Rilek1Corner

Tag: Workers Party

  • Low Thia Kiang – Lee Hsien Loong Frontal Assaults in Parliament

    Mr Low: Madam, I wish to clarify a few points. First of all, the reason why I decided to focus my speech on constructive politics, because I thought that was an important issue that we should look at. As what I say in my speech, Singapore is becoming more diversified, there will be different views. And moving forward, how the Government will deal and accommodate different views and different perspective of Singaporeans is important for us to move forward together as one united people. And the other MPs from the Workers’ Party will be talking about different issues. They will cover, I mean ranging from social issues, social safety net to foreign affairs, national security. They will cover the full range of areas, and thereby we split our job, I will focus on constructive politics. I thought it was an important issue and of course it’s important to also understand what is the perspective of the PAP in terms of constructive politics. And from what the Prime Minister has said, it seems to me that it is more constructive dictated on the term of the PAP, rather than constructive politics in terms of the society that is moving forward. And I have affirmed my endorsement to what the President has said that we should look at the outcome of constructive politics – that is, that we should be able to move forward together despite the differences. Next, he’s talking about the Workers’ Party flip-flopping on foreign workers issue. I said again I don’t think we have flip-flopped. I have explained in this House of some misunderstanding of the speeches I have made. And in any case I also noted that when the PAP have to make a policy U-turn, they called it policy shift. I don’t know whether that is a shift or is a flip-flop.

    Mr Lee: I think the record will speak for itself. When we make a shift, we acknowledge the shift. When the Workers’ Party changes position, they pretend they haven’t. That is the difference. Now, as for delegating responsibility for different parts of the Budget speech to different MPs, that’s entirely within Mr Low Khia Thiang’s prerogative. It’s not for me to suggest how he should conduct his affairs in the Workers’ Party. But as a leader, you do have a responsibility to state where does the party stand on the big issue. Somebody can look after health care. Somebody can take care of transport. Somebody can spend all his time marking Minister Heng Swee Keat on education. But where do you stand on what the Government is doing? Is the Government doing right, is it doing wrong, do you agree with the Government, do you have a better view or do you abstain or do you abstain from abstaining?

    Mr Low: Well, I think opposition is quite clear on many of these issues. If the Prime Minister wanted my view on what the Government has been doing and whether he has done well, I’ll say, well, he has solved some of the problems, what the Prime Minister has mentioned, and the Workers Party MPs also acknowledged it in their speech but also pointed out there are things that is still work in progress and the Government will have to focus on and to make it better and to improve. So that is the position and I don’t see the need for me to totally sum up, I think the MPs should be able to do in their own view and to give their view and their assessment and at the same time, wherever possible, offer certain views and alternative suggestions to improve the policies.

    Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, I’m very grateful for the extremely reasonable explanation from the member. I hope he takes an equally reasonable approach when he comes to election rallies because the Workers’ Party approach has been to be extremely reasonable, indeed low profile in Parliament but come election time to turn into tigers and heroes.

    Mr Low: Madam Speaker, I thank the prime minister for praising the Workers Party’s ability to fight in the elections. We have no intention to hide ourselves in Parliament. We seek the mandate for people to come to Parliament to check against the Government and we have done it honestly and sincerely, we have not turned this place into a theatre, that shows we are responsible and we will behave continuously as a rational and responsible party and members should, I believe members will agree that the Workers Party has been rational. We have not come here with some wild policies or wild suggestions. We debate the policies, we came out with some suggestions but these are not bankrupting the Government coffers or suggesting to use the reserves. Election – I think we are also rational, we don’t accuse the PAP of something that we cannot substantiate or I know we’ll get sued. So I think we are fair. And elections is elections and I think the prime minister for noting that we can fight elections. I’m sure the PAP can too. You are the Government and you have been the governing party for 50 years and you’ve got more, much people, talented people than the Workers’ Party! How can you say that we are tigers and we are something else in Parliament? I’m sure the PAP can equally be tigers or lions.

