ahpetc-office-2

The following letter was published on the Workers’ Party website.

SECOND OPEN LETTER TO RESIDENTS OF ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN

Dear Residents,

In my First Open Letter to you in June 2015, I explained three main points concerning various allegations made against Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).  These were:

1. AHPETC does not and cannot reserve contracts for “friends” due to the public tender process;

2. The alleged “overpayment” by AHPETC to its former Managing Agent (MA), when compared to rates paid by PAP TCs in 2014, was an exaggeration, looking at the rates paid by PAP TCs in 2011, 2012 and 2013 according to data provided by the Ministry of National Development (MND);

3. The MA rates that AHPETC agreed to pay its MA in 2012 were arrived at taking into account the MA rate paid by the PAP management of Aljunied TC to its former MA.

If you missed the first open letter, you can read it online at http://www.ahpetc.sg/sylvia-lims-open-letter-to-residents/.

In this Second Open Letter, I would like to clarify and reassure all residents that AHPETC places your interests at the heart of its work and continues to make improvements to its financial management.

This letter will cover the issue of Conflicts of Interest and AHPETC’s financial position.

 1.      Conflict of Interest and Related Party Transactions

There have been allegations concerning related party transactions between AHPETC and its former MA, FM Solutions & Services Pte Ltd (FMSS).

First, there is no longer any issue, as AHPETC is now directly managed and does not outsource its work to an MA.  The previous MA contract expired on 14 July 2015, and there were no bidders to take over the MA services after 14 July 2015.

Since 15 July 2015, AHPETC has been self-managed.  This means that AHPETC is now directly hiring staff to handle estate, finance, administration and other tasks, instead of outsourcing the work to an MA.

Under direct management, AHPETC’s contractors continue to deliver services under the existing contracts, now supervised by TC’s directly hired staff.

Second, there was never any conflict of interest whatsoever between the Workers’ Party (WP) or any of its Members of Parliament (MPs) and FMSS.  Neither WP nor any of its MPs or members has any interest in the business of FMSS.  None of the directors and shareholders of FMSS is a member of WP.

Third, there have been accusations that when the MA was working at AHPETC, the husband and wife team who owned FMSS could freely sign payments to themselves.  This is not true.  When WP took over in 2011, one of the first decisions made by the new Aljunied-Hougang Town Council was to require any cheques to the MA, no matter how small the amount, to require the counter-signature of AHPETC Chairman and Vice-Chairmen who have no interest in the MA’s business.

2.      Financial Position of AHPETC

Some people have accused AHPETC of bankruptcy and running huge deficits that are not sustainable, and also warned residents of other towns not to vote for WP so as not to subsidise AHPETC.  These allegations are misguided.

AHPETC filed its audited accounts for FY 14/15, on time, by 31 August 2015.  Though these accounts show AHPETC in annual deficit, this is because AHPETC has still NOT received its annual S&CC operating grant of $7.2 million from the government, which would normally have been paid to all Town Councils in April 2014.   Taking into account the $7.2 million in grant which AHPETC expects to receive, AHPETC’s annual income and expenditure statement would show an annual surplus of $1.7 million.

The past operating deficit was largely the outcome of higher tender price for various service contracts and start-up costs.

The current positive position came about through a combination of steps taken by AHPETC. These included lowering its utilities costs by using contestable energy, reducing its general and administrative expenditure, and increasing its revenue.

Throughout the difficult initial years, AHPETC management believed that it could improve the TC’s financial position, and the latest audit shows that it has.  We expect to further consolidate and improve AHPETC’s financial position going forward.

We have done our best to serve residents, and I would like to express appreciation to our staff for their contribution to the progress we have made and to our residents for their support and understanding.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

August 2015

You can read the open letter in Chinese here and in Malay here.

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

遭五名巴士司机起诉 新捷运将纠纷交工业仲裁庭裁决

上月,五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。 据了解,新捷运已把上述薪资诉讼申请转移到工业仲裁庭(IAC)审理。此前诉方将诉状提呈推事庭聆讯。 在今日发布的声明中,该公司声称“以作为守法和负责任雇主自豪”,和雇员以及国家交通工友联合会(NTWU)都有牢固的劳资关系,并已依循法律义务、相关合约规章行事。 新捷运称,有鉴于上诉巴士司机提出的诉讼,也牵涉该公司与NTWU的共同协议,故此依法、为了新捷运全体巴士车长利益、与NTWU的良好关系,新捷运决定把此纠纷交由工业仲裁庭作裁决。 巴士司机代表律师楼“感惊讶” Carson律师楼律师拉维(M RAVI),上月代表五位巴士司机提呈传讯令状。该律师楼对新捷运把诉讼申请转交工业仲裁庭的举措,“感到惊讶”。 “为尊重法治和法院权限,理应通过法院程序,(如有需要)进行调解”。该律师楼也表示,其客户也是基于所有与雇主和工会的内部协商程序用尽后,才不得已向法院提出诉讼。 这些司机已在该公司任职三至10年不等。诉状中提及其中四名司机,曾向推事庭提呈类似的诉讼。尽管在今年7月和八日,出席了两次与NTWU和康福德高的会谈,不过他们认为控诉和报告未受到重视。 Carson律师楼律师拉维则认为,这五位巴士司机的诉讼具有显著意义,乃是涉及新加坡公交业者的首宗工资争议个案。不仅会影响目前的这五人,还可能对其他新捷运忠于和勤奋工作多年的巴士车长带来影响。 他认为,诉讼中有关可能违反人力部规定的工酬,休假日的争议可能违反《雇佣法》,都理应仔细审视。…

New stricter measures may not have a major impact but will “buy time”: Prof Paul Tambyah

Infectious diseases expert Professor Paul Tambyah says that while the measures may…

SMS Sim Ann invites NCMP Leong Mun Wai to file a motion on BTO flats

SINGAPORE — Senior Minister of State (SMS) for National Development, Sim Ann…