A Concerned Citizen: AHPETC, when will you tell the truth?

AHPETC, when will you tell the truth?

 

I used to think the PAP was 'fixing' AHPETC. AHPETC is run by the opposition Worker's Party. So I used to think that any trouble AHPETC ran into was probably played up by the PAP to make WP look bad.

 

Even when the Auditor General found problems in AHPETC's accounts, I closed one eye because they were newcomers on the block. Of course they would make a bit of mistakes before they get more experience, right? At least they were honest and served their residents with integrity.

 

But when I saw the recent court decision from the case between MND and AHPETC, I was stunned like a vegetable.

 

The judge said that the Chairperson of AHPETC, Sylvia Lim, had hidden the truth about AHPETC's money transfers from Parliament. She told Parliament that AHPETC had been transferring money to its sinking funds, when actually AHPETC had made the transfers late. AHPETC had even made one of the transfers the day before she was supposed to answer for AHPETC's actions in Parliament!

 

So Sylvia, please tell us, your ex-supporters, the truth: why did you mislead Parliament? It's one thing to make beginner's mistakes, but another thing to speak to Parliament without honesty and integrity. I can forgive small mistakes, but I cannot forgive people who hide the truth.

 

WP, I thought I supported you for your honesty and integrity. That's what we raised you up to Parliament for - to be our honest voice; to look after our interests. But if you can't even be honest in your own accounts to Parliament, I wonder what else you're not honest in.

 

A concerned citizen

MND loses to AHPETC but wins a Strategic Decision

Lose the Battle but Win the War!

Court rejected MND's application for the appointment of Independent Auditors to allow the release of much needed government grants to AHPETC. Who win and who lose?  Does it matter? Does anyone even bother? More importantly, what does it mean to the man in the street? Browsing through the Court's findings, there are some interesting points to note :

a.    Court agreed with MND's concerns about AHPETC.  The Court said there were "grave and serious questions" that have been raised regarding the state of AHPETC's accounts, and the validity and propriety of payments previously made by AHPETC to related parties (amounting to $25.9 million), and that "there have also been numerous breaches of the provisions" of the Town Councils Act and Town Councils Financial Rules. The Court added that the TC's conduct was the height of financial irresponsibility.

b.    Justice Quentin Loh also stated that if AHPETC was a managing corporation subject to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), he would have no doubt that AHPETC or its officers will be exposed to the "possibility of civil liability... or, in an extreme scenario, criminal liability".

c.    The Court added that it was a travesty for AHPETC to have ignored their duties and obligations. And that the AHPETC was to be blamed for not accepting MND's offer to release the grant. More importantly, Justice Loh found that Sylia Lim's had lied to Parliament in her statement on 12 February 2015. Ms Lim, however, insists that her statement in Parliament on 12 February 2015 was "true and correct". While it may be "true and correct" that AHPETC had been making transfers for FY 14/15 (since they have made two out of the four transfers for that financial year), Ms Lim failed to mention that both of these transfers were late, one of which was only made the day before her said statement in Parliament. She also failed to mention that the third transfer was already due at that time but AHPETC has yet to make it. 

I find the Latin phrase, suppressio veri, suggestio falsi (suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of what is false) particularly apt to this statement of Ms Lim's.

This is very serious. As a Judge has found that Ms Sylvia Lim had lied in her statement, Ms Sylvia Lim can be cited for abuse of parliamentary privilege and disbarred from parliament. If government wants to act, parliament would probably agree given what the Court has found.

In short, the Government may have lost this battle, but it has won the war

Amos Yee … Saint or Villian?

Amos Yee … Saint or Villian?

In an interesting week, the darling of the opposition has turn out to be their worst nightmare. Trying to capitalize on the so-called unjust “persecution” of a young child exercising his constitutional right to free speech, activists like Roy Ngerng, Vincent Law (an aspiring SDP candidate for GE2016), Jolovan Wham and Alfian Sa’at threw themselves behind Amos Yee.

Unfortunately for them, Amos was wiser than they thought and he "out-ed" them for the fakes that they are. In a lengthy blog post titled “The Molestation Of Vincent Law”, Amos gave a blow by blow account of how these hypocrites attempted to exploit him for their own political gains.