    Mr Lee: It’s an eloquent explanation for why the Workers Party has been inarticulate about many things. In a serious Parliament, the Government presents its policies, the opposition presents its alternatives, the Workers Party may not have alternatives on every issue, you may not have a full range of all the complexities of designing an HDB scheme or a MediShield scheme, you do have a responsibility to say which direction are we going and that direction has to be set clearly, not to explain to the PAP but to explain to Singaporeans what you stand for. And what you stand for cannot be what the PAP is doing and a little better. That means you have no stand. Whatever the PAP’s standing, ask them to do better. That’s easy, I can do that too. But where do you stand? Where are we totally wrong? Where do you think this is a completely different way to do things better? Where do you think in principle we do not want Singapore to be like this? These are big issues which deserve to be debated and not elided over and avoided in the House. And that is what a First World Parliament should be about.

    Mr Low: Madam Speaker, again, I’ll like to say that the Prime Minister is reasonable to say that the Workers Party may not have come out, able to come with all the alternative policies, that’s true, but to say that the Workers Party has no position on major issues, that is not true. I think we did state our position in Parliament, we debated major policies vigorously, we don’t oppose all the policies but where we think that there is a need for us to oppose and be concerned of the future of Singapore like the Population White paper, we did so. So we state our position on important issues and we didn’t oppose for things that we think are doing right. Is that not enough?

    Mr Lee: I think it probably is useful to bring it down to something very specific. Let’s come back to the Population White Paper. During the debate the position taken by the Workers Party is that enough is enough, zero growth. We have continued to grow, I have not heard the Workers Party demand zero growth today. Do you still demand that or do you now think that we should allow SMEs to survive in Singapore?

    Mr Low: We have made a calculation at the point in time of debating the Population White Paper and that if you continue to allow the foreign workers to grow, it will be untenable in the future generation, future population growth and thereby we decided that we need to keep the population number in check and one way of doing it, of course, is to freeze the foreign workers growth in number. Our calculation was that probably within that existing number of the foreign workers, you can still move around with some sectors there will be no need so much of foreign workers and thereby you can still get by with zero foreign workers growth. We understand perfectly the possibility and the trade-off, that is our position at that point in time. We had not objected subsequently or grilled the Government for why we are not doing it because that’s our view that it should have zero population growth but the Government decided otherwise, there’s a way of doing it, we have said our piece but we have to respect the decision of the Government to move on but our message has got across. We cannot sustain continuously the kind of population growth plan the Government is planning. And I’m glad to hear today that, you know, Prime Minister saying that the Government is taking a very serious view of tightening and watching the growth of population.

    Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, after all this complicated explanation, I don’t know whether Mr Low Thia Khiang still stands by what we said in Parliament in the White Paper debate last year because if he really does after all the explanation, he should say: We have too many foreign workers now, send home 70,000, then we will know where he stands. But after telling me that you can massage this and some people can do less and others can do, and will need more, that’s easy to say. Who’s going to do the massaging? Of course the Government. And that is the mark of a substandard opposition.

    Mr Low: Madam Speaker, I disagree. This is not the mark of a substandard opposition, this is the mark of a responsible opposition not to jam up the Government, allowing the Government after giving our view, debating it, allowing the Government to move forward, not to jam up the Government, so it is a mark of responsible government and a mark of First World Parliament.

    Mr Lee: Madam Speaker, we have to call a spade a spade. If you have changed the position and your previous position was wrong, say so. If you hold by your position, have your guts to reaffirm it and take the consequences. But to weasel away, play with words, avoid the issue and then claim to be responsible, that is what we fear can drive Singapore’s politics into the same place where many other countries have gone.

    Source: http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/pm-lee-wps-low-spar-over-constructive-politics

    letters to R1C

  • Ketelusan Serta Aplikasi Konsep Kebebasan Bersuara

    Credit: Google Images
    Credit: Google Images

    EKSKLUSIF DARI MEJA EDITOR RILEK1CORNER

    Setelah lima bulan beroperasi, kami di Rilek1Corner sangat terharu dengan sambutan meriah daripada para pembaca yang banyak memberikan kami semangat memperkembangkan media alternatif kami ini, baik untuk pembaca yang berbangsa Melayu mahupun mereka yang beragama Islam.

