Tag: MOF

  • Heng Swee Keat Lucid, Making Progress

    Heng Swee Keat Lucid, Making Progress

    Visited Heng Swee Keat in the TTSH Neuro ICU at NNI this evening. Delighted to find him recovering well, and making steady progress. He was fully lucid, communicative, and cheerful.

    The doctors are happy too. But they have advised Swee Keat not to receive visitors yet, so that he can get as much rest as possible.

    I told him we had made arrangements to look after his residents in Tampines while he recuperates. He gave me two thumbs up. 🙂

    Swee Keat wants to thank everyone for their support. He especially sends his greetings and best wishes to his Tampines residents and volunteers, who have been asking after him. – LHL

     

    Source: Lee Hsien Loong

  • Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Open Letter To Finance Ministry Concerning National Productivity Fund

    Kenneth Jeyaretnam: Open Letter To Finance Ministry Concerning National Productivity Fund

    Tharman Shanmuguratnam

    Deputy Prime Minister

    & Minister of Finance

    Ministry of Finance

    100 High Street

    #10-01 The Treasury

    Singapore 179434

    Dear Minister,

    I have some questions and concerns with regards to the National Productivity Fund (NPF). In particular I am concerned that there seems to be little accountability or Parliamentary oversight of the money spent and no information as to how much money remains in the Fund.

    You set the NPF up in Budget 2010 with an initial $1 billion allocation but a commitment to a total size of $2 billion. In Budget 2011 you allocated another $1 billion for the NPF  taking the total to $2 billion. In this year’s Budget you allocated another $1.5 billion. This brings the total amount of money allocated to at least $3.5 billion.

    It is a constitutional requirement that if you set up a new fund to be managed and administered separately from the Consolidated Fund you must pass a new Act of Parliament to provide for proper administration. If this is not done then under Article 147-(1) you are required to include the proposed expenditures in the annual estimates presented to Parliament before the end of each financial year. Parliament then has to approve the expenditures as part of the Budget process. This requirement is backed up by Article 7-(3) of the Financial Procedures Act that states:

    (3)  Subject to subsection (3A), moneys standing to the credit of Singapore with any bank, or otherwise held by Singapore may be invested by the Minister —

    (a )on deposit in any bank;

    (b) [Deleted by Act 45 of 2004]

    (c) in gold and other bullion;

    (d) in securities of, or guaranteed by, any government or international financial institution;

    (e) in any of the stocks, funds, securities or investments; or

    (f) as otherwise authorised by law,

    and such investments together with the interest and any other income received therefrom shall form either —

    (i) part of the Consolidated Fund;

    (ii) part of any fund created by any law; or

    (iii) part of any deposit account constituted under section 8,

    Parliament passed a law setting up the NPF in 2010. However this is not the case for several other funds that you have set up and allocated substantial sums of money to in the last few Budgets. I have been unable to discover any Parliamentary Acts for the Bus Services Expansion Fund (BSEF), the National Youth Fund (NYF) or the Special Employment Credit Fund (SECF), to name a few of the many funds you have set up over the last few years.

    Despite being required under the NPF Act to keep proper accounts and records and to present audited accounts to Parliament as soon as practicable, there is no record in the Parliamentary reports of this having been done. I have been unable to find the accounts online or to find any record that the Auditor-General has audited the accounts and controls of the NPF.

    The only evidence I can find as to how much money has been spent from the NPF is from the Parliamentary reports. On 15 October 2012, during oral answers to questions on the effectiveness of the Government’s productivity measures, Teo Ser Luck, then the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, revealed that $950 million had been committed from the NPF “to support the slew of productivity initiatives” and that approximately 7,000 companies had benefited. The next update was in the Debate on the President’s Address held on 26 May 2014 when Teo Ser Luck updated the House that half of the NPF had been committed. At that time the amount set aside was $2 billion so that would make total commitments until then $1 billion. Does that represent actual spending or commitments? Does the NPF hold shares in the companies to which it has given grants for productivity improvements or claw back any of the money spent from the financial gains?

    I am particularly concerned that the NPF, the BSEF and the SECF have never been shown in the annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities (see link) which Article 147-(4) (b) of the Constitution requires you to present to Parliament at Budget time.  The link is to the statement dated 31 March 2013. This is more than two years out of date but is the latest that you allow Parliament and the Singaporean public to have access to. However you have given the  President the statement dated 31 March 2014 and there is no reason why Parliament and the public should not have access to the more up-to-date figures.