In Amos’ mind, Vincent Law is a “charlatan, a huckster, a hypocrite and a fraud.” According to Amos, Vincent is now hounding his mother, demanding that Amos issue a public apology to him and his family. Otherwise Vincent would get a lawyer to sue him. Amos rightly pointed out that if Vincent was truly standing up for him and is fighting for freedom of speech, Vincent would be fighting against the laws that claims that even if somebody lies, mocks or offends a person or large amounts of people, it should not be deemed as a criminal offense. But now, when the cause that Vincent so boldly advocated, is used unfavorably towards him, he is now threatening to use those exact same laws that he went against, to sue Amos.

According to Amos, even Roy Ngerng is a hypocrite. Roy told Amos that it’s going to be so hard for us to advocate for you, now that you’ve humiliated Vincent. That is when Amos responded that "if my fanbase consists of hypocrites, then despite your support I wouldn’t want it. When things looks bad, and you threaten to remove the support you once had for me. Then fine, good riddance. If that’s the kind of support I receive, one that’s so easily withdrawn, then believe me, I do not wish to acquire your quote unquote ‘support’."

In short, Amos Yee, in our opinion has single-handedly destroyed opposition activists like Roy Ngerng, Vincent Law and Alfian Sa’at by revealing their true characters. If Singaporeans have seen first-hand the true character of Roy, Vincent and Alfian, some good has come out of Amos Yee saga.

Alfian Sa'at: A Naivete View of Amos Yee

Yahoo! Singapore recently carried an article by Alfian Sa’at detailing a conversation he had with Amos Yee.

In the article, Alfian Sa’at essentially tries to “humanize” Amos by portraying him as a wide-eyed harmless teenager who is more bark than bite. Alfian does this by sharing snippets of his conversations with Amos. For example how Amos' school-mates used to make fun of his name, about his interest sci-fi movies, and how Amos has an “endearing” habit of stroking his chin before he spoke.

Alfian then goes on to talk about how mature and enlightened Amos is for his age. Alfian shares how Amos sees the use of vulgarities as a message in and of itself, and how Amos believes that he has a higher purpose in life which goes beyond how his actions may hurt his parents. In short Alfian’s message to Singaporeans is that Amos is your everyday teenager who is idealistic and who rants and raves. Amos is harmless.

Unfortunately, Alfian is wrong! Amos is not your everyday teenager. Sure Teenagers rant and rave. I was one too. However, how many teenagers deliberately and knowing break the law? How many teenagers will openly defy a court order? And how many teenagers will maliciously tarnish the name and reputation of a good Samaritan (Vincent Law) as a lark?

So Alfian, Amos is not the innocent teenager you portray him to be. He is far from it. By your own admission, Amos is wise beyond his age. As such, Amos fully knows what he is doing and should face the full weight of the law for his actions. Just ask Vincent Law.

It is ironic that Amos accepts that he has broken the law and is willing to accept his punishment, while so-called more “experienced” activists like yourself baulk at the concept of Amos answering for his actions. Perhaps, just perhaps, your cries to #FreeAmos is self-serving and Amos is more of a man than you will ever be.

MND vs AHPETC: The facts of the case

MND details exchange it had with Sylvia Lim over financial status of AHPETC.

The National Development Ministry says even though it had offered to disburse half of the FY2014/15 Service and Conservancy Charge Operating Grant to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council, the town council chairman Sylvia Lim did not take up the offer.

......

SINGAPORE: Earlier in April, the Ministry of National Development (MND) stated in court that the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) is "technically insolvent". This charge was not challenged by the town council (TC).

The court hearing was to decide if independent accountants should be appointed to safeguard government grants. When asked if the town council had become insolvent because the ministry had withheld funding, the ministry released the exchange it had with Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim, over the financial status of AHPETC.

MND said in response to media queries that even before the Auditor-General's Office (AGO) audit was completed it had offered, in response to Ms Lim's appeal, to disburse half of the FY2014/15 Service and Conservancy Charge (S&CC) Operating Grant to AHPETC. However, AHPETC "failed to take up the offer", MND said.

"In 2014, Ms Sylvia Lim had appealed to MND twice to disburse the S&CC Operating Grant, even though the AGO audit was ongoing, stating that the TC would not be able to pay its contractors and make Sinking Fund transfers otherwise. Yet, when MND, in response to her appeal, offered to disburse half of the grant to the TC, she did not take up the offer," an MND spokesperson said.