    Kami juga menganggap segala kritikan dan sokongan sebagai satu rangsangan dan dorongan untuk terus memajukan hak kebebasan bersuara di Singapura.

    Tanpa sokongan anda, siapalah kami di Rilek1Corner.

    Namun, sejak beberapa minggu kebelakangan ini, anggota Rilek1Corner telah menerima ancaman dan ugutan daripada beberapa pihak yang berasa tidak puas hati dengan berita dan surat-surat pembaca yang diterbitkan dengan segera di lelaman kami.

    Walaupun segala berita dan informasi yang telah dipublikasikan terdiri daripada media cetak dan juga surat-surat kiriman pembaca yang setia, ada segelintir pihak tertentu berasa kurang senang kerana publikasi-publikasi tersebut mendapat kritikan daripada masyarakat umum.

    Ada dua insiden yang boleh dijadikan ikhtibar.

    Pertama, ada sekumpulan orang Melayu yang beragama Islam di Singapura telah memperkenalkan diri mereka sebagai ahli kewangan dan pengendali bisnes-bisnes skim cepat kaya. Setelah dimaki-hamun dan dicaci, mereka menuduh para pembaca, anggota Rilek1Corner, dan wartawan-wartawan akhbar Berita Harian Singapura sebagai pengecut, jahil dan iri hati dengan kejayaan mereka meraih duit lumayan dengan senang.

    Seperti tidak cukup dengan kata-kata kesat, pihak tersebut juga telah membuat ancaman dan ugutan kepada para pembaca dan juga anggota Rilek1Corner. Ancaman dan ugutan yang dimaksudkan mempunyai unsur-unsur kekerasan fisikal dengan niat mencederakan mereka yang tidak berdosa.

    Ugutan dan ancaman kekerasan ini berlaku setelah beberapa surat pembaca, beserta keratan akhbar daripada Berita Harian Singapura, dan juga gambar-gambar pihak yang terlibat telah dimuat-naikkan di Rilek1Corner, hasil perkongsian maklumat dari para pembaca. Siasatan kami mendapati bahawa gambar-gambar tersebut senang diperolehi secara terbuka di Facebook (tanpa sebarang sekatan privasi) untuk menarik anggota-anggota baru menyertai skim cepat kaya tersebut.

    Ada juga diantara para pembaca yang telah menjadi mangsa skim cepat kaya yang diperkatakan, dan bersungguh-sungguh ingin berkongsi pengalaman mereka supaya masyarakat umum dapat mengelakkan diri daripada mengalami nasib yang serupa.

    Kami di Rilek1Corner juga akur tentang kewajipan moral ini.

    Jika betul bisnes, produk atau servis yang diberikan itu bermutu tinggi, seratus-peratus dijamin halal, dan juga sahih dari segi undang-undang, apakah perlu membuat ugutan sehingga ingin mencederakan semata-mata orang lain mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza atau memberi kritikan yang berasas?

    Insiden kedua pula mengenai seseorang yang bakal menerajui satu jawatan yang mencabar sebagai pemimpin masa hadapan Islam Singapura yang berkaliber dan berwibawa. Dua minggu yang lepas, beliau telah diumumkan oleh pihak media setempat sebagai salah satu calon parti pembangkang untuk Pilihan Raya Umum yang akan datang.

    Rilek1Corner telah berkongsi keratan akhbar dari sebuah media setempat dan memuat-naikkan butir-butir kelayakan beliau yang diberikan oleh seorang penyokong kuat parti pembangkang tersebut. Menurut pembaca itu, butir-butir kelayakan calon pembangkang tersebut senang diperolehi secara terbuka. Siasatan kami juga mendapati segala informasi yang diberikan senang diperolehi di Internet (tiada sekatan privasi). Namun, kerana rasa tidak puas hati, calon pembangkang tersebut membuat beberapa ugutan kepada Rilek1Corner, dan malangnya ugutan beliau itu mendapat tindak balas yang tidak disangkakan.