    Screenshot 2015-05-21 10.51.10

    This is supposed to be “an audited statement showing as far as practicable the assets and liabilities of Singapore at the end of the last completed financial year.” Neither are the BSEF, the NYF or the SECF. However other funds are represented on the liability side of the balance sheet such as the National Research Fund, the GST Voucher Fund, the Lifelong Learning Endowment Fund, the Government Securities Fund and the Edusave Endowment Fund.

    To sum up, I have the following specific questions:

    1. Why have the annual Statements of Assets and Liabilities never shown the National Productivity Fund when it is a separate fund established by law and not part of the Consolidated Fund? For example, the National Research Fund is shown as part of the Statement even though the NPF is not.

    2. SImilarly why have the annual Statements never shown the BSEF, the SECF or the NYF?

    3. Would you agree that it is a Constitutional requirement to include them? If not what is the explanation?

    4. If the NPF is not shown on the liability side of the Government’s balance sheet, are the monies allocated still shown on the asset side?

    5. Similarly are the monies allocated to the BSEF or the buses purchased with the fund shown on the asset side of the balance sheet? Ditto with the SECF.

    6. If it is no longer included on the asset side, does this mean that the entire $2 billion appropriated to the NPF up until Budget 2015 has been spent?

    7. Why then did Teo Ser Luck say in Parliament on 26 May 2014 that only half the NPF had been committed?

    8. Were the accounts of the NPF ever presented to Parliament as required under the Constitution? Have they ever been audited by the Auditor-General? What about the BSEF and the SECF?

    9. Has the money committed been given away in grants and if so to which companies?

    10. Was there any requirement to pay back the grants from the increased productivity, if at all, of the companies?

    11. Given that productivity has not risen at all since 2010 and is in fact lower than before the financial crisis of 2008, it is difficult to see that there have been any positive benefits from the money spent. Would you agree that this has been a complete waste of taxpayers’ money?

    12. Why have Acts of Parliament not been passed to administer the Bus Services Expansion Fund, the Special Employment Credit Fund or the National Youth Fund? You allocated $2.35 billion to the SECF in 2012 and another $0.5 million in 2015 while the figure for the BSEF was $1.1 billion.

    13. If no Act has been passed, then would you agree that by law the monies allocated remain part of the Consolidated Fund and all expenditure therefrom needs to be authorised by Parliament?

    14. In the BSEF and the SECF remain part of the Consolidated Fund, would you point me to where expenditures from these funds were approved by Parliament as part of the Budget?

    I am sure that you will have a simple explanation for these apparent discrepancies and apologise if I have been too obtuse not to see it with the limited access to information given to the Singapore public and Parliament.

    You have rightly been vigilant on behalf of Aljunied residents in pursuing an alleged $6.4 million overpayment by the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) to their managing agent.  Therefore you will understand why I am concerned on behalf of all Singaporeans by possible Constitutional breaches involving sums hundreds of times larger. My concerns go to the heart of transparency and accountability and the reasons why we need a strong Parliamentary check on the Executive. I am worried that without proper accountability and full transparency the monies allocated to the NPF and to other funds not shown could be used to cover up losses at Temasek, GIC and MAS. While there is no evidence that this has occurred there is equally no evidence that it has not.  I therefore urge you to release the accounts of these funds without delay and to answer my questions.

    You admitted this year that the amounts you allocated to endowments and trust funds do not constitute real spending after we drew this to the public’s attention here, here and here. Yet once they have been allocated they disappear from Parliamentary oversight and control and from the eyes of the public. In view of the Government’s admirably tight-fisted approach to spending on Singaporeans’ welfare, health and education it is vitally important that we see such controls applied to other areas of Government spending to see that there is no unnecessary wastage at best and fraud at worst.

    If the funds are not listed in the annual Statement of Assets and Liabilities then it is difficult to see how we are expected to believe that there are adequate controls on spending. We know that the Constitution requires you to provide the President with a summary of the receipts and expenditure of each fund but without transparency how can we know if the President is performing his Constitutionally mandated role adequately?

    You have ignored my previous letters written in May 2012 and February 2014 even though the latter showed that you had admitted that the AG had misrepresented a loan commitment as an asset when it is actually a liability in order to defeat my suit over Singapore’s $5 billion IMF loan commitment. Therefore I expect you will ignore this letter and shelter behind the High Court’s decision to deny Singaporeans locus standi to sue their Government if it breaches the Constitution. However if you fail to answer my questions within a reasonable time frame, Singaporeans can and will draw their own conclusions.

    Yours faithfully,

    Kenneth Jeyaretnam

     

    Source: http://sonofadud.com

  • Public Accounts Committee: Excercise Greater Diligence When Using Public Funds

    Public Accounts Committee: Excercise Greater Diligence When Using Public Funds

    The Public Accounts Committee has responded to a report by the Auditor-General flagging irregularities in the use of public funds for the financial year 2013/14.

