Tag: PAP

Parliament To Debate Lapses Highlighted in AGO’s Audit Of WP’s AHPETC

Parliament will sit today, with the Auditor-General’s report on the audit of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), as well as the calculation of public transport fares on the agenda.

A total of 45 questions were submitted by Members of Parliament for this sitting: Thirty-three questions for oral answer and 12 for written answer.

Minister of National Development Khaw Boon Wan will move a motion on the Auditor-General’s report on the AHPETC, which flagged major lapses in “governance and compliance”.

The Ministry of National Development will call for a stronger legislative framework for town councils, in order to hold those responsible for their good management to proper account, and will also call on all Town Councils to uphold high standards of accounting, reporting and corporate governance to safeguard residents’ interest.

The Members of Parliament have also submitted questions on a wide range of topics, covering childcare centres, public transport fees, the Productivity and Innovation Credit scheme and the rental or sale of HDB flats, among others.

The State Lands (Amendment) Bill and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill will be introduced during this Parliament sitting. The second reading for the Deep Seabed Mining Bill will also be deliberated.

The report by the Auditor-General following its audit of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) revealed that key individuals running the town council also have stakes in companies it hired to manage its estates.

Experts have said that in cases where there are such conflicts of interests, a possible solution may be to have an independent body overseeing some of the town council’s management processes, such as when it calls for tenders.

Lapses in the management of related party transactions were among the findings in the Auditor-General’s report that was released on Monday (Feb 9).

The Auditor-General’s report found that AHPETC had hired two managing agents to carry out estate maintenance services. One of these was FM Solutions and Services Management (FMSS), which was first set up in May 2011.

FMSS’ managing director, general manager and two deputy general managers are shareholders in the company. They are also on the management board of the AHPETC – holding the position of secretary, general manager and deputy general managers.

AHPETC’s secretary also owns FM Solutions and Integrated Services (FMSI), a sole proprietorship. FMSI was engaged as a managing agent to manage precincts under the Hougang Town Council from April 2011 to June 2012.

Among the lapses highlighted in the Auditor-General’s report, it was found that a fee of S$1.28 million paid to the two companies for services during the financial year of 2012 to 2013 was not recorded in its financial statements.

Invoices made to the two companies were also issued and signed by the town council’s general manager and secretary, who were acting in their capacity as director of FMSS and owner of FMSI respectively.

The report said the town councils did not adequately manage the conflicts of interests that arose.

Associate Professor Mak Yuen Tee, who is with the National University of Singapore Business School, said: “The minimum is to declare and make people aware that you have those conflicts, to then not be involved on both sides of the transactions. In other words, you should not be verifying the payments and then approving the payments.

“Ideally, you want a situation where you are not sitting on both sides – either you step off the town council or you do not get involved with the managing agent.”

A possible alternative is to have an independent body overseeing some of the management processes like tenders for projects where there might be potential conflicts of interests.

Assoc Prof Mak added: “If you need estate management services, one issue would be what are the available options out there. If you call a tender, are you able to get different organisations to participate in the tender?

“I am involved in organisations where we call tenders and sometimes you do not have enough options and you end up selecting from a list of one. Ideally, you do not want that to happen but sometimes it will. If that happens and you end up in a related party situation, then that is where you need to take steps to mitigate that by involving people who are independent to review and to approve.”

Another solution is to develop or adopt a framework that can help the town council improve its management processes and manage risks.

Mr Sidney Lim, managing director of Protiviti Singapore, a company that deals with corporate governance, said: “The framework essentially looks at the three different risks that organisations face – the compliance risk, operational risk and reporting risk. And what is in the framework is a series of processes as well as components to help them manage and improve on corporate governance.”

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

February 12, 2015
Bikers Can Only Blame Themselves For Rising COE Prices

Dear editor,

I am a rider but I keep hearing complaints from riders that PAP is a bloodsucker and they are going to vote out PAP because they cannot afford $5,500 COE. I am sick and tired of hearing it.

