An 'egregious, cavalier misuse of public funds': Town council lawyers rip into Workers' Party leaders
Solicitors for the Aljunied-Hougang and Pasir Ris-Punggol town councils describe key opposition members as showing “a complete and reckless disregard of their duty to protect the residents’ and public’s monies”.
Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/workers-party-case-egregious-cavalier-misuse-public-funds-10795026
Staying neutral without taking sides or viewing with political lens and stay objective - we have to look at the facts :- (1) Is resident in Aljunied GRC worst off - regardless of how WP manage the town council fund? Fact is :- (a) Resident are worst off - as they have to pay additional $33 million for the same type of service. (On hindsight, if WP able to help residents save $33 million or do even better than PAP by paying lesser --- than this lawsuit will have less merit).
Now residents in Aljunied GRC - felt "rip off" 被砍菜头。This is residents' money, taxpayer money - residents want it back.
(2) Did WP do due diligence to ensure residents' fund are not "rip off"? (a) No due diligence are make - to check "benchmark prices" of incumbent FM. (Any worthy shrewd businessman will have do it. Any worthy paymaster will have to do it. Even any individual who treat public fund like their own money will have do it) ---- there is no excuse not to do due diligence - to ensure money are well spent - much less as "custodian of public money".
(b) No segregration of duties and conflict of interest (anyone who know basic audit practices and principles or basic commercial law) --- whether in business, public enterprise, private enterprise or in Government -- know this is a "breach of segregation of duties" in authorising and approving funds for payment.
Both reputable indpendent auditors - KPMG noted that $33 million is overpaid and unwarranted. PwC notices many internal control lapses that lead to the financial loss. A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care in equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom he owes the duty (the "principal") such that there must be no conflict of duty between fiduciary and principal, and the fiduciary must not profit from his position as a fiduciary.
(3) Did WP break any law? (a) According to Town Council Act - WP did break some Sections of the Town Council Act.
Section 15 - Conflict of interest and disclosure by members 15.—(1) As soon as practicable after a member of a Town Council becomes aware of a conflict of interest in a question that has arisen or is about to arise before the Town Council, the member must disclose in writing the fact, nature, character and extent of the personal or financial interest that gives rise to the conflict.
Section 15A - Town Council staff, etc., to disclose conflict of interest
Section 17 - Validity of acts of members 17. The acts and proceedings of any member of a Town Council acting as such shall, notwithstanding his want of qualification or disqualification, be as valid and effectual as if he had been qualified.
Having say so, not preempting or influencing how the Courts will administer justice :-
Thinking aloud, the best outcomes will be :- (1) Recover the $33 million that have paid to FMSS from FMSS. On hindsight, making the 3 MPs bankrupt will not be able to recover the $33 million - and also the $33 million go to FMSS's pocket and not the 3 MPs' pockets.
(2) Will anyone be charged or responsible for breaking the law - eg. the Section 15 and 17 of Town Council Act or any other Sections? - The Judge will judge based on the plantiff and defendants presentation of evidences and witnesses in the Court. In this case, FMSS did benefit due to failure in carrying out fiduciary duties.
Ricky Lim As a resident in Paya Lebar, i was glad to pay lesser than the guy across the street who is in the Marine Parade GRC. And seriously.....there was no overpaying by 33mil. Even the auditors said.....if CPG was the agent, the saving is 746k. But CPG did not bid to be the managing agent. Also 746k out of 33mil is peanuts especially when i feel the level of service improved after WP took over. I see the MP more often. And even friends commenting the lift lobby was cleaner than their CPG maintained ones. Do you stay in the area?
Seow Hwa Soh - As reported :- "According to KPMG's October 2016 report, focusing on AHTC's payment transactions from May 2011 to November 2015, there were serious flaws in the town council's government, with S$33 million worth of "improper payments" made to FMSS and third parties." --- thus don't understand what you say "And seriously.....there was no overpaying by 33mil.". --- The auditor also observed: “FMSS’ overall proposed fee, when compared to the town council’s operating expenses, was at the high end of the range when a similar analysis is performed for other town councils.” For instance, if AHTC had persisted with CPG, adjusted for inflation, it could have saved S$746,000 between 2012 and 2015.
