photo: nationalgallery.sg

Based on the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) latest report, it found multiple weaknesses in the financial governance of the National Gallery development project which “did not give assurance that public funds has been properly managed”.
The report was made public today (16 July), following the AGO’s audit of government accounts for the 2018/2019 financial year.
The National Gallery development project is a project completed in 2015 within the approved budget of S$532 million under the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), and is managed by the National Gallery Singapore (NGS) through a Funding Agreement (FA).
“AGO’s test checks revealed weaknesses such as waivers of contractual provisions involving $13 million without due scrutiny by MCCY, and inadequate monitoring (including the lack of timely audits) to ensure that the final sum to be paid for the main construction contract was properly supported,” said the report.
AGO pointed out that the FA didn’t detail out who is supposed to approve waivers of contractual provisions. If that is not all, “MCCY did not explicitly give authority to NGS to decide on such waivers”.
Despite not gaining approval, AGO stated that NGS went on without due scrutiny by MCCY.
In addition, AGO noted that the Ministry only questioned NGS regarding the waivers in September 2018, one year after the construction contract has been issued and the final payment has been made.
Apart from that, there was no adequate monitoring mechanism placed by the Ministry to ensure “that the waivers with substantial financial implications were highlighted for its attention on a timely basis”.
Besides that, the report also mentioned that there was “a significant gap” between the last monthly status report and the last audit of the project expenditure. In fact, the Ministry only scheduled the final audit in the second half of 2018, which is close to a year after the final account was given and the payments were made. It also noted that it was not aware of the waivers granted until a year after all the accounts were issued and payments settled.
“The waivers of contractual provisions had significant financial implications amounting to $13 million. There is hence a need for MCCY to strengthen its oversight to ensure financial prudence in the use of public funds managed by NGS on its behalf,” the report stated.
As such, AGO felt that MCCY should have had a “proper governance framework and key controls” of the National Gallery development project, given that it is the owner of NGS.
“These include ensuring that the FA sets out clear roles and responsibilities of NGS and its Board, and that decisions involving large sums of public funds are made only after obtaining MCCY’s approval,” it added.
In response, the Ministry said that despite the challenges to re-develop two gazetted national monuments and unique requirements of an art infrastructure, NGS still managed to complete the project within the time frame and approved budget. However, both MCCY and NGS agree that the processes can be improved.

Insufficient oversight in management of contract variations

There were also lapses found in the main construction contract, exhibition fit-out contracts and integrated consultancy services contract in the National Gallery Development project, AGO said. The total value of the contracts amounted to S$458.98 million.
Some of the lapses include not obtained approvals before contract variations were carried out, approval obtained from incorrect approving authority and failure to deduct costs for incomplete works, among others.
Out of the 403 contract variations checked, AGO found that there were lapses in the approval of 142 variations amounting to S$12.4 million.
“AGO also found two instances under the main construction contract where works provided for in the contract were not carried out. Contract variations should have been issued to deduct the costs from the contract sum. However, this was not done, resulting in an estimated overpayment of $11,500,” the report revealed.
It added that in total, the estimated overpayment for works not done was S$265,800.
As such, AGO explained that in order for financial prudence and discipline to be maintained, it is crucial for approvals to be obtained from the right authorities and costs deduction for incomplete works must be done to gain full value for the public funds spent

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

余振忠促政府一视同仁 非选区议员也能享有助理津贴

政府昨日宣布反对党领袖的职责和福利。这也包括额外津贴能最多聘请三名国会助理( Legislative Assistants)。 工人党前非选区议员余振忠,也表示希望政府同样能恢复非选区议员和官委议员的聘请国会助理津贴,毕竟在履行职责上,政府不该厚此薄彼。 然而,非选区议员和官委议员没有聘请国会助理的津贴,因此在他担任议员期间,并无法聘请任何国会助理。 而本届选举,受委非选区议员的就包括两位前进党成员潘群勤和梁文辉。至于余振忠在此次选举曾代表工人党在马林百列集选区上阵,硬撼行动党陈川仁团队。 余振忠在脸书上发帖指出,过去时任第一副总理吴作栋,在1989年宣布,国会议员将获得津贴,以便聘请国会助理来支援议员工作。在1997年,官委议员和非选区议员的津贴突然被取消,当时已故惹耶勒南(JBJ)是非选区议员,和黄根成就曾为撤销津贴一事进行交流。 他指出,国会议员目前所获得的国会助理津贴为每月1300元,但是这并不足以聘请专业的全职助理。因此有些国会议员就会合作聘请一名全职的助理,或聘请兼职助理,或国会议员自掏腰包补贴助理酬薪。 虽然如此,他知道有些官委议员,只用了他们和非选区议员一样多的津贴,即国会议员津贴的15巴仙,以聘请了各自的助理。而基于非选区议员和官委议员津贴,真正税后带回家的月入可能少于1800元,若聘请国会助理,这笔钱大部分都要交给助理了。 他也指出,在担任非选区议员时并没有提出有关课题,因为不想成为对自己有利的议论课题。 非选区议员工作也不少 实则非选区议员和官委议员工作,亦不比任何国会议员来的少,若查看国会记录就会发现,有时发言率可能还比普通议员高出许多。(可以看看上届国会积极发言的官委议员王丽婷等人)…

NEA forms "not suitable" for town council event: Sylvia Lim

Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), Sylvia Lim, was in the…

Who are the real custodians of the reserves?

The following is an excerpt from ‘4 Tans in Presidential Elections’, a…

欢迎来到1984年

独立电影制作人李成琳(Lynn Lee): 刚读完“假新闻”法案的内容,间中还要停驻几次,确保自己未陷入幻觉。新法案授权政府决定和定义什么是假消息,并且可以发出“更正指示”,或命令撤下之,以及封锁特定网站。若不遵从,则可面对相当高额的罚款或长期的监禁。 在文告中律政部试图向我们保证,没什么好担心的– 因为涉事者可上诉,法官对假消息真伪有最终裁定权。但有多少普通百姓真得有时间频繁出入法院?或者敢于一再诉讼? 大家,人民行动党试图授权自己,成为真相的仲裁者。如果这还不足以令你惧怕,试想想也是这个政党,当年以“马克思主义阴谋”的谎言,使得无辜者未经审判就被监禁,新加坡的主流媒体则帮忙粉饰谎言。 这个政府很乐意修饰词意,来符合自己的议程。所以,一个人也可以构成非法集会,室内的Skype视讯交流,也算是“公共集会”,艺人独自拿着镜子在街上走,等同“非法游行”;拍张照片也算是抗议;在捷运上贴两张A4纸,就算是“破坏公物”。 行动党不会满足于无所忌惮地大放厥词。不会。他们要阻止我们说出他们不爱听的话。为了确保我们清楚谁才是老大哥,该法案草案赋予部长权力,可以免除任何人受到该法案的制裁。 这似乎有点无耻和自私。何况今年可能会选举,这样的布局太方便了。表面上是”为我们好“。律政部强调政府并非遏制言论自由,反之是鼓励”健康和稳健的公公讨论“,以及维护”社会和民主进程“。 是的,“自由就是奴役,无知就是力量” *,大家好,欢迎来到1984年。 备注:出自小说家乔治奥威尔《一九八四》作品中,党的三句口号:战争就是和平,自由就是奴役,无知就是力量。