Cannot afford COE? How about the illegal exhaust and mods made to their bikes? I know one dispatch rider who always complain about bike COE but owns 3 motorcycles and he spent more than $3,000 on modifications to his hayabusa alone. He always complain things are expensive in Singapore but did not take into account of their own income level and moderate his spending habits.

I know another dispatch rider who spent more than $500 for a helmet and more than $1,500 for a titanium exhaust without batting an eyelid. But he almost got into a serious accident when his bike stalled on the PIE because his engine oil dried up. He bitches to me often about bike COE.

I realised when riders complain about bike COE, they did not factor in the dealers who are very much responsible for jacking up COE prices.

When you purchase a vehicle, you sign the sales agreement and put down the deposit. The dealer then tells you that he will factor in a certain amount as the COE. That amount is probably based on the average value in the last couple of month. If it was 900, then 1300, he’ll probably put in 1K.

Right now with the COEs in the 4000 to 5000 region, a dealer will price it at 5K average. Then he’ll place his bid anyway. If you get the COE under 5K, he’ll refund you the difference. If over, you top up the diff. Then you settle your down payment.

Most whiners fail to realised this: the dealers and their salesmen want to make the sale, and will be willing to place insanely high bids just to close the deal. YOU are the sucker. The dealers are the one inflating the COE premium because of their panic bidding response to supply being cut. That was what happened a few months back when LTA cut the supply by 25%. They bid higher, wanting to make sure they got the COE to cover their sales. It’s not going down because the average value has gone up. Unless you get a fluke situation where there are less bids than the actual supply, and some lucky mofo puts a bid of $1.

So who are to be blamed for high COEs? Put simply. Bike dealers.

Why don’t whiners who’re buying bikes start telling the dealers “I’m only willing to pay COE $2,000 max. Any more, screw the deal.” Don’t sign on the sales agreement unless they add that in writing.

At this point, some of you might be thinking “But COE goes to PAP. The dealers don’t get the 5.5K what…..” Yes, and no. You ALWAYS have a down payment you’re willing to pay. Let’s say 5K on a 16Kbike (not incl COE). If the COE is at 1K, then the total price will be 17K (insurance let’s not include yet ok?) You made a downpayment of 5K, and your loan quantum will be 12K. Now if the COE was at 5K, the bike is gonna be 21K in all. Your loan quantum: 16K. The government gets the 5K, but the shop/finance isgonna get the interest out of that because you took a larger loan.

So who says that they don’t earn more from higher COEs?? The government has got to disallow dealers from bidding for COEs. Make the buyers log into the system themselves and place the bid instead.

Only then will COE premiums start to fall. Because as buyers ourselves, we will not place stupid bids. The dealers don’t give a crap about riders. They’re just interested in the sale. And you, the buyers, have to tell them “Fcuk off” When you go out to buy a new bike today, or tomorrow.

Go ahead and tell your dealer “I only want to bid COE max 1K, or else I’m not signing” See what they say. If everyone does it, see how the COE goes.

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

February 10, 2015
AGO Finds Governance Lapses In WP-Run AHPETC

The financial affairs of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) will be in the spotlight in Parliament on Thursday (Feb 12), after the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) issued a report finding lapses in governance and compliance by the town council.

These lapses, detailed in the report issued today (Feb 9), include failing to transfer monies into sinking fund bank accounts as required by the Town Councils Financial Rules, and inadequately managing conflicts of interest when it came to procuring services for the Workers’ Party-run town council.

The Auditor-General also found that there was no proper system for monitoring service and conservancy charges arrears, and internal controls were poor, which could lead to wrong payments for goods and services. The town council also does not have a proper system for record management and accounting, which led to it being unable to provide relevant documents for audits. As such, its financial statements did not accurately reflect its state of affairs and transactions, the Auditor-General found.

“Unless the weaknesses are addressed, there can be no assurance that AHPETC’s financial statements are accurate and reliable and that public funds are properly spent, accounted for and managed,” the report stated.