If you read the report carefully - it means "the fees charged bt FMSS is more by S$746,000 between 2012 and 2015 --- this is management fees ---- it does not include other payment make to FMSS as jobs or projects for other FM services. --
You say :- "As a resident in Paya Lebar, i was glad to pay lesser than the guy across the street who is in the Marine Parade GRC".
Probably you did not know that Aljunied GRC has just increased the price of town council conservancy charges on the resident --- i think about 2 or 3 months ago --- you didn't know?Also if the charges that more than $33 million is "lost" - pending the outcome of the judgement by the Court ---- it does not means it will impact the operating fund to run the town council, to clean the estates, maintenance etc.
But it will affect the sinking fund of the Aljunied town council (poorer by $33 million) -- to build and improve the estates, upgrading, replace lifts, build covered walkways, rebuild better park, paint the HDB flats, replaced the water tanks etc --- that will directly affect the price of HDB flats in Aljunied GRC --- as compared to other GRCs.
$33 million is a very big sum.. Residents of Aljunied want the $33 million back !
You mention that :- " And even friends commenting the lift lobby was cleaner than their CPG maintained ones." --- Is this a subjective comments or objective comments?
Did your friends "collect all the rubbish and weigh how heavy the dust and rubbish collected" of Aljunied GRCs with other GRCs?
As I walk around the various estates --- I don't notice any notable varying standard of cleanliness between the ruling estates and the opposition estates.
It will depend on what time a person visit the places.
If visit just when the cleaners have cleaned that place - that place will be cleaned. If visit before the cleaners clean that place - the place will be dirtier. If visit the place after just spraying insecticide - the place will have alot of dead cockroaches --- before the cleaners come to clean it up.
So your statement "very subjective" and "not objective".
Like · Reply · 1m · Edited Jimmy Hui Ricky Lim, stop being such a biased supporter of the ruling party. Be truthful and admit they are out to get the WP before the next GE. They are afraid to lose Aljunied GRC for the 3rd time and lose more votes elsewhere. This is politics - you said it yourself earlier. Stop all your craps and just watch the wayang and hopefully the outcome is to your liking and satisfaction. Like · Reply · 12m
Jimmy Hui - You must be very happy to be fleece $33 million and have no intention to get it back. Then you are not an objective person and cannot do things based on facts. We are here talking about getting back the $33 million - and you are talking about election. (If WP did not make the mistake on $33 million - do you think it is possible for anyone to fix them? If WP make mistake - they got to put things right and face the consequences. This is fact and not emotion. Do you mean WP make mistake of $33 million - people cannot recover the loss from them and have to bear the loss for their mistake?)
You are letting emotion get the better of you.
If you want people to believe what you say or support what you say or respect what you say :- (1) Talk facts - not spew emotion (2) Come out with strong arguments and talk sense - to convince readers. Trying to scold, cowed others with abusive languages get you no where - people will just look at you like gangster - and write off what you say. (3) Be objective and not biasness when discussing issue. (4) Stay with the issue of discussion - and not distracted into other issues not related to this issue of discussion. (5) If you already form opinion and has already take sides - while ignoring the facts presented - then no point discussing. (6) People can raise their points of view that can be different from yours or you do not like to hear ---- but this don't give you the right to abuse or bully others if their opinions or views are different from yours (notice that you have been doing that all the time on many others who have a different views from yours). This is a gentleman forum to exchange viewpoints, opinion, facts and argument - not an abuse forum.
People reading the posts will form opinion - and decide for themselves who talk sense and who can be written off.
Ricky Lim The fees did increase a few years after the Marine Parade GRC fees were increased. I was enjoying lower fees for a few years. If i was subjective, i would have brought up the type of negative responses given to me by former MP of Paya Lebar about the state of my estate more than 10 years ago. It may be subjective.....but i got better response and service from WP than PAP ever. If you dont stay in my estate.....you will not understand it. Technical my subjective is actually more objective than you think. If you insist 33mil is missing..... I am also fine with that. I dont usually write in this media....but I dont like it when a lot of people go over the top with missing funds . Reminds me of a Ponggol East election last minute note about missing funds which is much ado about nothing.