"MND has now applied to the Court to appoint Independent Accountants to enable the grant to be securely disbursed to AHPETC. But again, despite repeated questions from the judge, AHPETC told the Court it does not need the grants," the spokesperson added.

The ministry said the sequence of events is as follows:

• On April 28, 2014, MND wrote to Ms Sylvia Lim: “MND is considering to withhold the FY14/15 S&CC Operating Grant until the conclusion of the audit by the Auditor-General. Right now, we do not have reasonable assurance of proper financial management and keeping of accounts by AHPETC. Before we do so, we want to know whether AHPETC has any views or concerns as regards the proposed withholding of the above S&CC Operating Grant. If there are, you must let us have AHPETC’s views or concerns in writing for our consideration no later than 10 working days after you have received this letter (i.e. by May 14, 2014).” Ms Sylvia Lim did not reply to MND by May 14, 2014.

• More than a month later, on June 16, 2014, Ms Sylvia Lim wrote to MND, stating: “the continued withholding of the grant to AHPETC is likely to critically and adversely affect the TC’s cash flow position, resulting in a disruption of essential services to the town because the TC would not be able to pay its contractors…We call on the Ministry to disburse without further delay the Operating Grant it has withheld from AHPETC.”

• On June 20, 2014, MND replied to Ms Sylvia Lim that it was prepared to “reconsider the withholding of grant, to take into account the impact, if any, this may have on the TC’s provision of essential services to the town.” Following this, MND and AHPETC had a series of exchanges to clarify AHPETC’s cash flow position.

• On Oct 7, 2014, MND informed Ms Sylvia Lim that MND was “deeply concerned about the TC’s financial situation based on the information you provided and we would like to work with you to see how we can help the TC sustain its operations and avoid disruption of essential services to residents. We are prepared to consider, as an exceptional measure, releasing half the operating grant to AHPETC while the AGO audit is still on-going”. This would be subject to conditions such as Ms Lim ensuring that the TC makes all the necessary transfers to the Sinking Fund for the entire Financial Year as required under the Town Councils Act and the Town Councils Financial Rules, and Ms Lim confirming and declaring that the statements on AHPETC’s financial accounts she earlier provided to MND was true. MND did not receive any reply from Ms Sylvia Lim.

• On Nov 5, 2014, Mr Low Thia Khiang told the media that the TC had no cash flow problem.

• A week later, on Nov 12, 2014, Ms Sylvia Lim informed MND: “I would like to inform you that the figures given in my letters of July 30, 2014 and Aug 13, 2014, while correct based on information at the time, will need updating. We are assessing the situation and will reply substantively to your letter of Oct 7, 2014 should we wish to take the option of the half-grant while awaiting the conclusion of the AGO audit.” Ms Sylvia Lim had not gotten back to MND since then.

• On Feb 12, 2015, Ms Sylvia Lim told Parliament: “The Town Council accepts that it should have transferred the full amounts due to the sinking funds each quarter and should have paid sinking fund expenses directly from the sinking fund accounts. We have taken steps and made good the transfers… We have also done the transfers for FY2013 and have been making transfers for FY2014.”

• On Mar 27, 2015, during the Pre-Trial Conference, Ms Sylvia Lim repeatedly assured the Judge that AHPETC did not urgently need fresh grants from MND, as AHPETC had sufficient funds for at least the next 3 months. Ms Lim’s lawyer also told the Judge, after checking with Ms Sylvia Lim: “I have spoken to my client … they have not pursued the MND to release … the grants … because they don’t need the funds. They are okay … they can manage.”

• Yet, on May 4 and 5, it was revealed in Ms Sylvia Lim’s sworn affidavit, signed Apr 17, and in front of the Judge, that AHPETC had not made two out of the four mandatory quarterly transfers to the Sinking Fund for FY14/15, and even the two transfers it did make (for 1Q/2QFY14) were late. AHPETC also admitted that the TC would need the S&CC grants in order to operate in accordance with the law, and to make its Sinking Fund contributions. This was contrary to what Ms Sylvia Lim had told Parliament during the February 2015 Parliamentary debate on the AGO report, and what she and AHPETC’s lawyer told the Judge on Mar 27.