The Auditor-General was last year directed to conduct an audit of the AHPETC’s accounts for FY2012-13, after independent auditors said they were unable to express an opinion on the town council’s financial statements for the second consecutive year. The auditors, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton, said they could not determine if items worth more than S$22 million were valid or accurate.

A copy of the Auditor-General’s report was submited to Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan last Friday (Feb 6). A copy was also given to AHPETC the next day.

In a joint statement, the Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Finance said National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan will move a motion on the AGO report when Parliament sits on Thursday.

For the full report, click here.

Below are some examples of the lapses.

Lapses in management of sinking funds

– Under Town Councils Financial Rules, town councils must make the necessary transfers to sinking fund bank accounts within a month of the end of each financial year (FY) quarter. These funds are separately maintained for improvement and long-term maintenance of properties.

– For FY2012/13, AHPETC only transferred S$1.5 million to the sinking fund in Feb 2013. It transferred another S$2.74 million in Jan 2014, but this was still less that what was required under the rules. Following the AGO’s query, AHPETC transferred another S$1.2 million in June 2014.

Lapses in governance of related party transactions

– AHPETC’s key officers had ownership interests in two companies engaged by the town council for estate services — FM Solutions & Integrated Services (FMSI) and FM Solutions & Services (FMSS)

– FMSI’s sole proprietor is AHPETC’s secretary Danny Loh Chong Meng. He is also one of FMSS’ directors and shareholders, together with his wife AHPETC general manager How Weng Fan and deputy general managers Yeo Soon Fei and Johnson Lieow Chong Sern

– On two occasions for contracts worth S$5.2 million and S$20.7 million, no evidence was found to show that there were proper disclosures of the interests of the related parties, the conflicts of interest, and an assessment of safeguards, before AHPETC entered into agreements with FMSS.

Lapses in management of conservancy and service charge arrears

– AHPETC’s conservancy and service charges arrears report submitted to Ministry of National Development for March 2013 showed 4,379 units with arrears of three months or more. But its report submitted to its Finance and Investment Committee showed 17,502 units in arrears for three months or more as of March 31 2013.

Lapses in internal controls and procurement

– On one occasion, AHPETC awarded a contract amounting to S$88,346 without calling a tender. The cost later increased to S$101,641 due to changes in scope of work and this was only approved by the AHPETC chairman, although it should have been approved by the town council under the Town Councils Financial Rules

– Waivers of quotation for purchases were approved by AHPETC deputy general manager, but no documentation was provided to show that he was delegated the authority to do so

Inadequacies in record management and accounting system

– AHPETC could not find the accounting documents for April to July 2011, resulting in its auditor being unable to issue an audit opinion for the town council’s FY2011/12 financial statements

– AHPETC did not record lift upgrading programme expenses in the financial statements for the years in which the expenses were incurred. As a result, there were understatements of about S$240,000 and S$8.14 million in FY2010/11 and FY2011/12 respectively. There was also overstatement of S$8.38 million in FY2012/13.

Source: www.todayonline.com

February 10, 2015
Temasek Yang Dulu Bukan Seperti Singapura Sekarang

Temasek yang dahulu bukan lah Singapurak yang sekarang…

1. Populasi imigran Cina di Temasek berjumlah kurang 100k di Pulau Singapurak pada tahun 1700an. Kebanyakan menjadi peniaga dibawah koloni pemerintahan Syarikat Indian British dan buruh kasar kongsi ladang di Johor.

2. Kemerosotan populasi Melayu semakin merosot akibat kemasukan besar besaran imigrasi etnik Cina semasa berlaku revolusi dan perang di Benua China pada tahun 1800-1900. Populasi etnik Cina di Singapurak meningkat naik kepada 900k.

3. Peperangan dunia kedua membawa masuk lebih ramai etnik2 Cina dari seluruh benua Cina. Tempias juga kepada populasi di Tanah Melayu dengan kaum cina semakin menjadi jadi menguasai segala serba serbi sektor ekonomi.