Seow Hwa Soh - (1) Based on what i know, Aljunied GRC send a letter to all Aljunied GRC residents that they will increase the town council fees in tandem and same charges with all PAP wards during I think July 2018 - it happen a few months ago - not few years ago (when election happen in 2015 - now is 2018 - 3 years only) -- so when you say you enjoy lower fees for a few years - are you based on facts or your imagination? (2) You mention you got better service from the now WP MP for Paya Lebar and more responsive than PAP --- again I will view this as subjective comments not backed up by objective facts. In case you don't know, in GE2015 - the WP MP for Paya Lebar lost to PAP by a few hundred votes. Because Paya Lebar is part of Aljunied GRC, the rest of the ward cover the Paya Lebar lost - and WP MP for Paya Lebar won by default. This is objective fact - not "I think, you think" - which is subjective comments. (3) You mention that "Reminds me of a Ponggol East election last minute note about missing funds which is much ado about nothing."
The fact is in the last election - Punggol East helm by WP MP lost the election to PAP MP. You say the lost funds is much ado about nothing - is only how you feel and not how the residents of Punggol East feel.
Your expectation of governance standard - who is the custodian of "public funds" of voters and the well-beings of voters is appalling and surprisingly low standard - that have scant regards of the "blood and sweat" of taxpayers' money.
The benchmark standard of governance is there - and any politicians who aspire to hold office (whether opposition or ruling party) - must demonstrate due diligence (not gross negligence), demonstrate competency (not trial and error) and honesty.
If office bearer cannot make the mark - then don't helm the office. This is voters livelihood and blood money - that office holders must safeguard to the best of their abilities. Now Punggol East is one of the plantiff suing Aljunied town council for the lost money - and yet you say "Reminds me of a Ponggol East election last minute note about missing funds which is much ado about nothing." (4) You say "If you insist 33mil is missing..... I am also fine with that. I dont usually write in this media....but I dont like it when a lot of people go over the top with missing funds ."
Again I am appall by your remarks that 33 mil missing - i am fine with it. (a) This show your are totally irresponsible and care less in safeguarding the sweat and blood money of residents who depend on the office holders to safeguard and protect - to be put in good used and not squander away. Then in that case why residents want to elect their MP that squander their money away - instead of spending them wisely to promote the well-beings of residents and take care of their interest?
Now Aljunied lost the $33 million to upgrade their estate and prop up the values of their HDB flats - resulting in great financial loss to Aljunied flat owners --- and you say it is ok?
You say "If you insist 33mil is missing..... I am also fine with that." - This is not what i say or what i insist. The lost 33mil is flag out by the independent auditor KPMG 2016 report. This is a public audited report - and since the 33mil is lost based on "gross negligence" - shouldn't any responsible people claim it back - so that in future, people will not commit the same mistake when they are vying for office - and let governance standard drop? If people let this go and opposition win more seats and lose more 33mil - Then you are fueling Singapore governance standard to go downhill and Singapore will go bankrupt.
(b) Even public enterprises listed in Stock Exchanges - expect the most basic internal control of "no conflict of interest and segregration of duties" - to be put in place to safeguard shareholder interest. In fact all employees and management need to sign a declaration - that they are not in a position of conflict of interest - in carrying out their work or duties.
To similar but less intense - private enterprises also have similar undertakings.
(c) Government, Civil Services, and Town Council - have much more stringent undertakings to safeguard "public funds" - and the standards are higher than the commercial world.
(d) Even "Common Man-in-the-Street" will go to a few shops to compare the best price before they buy any goods and services - to prevent people from overcharging them or cheat them. Shrewd businessman, procurement executive or paymaster will call a few quotation or tender from various suppliers to give them the best quality products and services at the lowest prices. Government, Civil Service, Government Link Companies, Statutory Boards, Town Council - who are the "custodian of public money" all the more - must spend and invest the public money wisely.
Yet you callously say - oh "If you insist 33mil is missing..... I am also fine with that. I dont usually write in this media....but I dont like it when a lot of people go over the top with missing funds ." ==== then you should not even be employed in the commercial world -- as your boss, your colleagues, your business partners and your customers will think that you are not capable of handling their money -- and cannot trust you. --- And do you know why opposition in Singapore have a hard time breaking into Singapore politics? Because the competency, the expected standard of governance - is still very far away from the benchmark.
There is still no another Mr Lee Kuan Yew in sight - who initially as Opposition to the Lim Yew Hock government --- prove to be a much higher standard than the incumbent Government at that time.
No comments:
Post a Comment