Tag: Sylvia Lim

  • Sylvia Lim’s Open Letter To The Residents

    Sylvia Lim’s Open Letter To The Residents

    Dear Residents,

    There has been Parliamentary debate and many adverse media reports on the issue of Managing Agent contract of the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC). I am writing to you to clarify any misconceptions that may have arisen. I also wish to update you on a few matters concerning the management of AHPETC.

    Public Tenders for AHPETC Contracts

    Has AHPETC given contracts to “friends”?

    It has not.

    The fact is that in 2012, public tenders were called and advertised in the Straits Times newspaper for the contracts for Managing Agent (MA) and Essential Maintenance and Services Unit (EMSU) services. In 2014 and 2015, public tenders were also called for the MA and EMSU contracts respectively. Anyone can submit a bid for a public tender. AHPETC does not and cannot reserve contracts for friends in a public tender.

    A tender was not called for MA services only for the one year period from July 2011 to July 2012 when urgent taking over work was needed. The elected Members of Parliaments (MPs) decided to award the newly formed FM Solutions & Services Pte Ltd (FMSS), consisting primarily of managers and staff from the former Hougang Town Council, a one-year provisional contract to take over the initial management of the Town Council, without calling a public tender. This was in order to ensure a smooth takeover of town management in view of the short time on hand to do so and to avoid any disruption in services to the residents.

    Not calling a public tender for an MA contract is allowed under Para 76 of the Town Councils Financial Rules. However, the Town Councillors did not award a standard three-year MA contract to FMSS at this point, as the Town Council intended to call for a public tender for MA services as soon as possible after takeover of town management has been completed and operations have been stabilised.

    Managing Agent Rates & “Overpayment”

    You may have seen and read reports that AHPETC “overpaid” FMSS by an estimated $1.6 million a year and therefore supposedly estimated as $6.4 million over four years.

    To support this allegation a table showing 2014 Managing Agent (MA) rates of Town Councils was distributed during the parliamentary debate on 12 Feb 2015 and the Law Minister said that “FMSS charges the Town Council $14.92 for each commercial unit compared with between $4.80 and $6.65 for all other Town Councils.”, and that “FMSS charged the Town Council $7.43 for every residential unit. Others charge between $4.80 and $6.65”. He used these as the basis to derive at the above estimated overpayments, comparing FMSS’ rates with a “weighted average” of MA rates in other TCs in 2014.

    We were puzzled by the MA rates used by the Minister and hence I filed questions in Parliament to ask the Minister for National Development for more information. On 5 March 2015, the Minister provided Parliament with the tables which I will reproduce here to clarify the matter.

    Table 1 – MA Rates Per Residential Unit by Town Council (2011-2014)

    Town Council 2011 2012 2013 2014
    AHPE $7.87** $7.87** $7.01 $7.43
    Ang Mo Kio $5.08 $5.08 $5.08 $5.33
    Choa Chu Kang $5.13 $5.13 $5.06* $5.06
    East Coast $6.10 $6.20 $6.30 $5.10
    Holland-Bukit Panjang $5.95 $6.10 $6.20 $6.30
    Jurong $5.35 $5.45 $5.55 $5.55
    Marine Parade $5.13 $5.13 $5.13 $5.13
    Moulmein-Kallang $6.63 $6.63 $6.63 $5.80
    Nee Soon $6.05 $6.20 $6.30 $6.40
    Pasir Ris-Punggol $6.11 $6.20 $6.25 $5.50
    Potong Pasir $6.63 $7.80 $7.80 $5.80
    Sembawang $6.05 $6.20 $6.30 $6.40
    Tampines $5.00 $5.00 $4.79* $4.79
    Tanjong Pagar $6.22 $6.25 $6.45 $6.65
    West Coast $6.01 $6.01 $6.10 $6.21

    Note:
    * Indicates there was a change in MA during the period of the predominant rate.
    ** Derived by MND using total MA fees paid, which includes for managing parking lots, and making no distinction between residential and commercial rates.