4. Salah satu sikap peniaga Cina yang mendatangkan ketidakpuasan hati rakyat asal Tanah Melayu dan Singapurak Melayu ini adalah kelicikan mereka menguasai dengan pantas jaringan perniagaan. Tiada ruang diberikan langsung kepada peniaga Melayu untuk berkembang. Ini kerana peniaga Melayu kekurangan modal dana untuk berkembang dimana jaringan peniaga Cina bekerjasama sesama sendiri memberi bantuan kewangan menyebabkan mereka pantas menguasai segenap ruang yang ada.

5. Tahun 1900 banyak bank bank dikuasai etnik Cina ini membuka cawangan berkembang di Tanah Melayu dan Singapura. Dengan licik mereka mula berpakat dengan British untuk menguasai Tanah Lombong dan Perladangan. berjuta juta hektar tanah dimiliki oleh pelabur peniaga Cina tersebut.

6. Itu bab sejarah asal usul perkembangan ekonomi kaum Cina. Sekarang kembali kepada topik asas Cina Kiasu di Singapurak.

7. Kaum Cina ini golongan yang sangat licik sekali. Mereka yang akan timbulkan masalah dan mereka juga yang akan kedepan seolah olah sang penyelamat dengan memberikan penyelesaian kepada masalah. Sebab itulah orang Eropah menggelarkan bangsa Cina ini sebagai Virus Yahudi di Timur Dunia.

8. Contoh paling kritikal adalah kemunculan Komunis Cina di Tanah Melayu dan Singapurak. Orang Cina yang mewujudkannya. Kemudian mereka juga menubuhkan parti radikal perkauman Cina seperti MCA, DAP dan PAP seolah melawan komunis tersebut. Walhal seumpama pepatung puppet sahaja. String atau talinya tetap dimainkan belakang tabir oleh elitis2 Cina tersebut.

Orang Melayu buta berpolitik. Maka termakan dakyah tipu helah sebagaimana beratus ratus tahun sudah ditipu hidup hidup oleh sang penjajah2.

9. Kesannya?… Singapurak secara halus dilepaskan (Expulsion) dari genggaman pemerintahan orang Melayu dari Tanah Melayu selama lamanya. Tertubuhlah Republik Singapurak purak.

10. Pada awal penendangan Singapurak dari Persekutuan Tanah Melayu (Malaysia) pada 1965, populasi orang Melayu hanya 15%. Buddha Cina menguasai Singapurak dengan 75% populasi.

11. Julat yang sama seperti Pulau Pinang dan bandar bandar ekonomi utama di Malaysia skang ni. Nampak tak plot trend disitu?…

12. Sekarang ini, julat populasi masih kekal sama dengan Melayu penduduk asal Singapurak hanya kekal berjumlah 15%. Macam mana boleh terjadi perkara begini?… Sedangkan populasi jumlah kaum cina di Malaysia sudah pun meningkat naik mencecah 45%?…

13. Bagaimana kerajaan cauvinis perkauman Cina yang menguasai Republik Singapurak menjalankan operasi mengawal populasi kaum Melayu dengan berjaya?…

14. Mudah. Kerajaan Cina Buddha Cauvinis Singapurak selama ini menjalankan dasar licik :

– Dasar Ketat Peneutralan Imigrasi untuk orang Melayu
– Mengetatkan undang2 perkahwinan campur antara Muslim dan non Muslim di Singapurak

15. Di Singapura orang bukan Islam dilarang keras oleh undang undang untuk berkahwin dengan orang Islam (MELAYU). Tetapi dibenarkan oleh liberal law untuk berkahwin tanpa bertukar agama. Sama seperti yang terjadi di Indonesia juga sekarang ini. Anak2 golongan kawen tanpa asas agama ini sekarang semakin ramai di sana. Secara harafiah institusi ke Melayuan sudah pun dirosakkan dengan sistematik.

16. Peneutralan kerakyatan Melayu juga diperketatkan. Dasar berbeza digunapakai terhadap golongan Cina yang mahukan kerakyatan Singapurak dengan dilepaskan secara mudah didalam sistem imigresen. Kesannya populasi kerakyatan baru Singapurak dikalangan etnik Cina semakin meningkat berpuluh2 ribu setahun.

