No Standard Operating Procedures to enable timely recording of liabilities therefore auditors are unable to ascertain the completeness of the liabilities.

b) Auditors unable to ascertain validity of an amount of $338,379 pertaining to “Accrual without work orders” brought forward from Aljunied Town Council in August 2011 as the Town Council was unable to provide details of the amount.

c) Auditors unable to ascertain payables amounting to $307,715 in temporary unidentified receipts from residents and Housing and Development Board as Town council was unable to provide details of the amount.

7)Conservancy and service fees received in advance
Auditors unable to determine the validity and accuracy of the advance receipts from residents in respect of conservancy and service charges amounting to $507,809.
8) Income Taxes
Auditor unable to determine the validity and accuracy of tax provisions amounting $756,383 as there were no provision for tax payable by Hougang Town Council during the time of handover of operations on 26th May 2011 and there is a difference between the income paid by the Aljunied Town Council and provision for tax recorded in 2011 and 2012.
9) Goods and Service Taxes (GST)
Auditors unable to determine the validity and accuracy of GST payable of $518,707 due to unexplained differences between the GST balances recorded in the Town Council’s accounting records and GST returns submitted to comptroller of GST.
10) Cash and Bank Balances
$63,458 out of $67,589 unexplained difference noted during the March 2012 bank reconciliation remained un-reconciled. The balance has been included in other payables.
11) Transfer to Sinking Funds
Town council did not comply with Town council financial rules by not transferring any amounts of conservancy and service charges to the bank account of the sinking funds during the current financial year.
12) Related Party transaction
Auditors unable to determine the completeness of related party disclosures as the town council had not made details of the project management services fees paid to a related party available to them.
13) Subsequent events review
As the Town Council had not made its latest management accounts and records of minutes subsequent to the financial year end to the auditors. They were unable to carry out the audit procedures to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence as to whether events occurring between date of financial statements and date of the auditor reports that require adjustment are properly reflected in the current set of financial statements in accordance to the Singapore financial reporting standards.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

总理夫人,真金不怕红炉火

政府在4月1日在国会提呈《防止网络假消息和网络操纵法》,对于草案赋予部长权限,可指示涉事消息发布者更正或删除内容,公民社会担忧当权者获得过大权力,有滥权打压言论自由的风险。 律政部长尚穆根之前接受媒体专访,打包票指出已有足够的监督制衡机制,法案仅针对假消息,而不是要压制个人观点、批评和对政府的嘲讽。 总理夫人何晶也响应尚穆根的观点,分享有关专访,并在脸书上发文道:“当然啦,只有假消息的散播者才会反对(防假消息法)!” 一些阿谀奉承的媒体和支持者,拍马屁赞扬总理夫人精言简语间道出问题精髓,显现身为国家领导人夫人的智慧,真金不怕红炉火,没做错事干嘛怕法律对付? 但总理夫人又该如何解释,对防假消息法案提出质疑和忧虑的各界人士,包括联合国特别报告员凯伊,会呼吁政府撤回该法,因为他目睹过其他曾利用法律来对付“假消息“的案例,通常用以对付新闻记者、维权人士等人? 发出质疑声音的,还包括国内外媒体人,例如曾揭发马国一马公司弊案的《砂拉越报告》主编克莱尔,难道总理夫人是暗指像克莱尔这些注重核实消息的媒体人,也是假消息的散布者? 就连一些国会议员,也呼吁应检讨和修改防假消息法案,三位官委议员特斯拉、王丽婷和郭秀钦,在昨日呼吁新法能纳入阐明更多立法原则的章节;政府所发出的任何指示,对公众而言需站得住脚,也要有独立的理事会来跟进网上假信息问题,监督执法情况。 难道总理夫人是说,这些提出忧虑的人士,他们的担忧毫无根据,他们提出反对意见,是因为他们是假消息的散布者? 那么同理,一个透明施政的政府,为何非得只是单方面着重扮演资讯警察的角色,而不是更主动与公民社会和媒体人合作,联手抗击假消息,例如可以和媒体合作,即时向媒体公布核实消息;再者,人民也可以透过提供资讯和停止散播假消息协助政府,因为“谣言止于智者”。 难道政府信不过自己的人民,认为大家都是“愚蠢草民”,看到假消息傻傻就相信? 而近一个月来各界的辩论和质疑,从来不是在于应该纵容假消息,而是现有已有足够多的法令对付那些威胁国家安全和社会安宁的人士,何以非得只是一味推行新法,而不是用更有效的方式打击假消息散播。 再者,网络假消息特选委员会报告中有22项建议,立法不过是选项之一,包括媒体识读、教育民众如何辨识假消息和政府和媒体、企业的合作等,都更为重要。…

总理起诉许渊臣 林鼎将担任辩护律师

针对新加坡总理李显龙起诉本社总编许渊臣,林鼎将担任后者的辩护律师。预计聆讯将在下月30日进行至12月4日。 2019年9月5日,本社总编收到代表总理李显龙的达文星律师楼( Davinder Singh Chambers LLC)寄来的原告诉状和法庭传票。 诉状中,对本社英语站发表《总理夫人何晶奇怪地分享了一篇与家人断绝关系》的文章,总理提出异议,指该文章作出不实和无根据,并且贬低和诋毁总理。 去年9月27日,许渊臣提呈答辩书。许渊臣认为内容是复述李总理弟妹的话,并不具诽谤性质。 林鼎在今日在脸书公开讲作为本社总编辩护律师的消息,指出他赞赏许渊臣和《网络公民》作为独立媒体的工作,也强调替代媒体作为民主制度中第四权的重要。正是这类替代媒体能确保有权势和社会精英能继续接受问责。 许渊臣则表示,由于面对许多法律技术层面的挑战,不得已而寻求律师id协助。他也担忧总理的律师在审讯时挑起法律上的失误,为此需要有一名代表。此前,许一直在审讯中为自己辩护。 除了许渊臣,林鼎律师也代表时评人梁实轩,在面对总理的诽谤诉讼中辩护。 I…