    Rilek1Corner tidak tahu-menahu tentang apa yang telah dilakukan oleh ahli politik tersebut dan hanya dimaklumkan tentang kejadian tersebut semalam. Dengan jujur, anggota Rilek1Corner sangat kecewa dengan apa yang telah dilakukan walaupun kami telah memberi sokongan padu kepada beliau.

    Kalau betul tiada apa yang ingin disembunyikan, apakah perlu berahsia? Sudah lumrah hidup orang politik. Segala hal peribadi akan tersebar buat santapan umum baik publisiti positif ataupun yang buruk, terutama sekali dalam zaman media sosial ini. Mulut tempayan boleh ditutup, mulut manusia bagaimana menutupnya.

    Soalan-soalan yang bermain di fikiran kami ialah: Apakah yang maksudkan dengan media alternatif dan hak kebebasan bersuara dalam konteks demokrasi kita di Singapura yang selama ini menjadi idaman kalbu? Adakah masyarakat Melayu dan juga Islam setempat sudah benar-benar bersedia untuk menerima konsep kebebasan bersuara ini, atau ianya hanya manis dimulut sahaja? Apakah tiada toleransi terhadap pendapat orang lain yang bercanggah dengan pendapat kita? Apakah mereka yang dianggap sebagai ‘public figure’ sudah benar-benar bersedia menerima hakikat bahawa mereka bukan sahaja mendapat sokongan positif, malah akan juga menerima kritikan hebat daripada orang-orang yang tidak mempunyai matlamat yang sama atau visi yang sehaluan.

    Kebebasan Bersuara

    Kebebasan bersuara ialah kebebasan menyatakan pandangan mahupun fikrah tanpa batas atau penapisan tentang apa yang ingin diperkatakan. Semua masyarakat mempunyai hak kebebasan bersuara tanpa mengira kaum atau pangkat.

    Kebebasan bersuara juga merangkumi aspek seperti kebebasan bersuara secara percakapan verbal, tindakan mencari, menerima dan menyebarkan maklumat atau idea, dengan tidak mengira medium yang digunakan. Kebebasan bersuara juga mempunyai etika dimana cara penyampaiannya beradab dan sopan, tanpa sebarang bahasa kesat.

    Jika seseorang manusia itu mempunyai hak berfikir untuk dirinya sendiri dan kebebasan menggunakan mindanya semahunya, maka dia juga haruslah mempunyai hak untuk mengekspresikan dan meluahkan buah fikirannya dan idea-idea dalam bentuk yang konkrit, sama ada dalam bentuk penulisan ataupun lisan.

    Tiada sesiapun boleh memaksa kita dirasakan sesuatu perkara itu benar atau salah melainkan kita melihat sendiri kebenarannya. Tiada jumlah paksaan yang akan mampu mengubah persepsi sesiapapun terhadap sesuatu individu, subjek atau benda.

    Kebebasan bersuara juga memainkan peranan yang sangat penting dalam melindungi individu-individu yang mempunyai pendapat berbeza. Apabila pendapat segelintir orang tersilap, ianya adalah menjadi kewajipan bagi sekelompok minoriti untuk menyuarakan kebenaran.

    Peranan Media Sosial Dalam Menyemarakkan Kebebasan Bersuara

    Kewujudan media sosial yang bersifat terbuka, pelbagai dan bebas dari tapisan dan sekatan adalah antara asas penting bagi pembentukan masyarakat demokratik kerana ia menyumbang ke arah kemudahan pengaliran maklumat, idea secara bebas, dan menjamin ketelusan serta kebertanggungjawaban.

    Persoalannya ialah, sejauh manakah kebebasan bersuara dalam media sosial ini benar-benar bebas? Apakah hubungan di antara media sosial dan kebebasan bersuara?

    Media sosial adalah salah satu cabang atau bentuk ekspresi yang ada di dalam sistem sosial manusia yang luas. Malah kehadiran media sosial itu sebenarnya melengkapi dua lagi gelombang teknologi komunikasi sebelumnya – cetak dan gelombang udara sebagai wahana untuk manusia – baik secara individu atau berkelompok – untuk mengkomunikasikan maklumat, bertukar-tukar idea, pandangan, dan pendapat.