17. Dasar perundangan antara Melayu dan Cina juga berbeza. Registry of Muslim Marriages (ROMM) dan Registry of Marriage (ROM) untuk non-Muslims. Poligami juga diharamkan terus di Singapurak.

18. Dari sejumlah 6 juta warga Singapurak sekarang, hanya 15% saja Melayu Muslim. Itu berjumlah 900k semenjak 50+ tahun yang lepas. Selagi menjadi MINORITI, maka nasib orang Melayu kerap lah tertindas dan tidak terbela.

19. Apakah mungkin nasib orang Melayu di Singapurak boleh berulang di Malaysia kelak?…

20. Dan orang2 Cina di Malaysia tidak habis habis mencari pasal dengan hak keistimewaan orang orang Melayu yang termaktub didalam Kontrak Sosial dan Perlembagaan Malaysia.

21. Apa yang menjadi polemik bukan hubungan antara kaum Melayu dan Cina yang menjadi masalah. Tetapi sikap tamak dan keinginan kaum Cina yang mahu menapau semua saki baki kek yang ada seolah tidak mencukupi amatlah menakutkan orang2 Melayu skang ni.

22. Jika tidak dirawat masalah ini, tidak mustahil akan terjadi protest besar besaran anti Cina berulang lagi pada masa depan. Amuk itu ayat khusus alter terahsia orang Melayu.

23. Jika Melayu mengamuk dah berubah fikiran dengan menyatakan tegas bahawa cukup lah sudah perkongsian selama ini dengan kaum Cina dan mahu kod perkongsian selama ini dihapuskan… Soalan lain yang tak mustahil akan timbul masa depan :

DIMANA KAUM CINA MALAYSIA MAHU BERPINDAH?…

24. Terlalu lama memberi ruang dan berkongsi lama kelamaan orang Melayu juga yang kena pijak. Hanya masa saja menentukan tahap kesabaran orang Melayu boleh bertahan berapa lama lagi.

Kami sayangkan senyuman manismu,
Tetapi Kami juga bencikan kelicikan kamu memijak menindas kepala kami…

Fikirkanlah…

Source: Amzarul Yuzrin Bin Mohd Yusof

February 3, 2015
Tharman: Budget 2015 To Address Needs Of All Singaporeans

Singapore’s upcoming budget will likely address issues on retirement adequacy and ensuring good careers for the young and middle-aged, according to Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, as he provided a rare glimpse of Budget 2015.

Speaking on the sidelines of NUS’ anniversary celebrations in Taman Jurong on Sunday (Feb 1), Mr Tharman said the budget will provide greater assurance particularly for the lower-income seniors.

He said the Government is in the final stages of shaping the Silver Support scheme. The new initiative, which was announced at last year’s National Day Rally, will see the Government pay an annual bonus to low-income elderly Singaporeans from age 65 to help them cope with their living expenses.

“Providing assurances in retirement for our seniors is a very important priority – not just for today’s generation of seniors but those in future as well. It is a strengthening of our social security system,” said Mr Tharman.

Besides retirement adequacy, Mr Tharman said what is equally important is ensuring that young and middle-aged Singaporeans have fulfilling careers: “We have always got to look to the future – anticipate the challenges, prepare our people and equip them with the capabilities and the expertise that they need to do well, individually as well as collectively as Singapore.

“When we talk about good careers, it is not just about those who are today in school or in our tertiary institutions and about to start their careers. It is also about our mid-career Singaporeans.”

The finance minister emphasised that the budget initiatives will not stand on its own. He said it is a continuation of what the government has been doing in the past, especially the last five years.

Mr Tharman said steps have been taken that are significantly transforming Singapore’s social and economic landscape, such as strengthening affordability in healthcare and housing for the lower and middle-income groups.

He said that this year’s budget, which comes along with Singapore’s 50th anniversary, will address both the needs of today and tomorrow. Mr Tharman will deliver Singapore’s Budget for 2015 in Parliament on Feb 23.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

February 2, 2015