    In a report submitted to Parliament yesterday (Feb 4), the committee – comprising eight Members of Parliament, and chaired by Mr Cedric Foo – urged government agencies to “exercise greater diligence in managing public resources and to review their usage regularly so as to optimise their use and minimise wastage”.

    Released in July last year, the Auditor-General’s report highlighted lapses in the administration of grants, schemes and programmes, as well as instances of weak management of resources which resulted in wastage.

    LAPSES IN LICENSING OF LAND

    Among the ministries and statutory boards cited in the report was the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF), which entered into an agreement with its contractor in 1995 to sublet land at a nominal rate of S$45 a year to provide services solely to MINDEF. However, the ministry did not raise the rent even after the contractor was privatised in 2000 and used the land for commercial activities.

    MINDEF clarified that the contractor was a wholly Government-owned company prior to 2000, and there was no clause in the 1995 agreement to state that the land leased was not to be used for commercial activities. MINDEF told the committee that it has since entered into a new agreement with the contractor and would be charging it annual rental for the land used for commercial activities.

    UNDER-UTILISATION OF ASSETS

    The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) was cited for the under-utilisation of land, buildings and facilities at two of its sites, as well as assets being under-utilised or left unused.

    In response, the Ministry of National Development (MND), which oversees the AVA, said that the AVA will conduct a comprehensive review on the usage of all its land, buildings and facilities by early 2015. It has since completed a review of its Sembawang site and submitted a land return proposal to the Singapore Land Authority, the MND said.

    The AVA has also identified under-utilised equipment and machinery, and reminded departments to dispose of those no longer required. In addition, its finance department plans to carry out annual independent checks on the assets, the MND said.

    ERRONEOUS MEDISAVE CLAIMS

    The Central Provident Fund Board (CPFB) was rapped for erroneous Medisave claims by medical institutions, and has since taken several remedy actions: Formalising and documenting procedures on the follow-up of erroneous claims, improving the tracking system, and sending reminders to all restructured hospitals to improve their medical classification of claim cases and to make the appropriate refunds to the claimants’ Medisave accounts.

    As of January 2015, 90 per cent of erroneous claims have been settled, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said.

    The CPFB has also been working with the Ministry of Health (MOH) since 2011 to explore various deterrent measures against medical institutions that made erroneous claims, such as the possibility of imposing administrative or penalty fees.

    According to the MOM, the majority of the erroneous claims arose from misinterpretation of the surgical procedures and guidelines. The MOH has since stepped up efforts to educate clinical practitioners and providers, and will update the list of surgical procedures claimable under Medisave or MediShield more regularly, the MOM said.

    ADMINISTRATION OF SCHEMES

    The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) was cited for “lax controls” over the approval of applications for the import of medicinal products. Of 1,479 import applications checked, 386 contained errors.

    The committee was told that the HSA has since conducted checks on the 386 applications and verified that the products had been licensed or approved for importation. The MOH added that the HSA would be enhancing the current trade declaration system to ensure that information in the application forms are verified electronically.

    PROCUREMENT

    The HSA was also rapped for awarding contracts to five incumbent contractors even though their tender proposals did not fully meet tender requirements. The agency has since tightened its procurement process and amended its procurement guidelines, the MOH said.

    The Public Accounts Committee said it was concerned that the instruction manual on procurement did not specify if agencies should invite a fresh tender if variation works exceeded a certain percentage of the approved original procurement value.

    In response, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) said there are “complex and multi-dimensional considerations” in determining whether a contract variation is justifiable. Setting a threshold may drive agencies towards calling contract variations as long as it is within the threshold and not considering calling fresh tenders, even when it may be more appropriate to do so, it said.

    However, the MOF said it has recently enhanced its guidelines on contract variations. Where additional works are necessary, and especially if the additional works are substantial, calling fresh tenders remains the default option, it said.

    BACKDATED AUDIT DOCUMENTS

    During the audit of the National Parks Board’s (NParks) development of the Gardens by the Bay, certain documents were found to have been created and backdated to give the impression that they existed when the transactions took place.

    An internal inquiry by the Ministry of National Development (MND) confirmed that an NParks officer had created and backdated 16 letters, purportedly issued by NParks to its suppliers, to satisfy audit queries. The same officer also arranged for the suppliers to issue a further 11 backdated letters – five of which were created by the officer on their behalf.

    According to MND, Gardens by the Bay has taken disciplinary actions against the officer for misconduct. It will also tighten its internal procurement, project management and contract management processes to prevent future recurrence, the MND told the committee.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com