    We make the following observation from Table 1 on MA rates for residential units:

    1) MA rates of PAP Town Councils in 2014 were lower compared to preceding years for six TCs. In 2011, there were eight PAP TCs with MA rates per residential unit over $6, and nine in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, the number dropped to five and the “weighted average” MA rate in PAP TCs was the lowest.

    2) Compared to 2013, MA rates per residential unit dropped drastically in 2014 for four PAP TCs even though the MA did not change: East Coast from $6.30 to $5.10, Moulmein-Kallang from $6.63 to $5.80, Pasir Ris-Punggol from $6.25 to $5.50, and Potong Pasir from a high of $7.80 to $5.80.

    Next, we look at the data on MA rates for commercial units:

    Table 2 – MA Rates Per Commercial Unit by Town Council (2011-2014)

    Town Council 2011 2012 2013 2014
    AHPE $7.87** $7.87** $14.08 $14.92
    Ang Mo Kio $5.08 $5.08 $5.08 $5.33
    Choa Chu Kang $5.13 $5.13 $5.06* $5.06
    East Coast $11.50 $11.50 $11.50 $5.10
    Hollang-Bukit Panjang $5.95 $6.10 $6.20 $6.30
    Jurong $5.35 $5.45 $5.55 $5.55
    Marine Parade $5.13 $5.13 $5.13 $5.13
    Moulmein-Kallang $6.63 $6.63 $6.63 $5.80
    Nee Soon $6.05 $6.20 $6.30 $6.40
    Pasir Ris-Punggol $11.50 $11.50 $11.50 $5.50
    Potong Pasir $6.63 $7.80 $7.80 $5.80
    Sembawang $6.05 $6.20 $6.30 $6.40
    Tampines $5.00 $5.00 $4.79* $4.79
    Tanjong Pagar $6.22 $6.25 $6.45 $6.65
    West Coast $6.01 $6.01 $6.10 $6.21

    Notes: * and ** as noted for Table 1 above.

    We noted from Table 2 that prior to 2014, some MAs of PAP TCs practiced charging a higher rate for managing commercial property compared to residential property. For example, the MA rate for commercial units at East Coast and Pasir Ris Punggol TCs were $11.50 when their residential rates were in the range of $6. The former MA managing of Aljunied TC, CPG Facilities Management (“CPG”), also had the same practice and hence the former Aljunied TC had a differential MA rate for residential and commercial units (see Table 3).

    In 2014, as seen from the tables, all MAs managing PAP TCs adopted the practice of charging a flat rate for MA fee for both commercial and residential units. Hence, by taking the 2014 rates only, the commercial rate of $14.92 for AHPETC stood out compared with the flat rates of PAP TCs.

    In any case, if we use the same logic of the ministers to derive at “overpayment” estimates, PAP TCs such as Tanjong Pagar (77,300 units), Nee Soon (65,000 units) and Sembawang (67,000 units) are also overpaying their MAs by around $860,000, $530,000 and $550,000 a year respectively. I am not alleging Tanjong Pagar, Nee Soon and Sembawang TCs are overpaying their MAs. My point is that comparing the MA rates of a TC to the “weighted average” of MA rates for all TCs is not a good way to judge the fairness of the rates charged by the MA. As you can see in Table 1 & 2 above, there is a lot of variation in MA rates among TCs, which reflect the different geography and requirements of each town.

    Fair-Pricing the MA Contract in an Uncompetitive Situation

    During the parliamentary debate, the Law Minister also brought up Tampines and Choa Chu Kang TCs because these towns are supposedly comparable to or host a similar number of units as AHPETC. Incidentally, these two PAP TCs also charged the lowest MA rates in 2014 (see Table 1). The contrast is there, but Tampines and Choa Chu Kang are not easily comparable to AHPETC because all towns are different in terms of geography and other town characteristics that affect how they are managed.

