Know the facts from the myths in the AHPETC saga…
Myth:
The TC Secretary and its General Manager, who are the main directors and shareholders of the Managing Agent (MA) are freely being given contracts without tender and paying themselves handsomely without accountability.
Fact:
The MA has no decision-making power in relation to the award of tenders. Tenders are awarded by a Tenders & Contracts Committee consisting of Members of Parliament and appointed Councillors with no interest whatsoever in the MA.
The MA is not involved in evaluating any tender in which it is participating. When the MA and EMSU (essential maintenance services unit) tenders are involved, the MA is excluded from the deliberations.
Myth:
AHPETC has shown disrespect to auditors or Parliament for not submitting documents as requested.
Fact:
Throughout the audit, thousands of documents were provided. For example, more than 16,481 payment vouchers were produced.
In Appendix C of the AGO report (p.3, Attachment 2), Members will see there is just one out of 22 requests outstanding. In Attachment 3, just three out of 75 are outstanding.
Myth:
The Secretary and General Manager issued invoices, certified work done and approved and signed cheques to FMSS. Appendix C Attachment 1 and its total amount for 84 invoices of $6.6 million has been the subject of a front page headline on 9 February 2015. The Lian He Wan Bao headline entitled: “TC Secretary and GM pay their own company $6.6 million”
Fact:
The TC adopted an SOP on 8 September 2011, soon after the new management took over.
It was the policy that no cheque to FMSS, of whatever amount, could be issued unless either the TC Chairman or one of the Vice-Chairmen co-signed the cheque.
Thus, it was not possible for FMSS to pay itself unless authorised by the TC Chair or Vice-Chair, who have no interest in FMSS whatsoever.
Myth:
In the TC’s audit for FY 12, our auditors put in a disclaimer that because the project management fee details were not disclosed in the Financial Statements, they were unable to determine the completeness of the related party disclosures
Fact:
There was no clarity of practice in the financial statements of Town Councils. For instance, the same auditors audited us in FY 11, and only required a related party disclosure of the MA fees. The former Aljunied Town Council management also had related parties, and yet there were no related party transaction disclosures in Financial Statements, which had no disclaimers.
Source: The Alternative View