    Sebagai satu konsep liberal dan ‘batu asas’ kepada demokrasi barat, kebebasan bersuara bertujuan untuk melindungi ekspresi rakyat jelata dan penyebaran maklumat ke pentas awam daripada campur tangan pihak kerajaan atau sesiapapun.

    Jangan kita simpan mentaliti paranoia dan perbuatan melulu yang melampau.

    Ugutan, Ancaman Diambil Serius

    Rilek1Corner memandang serius terhadap segala ancaman baik terhadap diri kami mahupun ugutan terhadap para pembaca yang hanya ingin menyuarakan pandangan mereka.

    Yang lebih membimbangkan ialah perkembangan media sosial yang ingin disekat dan ditapis semata-mata pandangan yang berbeza, walaupun pada hakikatnya segala pendapat telah ditulis atas nama hak kebebasan bersuara dengan cara yang beradap dan sopan.

    Peliknya, pihak-pihak yang telah membuat ancaman dan ugutan terhadap kami dan juga pembaca-pembaca budiman, juga merupakan orang-orang yang pernah menegakkan hak kebebasan bersuara dan hak kemanusiaan dengan lantangnya.

    Bak kata pepatah, rambut sama hitam hati lain-lain.

     

     

    BACA ARTIKEL TENTANG WORKERS’ PARTY

    BACA TENTANG SKIM CEPAT KAYA GALAXY TRIO & ULTRASONIC SINGAPORE

  • WP New Faces: Firuz Khan and Leon Perera

    firuzkhanFB
    Credit: Firuz Khan Facebook

    SINGAPORE — A former civil servant who became a corporate high-flyer has reportedly joined the ranks of the Workers’ Party (WP).

    In what some analysts have described as a tit-for-tat response to the tactics of the People’s Action Party (PAP), Mr Leon Perera was out and about in WP colours under the full glare of the media last Sunday.

    Mr Perera, 44, who is chief executive of Spire Research and Consulting, was among party volunteers and members handing out food rations and daily necessities to elderly residents in the Paya Lebar division.

    Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao identified Mr Perera and Mr Firuz Khan, 48, who works in the banking and retail industry, as the opposition party’s potential candidates for the next General Election due by January 2017.

    In recent weeks, the PAP has exposed to the public eye its potential candidates for the next GE — a move analysts felt was a significant departure from its practice of keeping its cards close to the chest as far as the identities of potential candidates were concerned. Analysts noted that the party had learnt from the 2011 GE that voters need time to familiarise themselves with new candidates.

    Unlike Mr Khan, who has been with the WP for several years and was on the council of its youth wing in 2007, Mr Perera is a new face in the WP’s ranks. When contacted, Mr Perera declined to comment. The WP was also tight-lipped about his involvement.

    A former assistant head of the Economic Development Board’s Enterprise Development Division, Mr Perera graduated from Oxford University with double first-class honours. He is also an adviser for The Independent news website and vice-president on the board of the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics. Last Sunday, Mr Perera was photographed by Lianhe Zaobao beside WP’s Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament (MP) Chen Show Mao.

    Political analysts previously noted that the PAP was taking a leaf out of the WP’s book by having potential candidates work the ground early. Singapore Management University law don Eugene Tan said the opposition party is now, in turn, responding to the PAP as well.

    “The WP realises that they need to also demonstrate a sense of urgency and informally introduce their potential candidates early,” said Associate Professor Tan, who is also a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP). Agreeing, former NMP Siew Kum Hong said the WP was “following PAP’s playbook”.

    Assoc Prof Tan, who was Mr Perera’s classmate in junior college, said he was not surprised to learn of the latter’s political involvement. Adding that it was a natural transition for Mr Perera as an activist, he said: “Leon has always been politically conscious and has very strong ideas about government and politics in Singapore.”

    So far, five potential PAP candidates have been identified. Most recently, corporate lawyer Amrin Amin, 35, was described last Saturday to reporters by Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Education and Manpower) Hawazi Daipi — who is also an MP for Sembawang GRC — as “someone who has the potential to be a candidate”.