    As stated earlier, we decided to award FMSS a one-year provisional contract to ensure a smooth transition to avoid any disruption in services to the residents before calling for a public tender in 2012. The question was how to fairly price the one-year MA contract.

    Reasonably, we used the contractual MA rates agreed to between the former Aljunied Town Council and their MA, CPG, as our reference point for fair-pricing the MA contract (Table 3). There was no reason to doubt the professionalism of the former Aljunied Town Council in contracting the following MA rates with CPG. More importantly, we believed, as evidenced by the varying MA rates in Table 1 & 2, the contractual MA rates with CPG reflected the cost of managing the bulk of the town in terms of its unique geography and town characteristics.

    Table 3. CPG’s contractual MA rates for Aljunied TC

    Period Residential Commercial
    1 August 2010 – 31 July 2011 $6.03 $12.80
    1 August 2011 – 31 July 2012 $6.37 $12.80
    1 August 2012 – 31 July 2013 $6.73 $12.80

    Hence, when Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) appointed FMSS as MA for one year, the contract provided for the taking over of the management of the former Aljunied TC at the same MA rate agreed between the former Aljunied TC and CPG for that year (1 August 2011 – 31 July 2012). In other words, our contract with FMSS was substantially the same as CPG’s contractual MA rates for the second year, $6.37 for residential unit and $12.80 for commercial unit (highlighted in Table 3). This was the first cost component for the one year transitional contract. However, there was a second cost component that covered the taking over of the existing staff of the former Hougang Town Council at their existing salary, and also some additional staff who had to come in to prepare for the handover before the actual handover date.

    In its tenders for MA services in 2012 and 2014, AHPETC did not receive competing bids. Only FMSS submitted a bid for our public tender for MA in 2012. In the absence of a competing bid, we again returned to the CPG contractual rates and used the third year rate (2012) as the reference point (Table 3).

    We awarded FMSS the MA contract at the contractual rate for residential units of $7.01 for 2012/13. This rate represented a premium of approximately 4% compared to the third-year CPG residential rate of $6.73 for 2012. We also assessed the increase in the MA fees to be reasonable for several reasons, including the need to operate an additional TC office in Kaki Bukit and the lower economies of scale enjoyed by FMSS as a smaller operator compared to CPG. We were also aware of the MA rates in several PAP TCs being in the range of $6 to $7 at the time of the tender i.e. in 2012.

    The subsequent rise in FMSS’ contractual MA rate from $7.01 in 2012/2013 to $7.43 for 2013/14 for residential units mirrors the annual 6% rise in the CPG contractual MA rates for residential units.

    To summarise, our contractual commitments with FMSS have been based on strict reasoning using available market information in 2012 when tender was called in the absence of competing bids, while placing residents’ interests in undisrupted services at the forefront.

    Follow-ups on the Report by the Auditor-General’s Office

    AHPETC underwent a rigorous 10-month audit by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO) in 2014. The AGO found some areas where there had been lapses in financial management and weaknesses in controls. AHPETC has made some improvements and has also acted promptly to hire external accountants to assist to clean up its accounts and to further strengthen its processes and controls. The work is making progress and certain financial issues will take time to resolve. AHPETC is also working towards filing its audited accounts by the deadlines set by the Ministry of National Development.

    Transition to Direct Management

    Come July 2015, we will be embarking on direct management of the TC, as no MA has submitted a bid to work for AHPETC. We will do our best to keep costs down and protect AHPETC’s long-term financial interests. On behalf of my fellow MPs and Town Councillors, I would like to thank you for your concern and support. Despite the challenging political climate, we will continue to serve you to the best of our ability.

    SYLVIA LIM
    CHAIRMAN
    ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL

    June 2015

    This letter was extracted from the June 2015 edition of Good Neighbours newsletter.

