Actually, I also don't know why PAP keep harping on AHPETC financial accounts issue...
If AHPETC financial accounts and handling are \"clearly illegal\", and there are misappropriation of money and/or fake accounting, the auditors would have reported/flaged this as \"criminal offence\" directly to CPIB/CAD (without needing to consult AHPETC), and the Town Council Chairman would be charged in Court straight away. (This had happened to a few publicly listed companies before). This is as clear as the sky, no need to argue so much.
On the other hand, the PAP Town councils lost $19 MILLIONS in total in risky equity-linked investments, and they have not explained why they can do so? They are not investment managers, they are not entrusted to generate higher returns from the reserves, they are not trained to manage investment risks, why then they invest Town Councils' funds in risky quity-linked investments?
As somebody who had managed MCSTs before, we clearly know that we cannot put the estates' money entrusted to our management into any risky investments, and equity-linked investments is clearly \"risky\" in categorization. And don't tell me the banks didn't tell them?
In the few cases I encountered at different banks, the banks' employees did tell me upfront that the structured deposits is linked to non-default of the linked equities, so I would believe that the banks had told them too. The fact that MAS did not charge the banks means that the banks did not wrong here given that they had already told us upfront that the structured deposits are linked to equities (and hence is \"risky\" in nature, no matter how low the risk is).
Till now, no PAP Town Council Chairmen has come out to tell their residents what they are going to do with these lost money? Are their residents supposed to absorb these $19 MILLIONS losses because their \"mismanagement\"?
sushi88:pirate:[quote=\"jetsetter\"]PAP only need to target this TC message at 10% swing voters. They know pp like Pirate's mind is fixed hence they are not interested in converting them! once enuff of WPs antics, some voters might just swing home.
PAP need to find a simple and easy to understand way to get around the latest $1.65m surplus after government grant for the latest FY. This is actually a striking turnaround. I was expecting (from statements put out by WP about the grants and sinking fund transfers) only a modest surplus of at most $400k.
It is a delicate exercise that can boomerang and result in a swing to the WP instead if not done properly because voters can perceive it as not just bullying, but using state resources to bully if it is done wrong. I don't think PAP anticipated the \"surplus\" number and are still working on getting their heads around it. It is a 'back to the drawing board' kind of number and I don't think PAP has a Plan B for taking Aljunied. The MSM reported it as though it was just a say-so by SL. Actually, it is not. It is in the financial statements at note 30.
[quote]30. Events occurring after the reporting period
At the end of the financial year, the Government Grants for S&CC for the financial year amounting to S$7,191,770 which would ordinarily have been disbursed in April 2014 was still being withheld by Ministry of National Development. According to court papers filed by the Ministry in the High Court in March 2015 in Originating Summons 250 of 2015, Town Council's Grant for FY 2014/15 consisted of S$4,890,202 for Operating Funds and S$2,301,568 for Sinking Funds.
The withholding of the Government Grants for S&CC resulting in Town Council showing deficit for the year of $3,238,496. If the Government Grant for S&CC had been paid to Town Council, the position for the year would be a surplus of S$1,651,706.
As for the accumulated position, the withholding of the Government Grant for S&CC results in an accumulated deficit of S$4,693,250. If the Grant had been disbursed, AHPETC's accumulated position would have been a surplus of S$196,952.
At the date of issuance of financial statements, the Grant for FY 2014/15 had still not been disbursed to Town Council.
And no, note 30 is not a political statement inserted into the financial statements for the benefit of WP. Note 30 is actually required under FRS 10.
What is interesting is that while WP has promptly put its 2014/15 financial statements online immediately on 31 August, the PAP TCs have yet to do so. Let's see if they leave it till near polling day. :evil:[/quote]What surplus $1.65m?? I thought FMSS just claimed AHPETC owe them $3.5m? Confusing or creative accounting? :?
Edit to answer my own question:
I found the answer given by SL...but she gives a feeling that she still has a lot to hide. Monies seems to move to and fro from AHPETC to FMSS and vice versa. First time I see a supplier has to keep moving money back to customer, one sum after another (in red). Why did AHPETC not check invoices properly before they pay? HONESTLY, I find all these overly baffling. Even if there is no fraud involved, they are super sub-standard in operating processes.
********************************************
Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim yesterday confirmed that the party's town council had received a legal demand for $3.5 million from its former managing agent,
but insisted this would not hit its bottom line. She said the amount demanded was for fees related to projects handled by the managing agent, and linked to the town council's sinking fund expenditure. But she declined to give further details, citing confidentiality agreements.
The New Paper reported yesterday that FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) sent a letter of demand to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) to say the latter owed it more than $3.5 million for services provided between April and July 14. The letter was dated July 20, six days after the managing agent's contract with the town council ended on July 14.
After receiving the letter, AHPETC then did its own checks and withheld payment as it had \"some questions about those claims\", Ms Lim said.
The town council had also reportedly tried earlier to recoup $250,000 from FMSS, a sum it then raised to $450,000.Yesterday, WP chairman Sylvia Lim downplayed the matter - which will go before mediators in October - saying it will not affect AHPETC's bottom line.
\"We can confirm that we received this letter but this is actually quite old news because it has been overtaken by events... Most of the claims are related to the current financial year 2015/2016, and a substantial portion is related to sinking fund payments. So they do not actually impact on the routine funds,\" she said. Money in a town council's sinking fund is earmarked for long- term and cyclical projects, such as upgrading works.
Ms Lim also said that the town council had since paid off a substantial part of the $3.5 million amount and that the disputed sum will \"not actually affect the bottom line in terms of surplus and deficit of the accounts\".
News of the dispute broke two days after the Ministry of National Development (MND) released figures to show that there had been, in its words, \"gross profiteering\" on the part of FMSS from its only client, AHPETC.
Asked yesterday if her town council felt it had overpaid FMSS, Ms Lim replied: \"A large part of the disputed claims is actually concerning projects which are a different kind of claim as compared to a claim for managing agent monthly rates. It is not connected with us looking (at) or reviewing the managing agent rates. It's not the case at all.\"FMSS had been authorised to act as a project manager for the town council. When the firm handled projects, it was allowed to claim a percentage of the project value as additional fees, above and beyond its managing agent fees, said Ms Lim, adding that that was also the case at other town councils.
For now, both parties are headed for mediation in October to resolve the issue, said Ms Lim, adding that the case will not go to court.
On whether the WP had briefed its new candidates on the issue, Ms Lim said: \"This is one of the matters that we're sorting out with our contractors under a process that's already been agreed, so we do not see why this should concern the new candidates because everything is according to our agreement.\"She was also asked why AHPETC had not made public the matter earlier, given the large amount involved. She cited the confidentiality agreement, adding: \"It's just a letter of demand. People can demand things, but whether they are legitimate or not and to what extent, that is another question altogether.\"- See more at:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/general-el ... dtw31.dpuf[/quote]