    Mr Perera is the latest in the line of former civil servants who have joined the opposition. Others include husband-and-wife pair Tony Tan and Hazel Poa, who are with the National Solidarity Party.

    Mr Siew said: “It’s just a natural state of things as politics in Singapore normalises. You are going to see good candidates going to both sides.”

     

    Source: TODAYOnline, Firuz Khan

     

     

  • Workers’ Party on Hijab Issue: Government Should Conduct Constructive Public Consultations

    Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS)
    Every Wednesday, 7.30pm – 9.30pm
    @ Blk 550 Bedok North Ave 1 | Map: http://bit.ly/xShedV
    faisalmanapWP
    Office: Member of Parliament
    District: Aljunied GRC
    Party: The Workers’ Party

    By MP for Aljunied GRC, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap
    [Delivered in Committee of Supply on 12 March 2014]

    Since 2011 the government had set out to foster social cohesion and to build an inclusive society through the budget. While an ‘inclusive society’ means different things to different people, it is important to know that a fundamental tenet of an inclusive society is the tolerant and respectful embrace of the cultures and values that each community in Singapore holds dear.

    In the context of the ‘new normal’ in Singapore society, Singaporeans are increasingly more vocal and want their views to be heard. I believe that in fostering multiculturalism, public dialogue and constant consultations are the way forward. In the case of the recent hijab issue, to the best of my understanding, the dialogue that was conducted with representatives of the Malay community was more of a platform for the government to convey its stand, rather than a dialogue. This is because the government has already came to the decision of not allowing hijab to be worn prior to the dialogue session instead of making decision at or after the session. I am of the view that the government should enhance not only the manner in which it communicates but also its attitude when performing the communicating. At the same time, consultation with one community alone is inadequate as it may lead to hasty conclusions and unnecessary assumptions. A more constructive approach would be public consultations conducted with different stakeholders, and the different ethnic communities. The Singaporeans I meet from the different ethnic communities understand that the final policy outcomes may not go according to their preferences. Nonetheless, they hope that the government should also understand that the process is equally important to them.

    It is the responsibility of any government not to overtly impose its assumptions on any issue, particularly on sensitive and emotional issues. Rather it should base its understanding on scientific findings and in the event that such information is not available, commission a study on the matter. The government should also make available the information that it has. Public engagement and consultations that adopt a more transparent, forthright and comprehensive approach would allow us to better understand the issue at large and the context and the nuances behind each issue. I hope the Minister would agree with me that such an approach would bring us closer to a consensus that is workable, productive and acceptable by the various stakeholders involved. That should be the way forward towards an inclusive society and a multicultural Singapore.

    Source: Workers’ Party

  • BREAKING: People’s Association Gets Adverse Ratings from Auditors

    57D2F54B97B16658289AC9051ED

    Yesterday (19 Feb), Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan requested Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to direct the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of the opposition-run Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) financial accounts.

    AHPETC’s auditor, Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton LLP, had earlier submitted a “disclaimer of opinion” on AHPETC’s FY2012-13 financial statements, raising 13 issues of concern over the town council’s accounts.

    Earlier, on 14 February 2014, the Ministry of National Development (MND) said that the auditor’s disclaimer of opinion “is more severe than a qualified opinion” [Link].

    In yesterday’s statement, the PAP government said that the observations in the auditor’s report “raise serious questions about the reliability and accuracy of AHPETC’s financial and accounting systems”.

    “This is the second year that the Auditor has submitted a disclaimer of opinion on AHPETC’sFinancial Statements. Moreover the Auditor has raised several more issues of pressing concern this year, compared to last year. AHPETC’s Auditor’s Report and Financial Statements are cause for serious concern.”

    As it turns out, auditors have been giving an “adverse opinion” on the financial reports from the People’s Association (PA) for several years now.

    PA oversees all the grassroots activities in Singapore. It is a statutory board under the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCCY). The Chairman of PA is none other than PM Lee Hsien Loong himself.