    Click here for the Open letter in Chinese

    Click here for the Open letter in Malay

    Click here for the Open letter in Tamil

     

    Source: www.ahpetc.sg

  • The Parliamentary Debate On AHPETC

    The Parliamentary Debate On AHPETC

    National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan moved a motion in Parliament on Thursday (Feb 12) to “note with concern” findings from the Auditor-General’s Report on the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) financial accounts.

    Mr Khaw noted that “AHPETC have not submitted their reports on time ever since their formation in 2011”. The first report, delivered after a delay of more than four months, was a qualified one, with the Auditor making a “Disclaimer of Opinion” – which means that the auditors are unable to state that the financial statements provide a true and fair account of the TC’s financial position, said Mr Khaw.

    ‎AHPETC‬’s reports for financial year 2012 were also submitted after a delay, and the auditor also submitted a Disclaimer of Opinion, noted Mr Khaw. There were nine new issues of pressing concern, in addition to four areas identified by the auditor in the previous year, which remained unresolved contrary to AHPETC’s assurance to MND, he added.

    As stewards of public funds, all Town Councils must keep proper accounts and records, and maintain adequate control over their assets, said the minister.

    The AGO’s report is a “sad commentary” on the state of affairs at the AHPETC, said Mr Khaw. The AGO found that “AHPETC’s financial and accounting processes and systems are unreliable and their accounts, inaccurate”, he added.

    “Things can only get worse” because the bulk of the AHPETC’s lift replacements – about 90 per cent of its 1,870 lifts – are due after 2025, said Mr Khaw, as “if it continues to miss contributions to its sinking fund, the residents will eventually be living in blocks where lifts are unsafe or unreliable, and other infrastructures often break down”.

    AHPETC needs to build up its sinking fund, said Mr Khaw: “There is always the temptation, when a Town Council is financially strapped, to postpone saving, and say it will make up the shortfall later, or worse, to put its hand into the cookie jar, to draw from the savings to satisfy immediate needs.”The Town Council also did not “adequately manage the conflicts of interests of related parties arising from ownership interests of its key officers,” said Mr Khaw. “It was very convenient. Husband issued payment voucher, wife issued payment.”

    Mr Khaw said the AGO’s report showed that AHPETC has close to S$27 million worth of contracts with its two related parties, FMSS and FMSI, and of these, close to S$6 million was given without tender.

    “AHPETC’s repeated failure to do so shows a disregard for its obligation to account to its residents; and also disregard for this Parliament of which the AHPETC’s Chairman, Vice-Chairmen and their fellow MPs have solemnly sworn to serve in,” said Mr Khaw.

    The Auditor General’s findings confirm that something is “seriously wrong” at the Town Council, said Mr Khaw: “They paint a picture of financial mismanagement, incompetence and negligence in corporate governance.”

    Mr Khaw said that by law, Councillors and Members of Parliament are “ultimately responsible” for everything in the Town Council, and they cannot delegate their responsibility away to the Managing Agent, or others. But “throughout the AHPETC saga, we have found the MPs running the AHPETC to be evasive, unresponsive and misleading,” he said.

    “Financial incompetence aside, failure to carry out critical cyclical maintenance work is an even graver safety concern,” said the minister, highlighting the six-month delay of AHPETC’s FY2013 cyclical maintenance works report.

    On the appointing of a related party, FMSS as a Managing Agent, Mr Khaw asked: “Why did AHPETC not disclose these related party transactions and take steps to prevent the risk of abuse when the companies it gave contracts to were owned by its key officers?”

    He also questioned what the MPs of AHPETC were doing “throughout this sad saga”, saying that the MPs of AHPETC were consistently “side-stepping and avoiding responsibility”.

    MND’S FOLLOW-UP

    MND expects AHPETC to follow up and remedy the problems and weaknesses listed in the AGO Report, said Mr Khaw. MND has withheld the FY2014 S&CC grant from the AHPETC. The money has been put aside in a separate deposit account, and will be paid out after the problems are fixed.