    According to ACRA, there are a few types of audit opinions. A “disclaimer of opinion” means the auditor is unable to express an opinion on the financial statements but an “adverse opinion” means qualification of the financial report is not adequate to disclose the misleading or incomplete nature of the financial statements [Link]:

    Types of Audit Opinion Explanation
    Unqualified Opinion The auditor “concludes that the financial statements give a true and fair view or are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.”
    Emphasis of matter (EOM) This is to “highlight a matter affecting the financial statements which is included in a note to the financial statements that more extensively discusses the matter. The addition of such an emphasis of matter paragraph does not affect the auditor’s opinion.”
    Qualified Opinion* This is expressed when the “auditor concludes that an unqualified opinion cannot be expressed but that the effect of any disagreement with management, or limitation on scope is not so material and pervasive as to require an adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion.”
    Disclaimer of Opinion* It is expressed when the “possible effect of a limitation on scope is so material and pervasive that the auditor has not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence and accordingly is unable to express an opinion on the financial statements.”
    Adverse Opinion* It is expressed when the “effect of a disagreement is so material and pervasive to the financial statements that the auditor concludes that a qualification of the report is not adequate to disclose the misleading or incomplete nature of the financial statements.”

    TRE has gone through PA’s financial reports on its website and found the following:

    FY2007 (07/08) [Link]

    For FY2007, PA did not include the financial statements of grassroots organizations (GROs) operating under itself. The auditor could not “assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of theGROs”. As such, the auditor gave an “adverse opinion” against PA because its financial statements “[did] not present fairly” the state of affairs of the Association:

    pa1-640x457

     

    (published by PricewaterhouseCoopers, 15 Sep 2009)

    FY2009 (09/10) [Link]

    In FY2009, a new auditor, KPMG LLP, took over the audit of PA. The new auditor said, “We do not have sufficient information to assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs.” As such, the new auditor also gave an “adverse opinion”:

    pa3-640x246

     

    (published by KPMG LLP, 15 Jul 2010)

    Then, the format for the online version of PA’s financial reports for the next 3 years (FY2010 – 2012) changed [a href=”http://www.pa.gov.sg/about-us/annual-reports.html”>Link].

    The public could no longer see the detailed opinions of the auditors. PA only published the “financial highlights” in these 3 reports. In other words, the financial reports became just financial summaries:

    TRE then went down to the National Library to attempt to get printed copies of PA’s financial reports but the librarian was not able to find printed copies for the last 3 FYs (FY2010 – 2012). The library only has printed copies up to FY2009. The librarian told TRE to refer to the online versions instead.

    Not giving up, TRE did a further extensive online search and managed to find an online version of PA’s FY2010 financial report. This copy was found on the Parliament website:

    FY2010 (10/11) [Link]

    Comparing this with the online version on PA’s website [Link], they are essentially the sameexcept that the one found on the Parliament website discloses the detailed opinion of the auditor at the end:

    pa5-640x433

    (published by KPMG LLP, 15 Jul 2011)

    Again, the auditor could only give an “adverse opinion” for PA’s FY2010 financial report because the auditor “[did] not have sufficient information to assess the financial impact to the financial statements of the Association arising from the non-inclusion of the financial statements of the GROs.”

    The relationship of PA and PAP is very close. Mr Lee Kuan Yew once proudly said that the Chinese have been sending teams of officials to learn from Singapore for years:

    They discover that the People’s Action Party has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees),CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).

    The operating expenditure of PA is huge. According to its latest financial report (FY2012), PA’s operating expenditure for the year increased by $46 million to $483 million. Government grants which are taxpayers’ money given to PA amounted to $434 million in FY2012:

    Capture30

    Dr Ernest Kan, President of the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants (ISCA) and Pasir RisPunggol grassroots leader, had earlier agreed with MND that the audit findings on AHPETC are “serious” (‘President of ISCA: AHPETC’s audit report ‘serious’‘). It is not known what Dr Kan has to say about PA’s audit findings which have garnered “adverse opinions” from auditors.

    It is also not known if the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY), Lawrence Wong, will request Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam to direct the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of PA’s financial accounts, since PA comes under MCCY.

    Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/02/20/breaking-auditors-give-adverse-ratings-to-pas-financial-reports/