    The Ministry will also address the weaknesses in the current Town Council regulatory framework. “We can no longer take the light touch and assume that all MPs running Town Councils will be responsible,” said Mr Khaw. A proper system of enforcement and penalties will be instituted.

    Mr Khaw also noted that it is not a Town Council’s business to organise and operate trade fairs, as it would be unfair to existing HDB shops. AHPETC was found guilty of holding a festive trade fair, without a permit, in 2014.

    MND’s regulatory oversight will be strengthened, with powers to collect information and conduct investigations, and a stronger penalty framework, said Mr Khaw. Town Councils need competent, honest people and proper systems to serve their residents well, added Mr Khaw. “Good intentions and bland assurances alone are not sufficient … Compared to the sound and fury of politicking, governing is long, tedious and unglamorous work.”

    WORKERS’ PARTY SUPPORTS THE MOTION

    The Workers’ Party supports the motion, said party chief Low Thia Khiang.

    Mr Low also addressed the “misconception that the Managing Agent was given the contract without tender”, saying the fact remains that AHPETC finds it hard to attract a Managing Agent as many Managing Agents serving PAP Town Councils appear unwilling to serve a non-PAP Town Council.

    He said that any Opposition party aspiring to take over the Government must first build an army of civil servants, calling it a “strange situation”.

    He called upon the Government to protect resident’s interests during the transition from one party to another, and said that the process of transition for Town Councils should be depoliticised.

    Mr Low also said that the AHPETC episode should be taken in proper perspective, as that the Town Council’s performance in other aspects is comparable to others.

    The Workers’ Party chief ended his speech saying that the party will continue to serve AHPETC residents to the best of its ability, despite a “challenging political climate”.

    ‘KEY IMPROVEMENTS AND UPDATES’ MADE: SYLVIA LIM

    The AHPETC has made the needed corrections and payments for the sinking fund, said AHPETC chairman Sylvia Lim. She added that the money not transferred to the sinking fund was not lost, and that “the Town Council accepts that it should have transferred the full amount each quarter.

    She said that the AHPETC has never disputed that the Town Council and the Managing Agent are related parties, saying that the agent has no decision-making powers in award of tenders. The tenders are awarded by a separate committee, said Ms Lim.

    Ms Lim said that FMSS was only appointed as a transitional Managing Agent following the General Election in 2011, but when open tenders were called for a Managing Agent in 2012, only FMSS tendered. Still, AHPETC has various structures in place to oversee the work of the Managing Agent, she said.

    The AHPETC chairman also suggested that MND “makes it clear which parties are considered related parties”.

    Ms Lim also touched on the unintended overpayments to the Managing Agent over the nine-month interim period, saying that the sum has been paid back. “I bear personal responsibility,” she said.

    For payments made to the Managing Agent, Ms Lim said monthly reports were churned out based on the performance and time taken. The AHPETC has started to introduce more oversight on the Managing Agent and processes have been changed, added Ms Lim.

    She maintained that it was not the case that the Town Council disrespected residents and Parliaments by not providing information to the AGO, saying that AHPETC has done its best to provide whatever information they could to auditors. Ms Lim admitted that they were late with some information for the cyclical maintenance, but she said that they were not ignoring it and that some information has been submitted.

    There was no finding that AHPETC was dishonest or falsified records in the audit, said Ms Lim.

    AUDIT SERVES AS A WARNING TO ALL TOWN COUNCILS: SAM TAN

    The AHPETC audit serves as a warning to all Town Councils, said Minister of State, Prime Minister’s Office & Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth Sam Tan. He also pointed out that Workers’ Party Members of Parliament have frequently criticised the PAP’s transparency in part election rallies.

    Mr Tan also touched on potential conflicts of interest, saying that it is hardly in the public interest if the person who generates and approves an invoice is the same person.

    He said that Town Councils need to be held responsible when it is at fault, pointing out that the current Town Councils Act doesn’t allow this.

    The Minister of State, citing Confucious, also called Members of Parliament to apply high standards to themselves. He pointed to Workers’ Party’s Chen Show Mao first Parliament speech in 2011, calling Mr Chen’s words “righteous and powerful”, and saying that he was looking forward to hearing Mr Chen’s views on the AHPETC audit.

    Mr Chen explained that all payments from AHPETC required the signatures of both Sylvia Lim and Mr Png Eng Huat.

    AHPETC PAYMENT APPROVAL PROCESS ‘UNLAWFUL’: SHANMUGAM

    Law Minister K Shanmguam said that the AHPETC’s payments were made without “transparency and accountability”, adding that there was “no discussion of conflicts of interests”.

    Mr Shanmugam called Managing Agent FMSS a “convenient vehicle”, to which “millions of dollars went from the Town Council to FMSS”. He also distributed a graphic to Parliament, which depicted the payment approval process for the AHPETC, calling the process “unlawful”.

    Approval Process

    The ownership interest and control of the Managing Agent is what “distinguishes AHPETC from other Town Councils”, said the Law Minister.

    “This is not just a question of negligence, or inexperience,” he added.

    The Law Minister also said the payments that the Managing Agent were verifying and and approving on behalf of the Town Council “were going into their own pockets”, calling it a “real conflict” of interest.

    Mr Shanmugam also distributed a table in Parliament that compared Managing Agent rates across the various Town Councils. FMSS now charges “double what everyone else” does, he said.

    Town Councils MA Rates

    “The rhetoric from the WP is always about helping the poor man,” said Mr Shanmugam. “The reality is that WP took money from the man in the street and gave it to (Managing Agent) FMSS.”

    The behaviour of the WP, which “claims to champion transparency and accountability”, was “shocking”, said Mr Shanmugam. “Why doesn’t the Town Council give proper answers instead of playing hide and seek?” he asked.

    AHPETC’s actions were “not negligence” but an “active decision to suppress”, said Mr Shanmugam. “It raises the issue of integrity.” He added that the Town Council’s “failure to disclose the details of its contracts with FMSS” in FY2012/2013 was “in breach of the Singapore Financial Reporting Standards”.

    He asked if AHPETC chairman Sylvia Lim or any Town Councillor can “honestly say that no monies have been lost” from the Town Council, asking “overpayment to related party is not loss?”

    “The law takes an extremely strict view on related party transactions, on conflict of interests,” said the Law Minister. He said the money was not lost through accident, but that the structure was “approved by at least some of the Town Councillors”.

    “The basic point is that while the Town Council lost money, FMSS and FMSI seem to have made money,” said Mr Shanmugam.

    The Law Minister called on WP chief Low to “stop playing the victim card”, and said that it was time for each Town Councillor to “come clean before this Parliament”.

    He asked if Mr Chen knew about the payment structure, saying that if Mr Chen knew all the facts, he “could not have agreed to this structure”. He added that the WP’s Pritam Singh makes “fierce speeches on transparency”, but has been  “anything but transparent”, and that FMSS got the contracts because they were friends of Mr Low.

    “The AGO Report makes sad reading,” said Mr Shanmugam. “Basically, the Town Council is in shambles.”

    “So many things are so disastrously wrong,” he added. “There has been a complete dereliction of duties.”

    “We have to ask the WP to come clean and explain yourselves to the public,” said Mr Shanmugam in closing. “Your residents deserve some real honest answers.”

    WP REJECTS LAW MINISTER’S ASSUMPTION

    WP’s Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh both rejected Law Minister K Shanmugam’s statement.

    “We reject the assertions that the appointment of the Managing Agent was to benefit our friends,” said Ms Lim. She also said that it was premature for Mr Shanmugam to accuse the WP of not giving answers, as some MPs were yet to speak.

    Mr Singh said that his duty was to AHPETC residents, and that he would answer questions if they were posed by a resident, to which Minister of State Sam Tan said: “I’m an Aljunied resident. You can give your answers to me.”

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

     

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

    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