Multimillion-Dollar Civil Suits against 3 Workers’ Party MPs

[Playtime]

Now then I know the 2 meaning. This explanation is better then ccs who tried to explain to png Eng Huat on unqualified opinion which I still confused. If he said unqualified opinion means pass, qualified opinion means fail. People will be better able to understand. But then that leds to another question. Many people are not accountant trainned and they will not understand these term. Don't say wp, maybe some pap mp also don't understand what is the difference between qualified opinions and unqualified opinions as many are not accountant trained right?

He playing games la.

 

Put this way.

Dispite all hands on deck, everything pour in, we keep seeing problems flagged up.

 

You a favoured chef.

Give you a professional kitchen, you still burn the eggs.. but boss tell customers better shut up.. of cos perfect review.

 

Another chef..not boss brother..

Take away your stove, remove your pots etc..want to make you fail.

You still must cook an egg. And you still cook it as well as the other chef for customers.

Now boss come kpkb give bad review.

 

Which chef really buay kan? Is it a fake system?

It depends how you flip the prata and play the words lor.

[Greatodin]

Now then I know the 2 meaning. This explanation is better then ccs who tried to explain to png Eng Huat on unqualified opinion which I still confused. If he said unqualified opinion means pass, qualified opinion means fail. People will be better able to understand. But then that leds to another question. Many people are not accountant trainned and they will not understand these term. Don't say wp, maybe some pap mp also don't understand what is the difference between qualified opinions and unqualified opinions as many are not accountant trained right?

 

There are four types of audit opinions:

 

1) Unqualified - Financial statements are prepared in accordance to accounting standards. Thus, auditors are able to express a true and fair opinion on the financial statements.

2) Qualified - Almost similar to unqualified opinion but will include a paragraph explaining the "except for" issues and why it could not be unqualified. Generally errors are material, but not pervasive.

3) Adverse - Do not conform to accounting standards and financial records could be grossly misrepresented.

4) Disclaimer of Opinion - Cannot complete audit due to missing financial documents.

 

Both adverse and disclaimer of opinion are generally material and pervasive.

 

Hope this helps.

[Greatodin]

Nowadays a lot of terms can be googled.

 

It is not as simplistic as pass or fail.

 

Even unqualified opinions does not mean clean accounts.

 

True. Very much dependent on level of materiality and the audit sampling process.

 

Just an example. If you say select sample transactions of $5,000 or more from an account, anything below $5,000 may have been overlooked even though some of which are fictitious.

[GoodCar]

For those who are confused, let me try and see if I can explain it.

 

Town council is own by the government, not by any parties, so whoever form the gov owns TC.

 

Elected MPs are task to run the TCs, but they dont own the TC. Whoever wins the ward runs the TC, there is only the handing over of management aka operations.

 

So TC is a stand alone entity from the management team, the management team can change, but the TC will remain the same.

 

Because TC is a stand alone entity from the management, and that it is own by the government, its books has to be audited and report back to its owner.

 

In the case of AHTC, the appointed Auditor was KPMG, and KPMG upon auditing has reported a "serious flaws" in the TC management and the making of "improper payments". The management of AHTC disagree with the report by KPMG and decides to challenge it. In order to do so a 2nd opinion will be needed, and with the agreement of the government ( in this case HDB), AHTC appoints an independent panel to review the report by KPMG. If the review is different from the report by KPMG, a third audit mayb required. However, sld the review be in line with the report by KPMG, AHTC will have to empower the independent panel to take the necessary action.

 

The review of the independent panel appears to be in line with the report by KPMG, and therefore AHTC as a stand alone entity sues the management to recover the money belonging to the TC. Technically the PAP government is not involve yet.

 

To understand this, we first have to be very clear that TC is liken to a private limited/public company, it is an entity by itself, not related to the ppl running it. Unlike a sole proprietorship where the owner is the business and the business is the owner.

 

In order words, it is between the TC and its managers. The TC has no life one, it just operates by sets of rules.

 

I hope mine is not anymore confusing.

Wah.....You got the ink man bro.

Make me five body hug the floor.

 

Give you 88 like. :)

[Tianmo]

Wah.....You got the ink man bro.

Make me five body hug the floor.

 

Give you 88 like. :)

 

 

I is BTC one, this one is anyhow hantam see tio or not only...    

[Weez911]

Now we know what is this suit for....

 

===============================================================================================

https://mothership.sg/2019/03/ahtc-reply-submissions-rebut/

 

AHTC trial: WP leaders say AHTC lawyers suing them did not rebut key evidence

 

Next up, oral arguments in the High Court. ~ March 5, 11:08 am  

 

 

Did you think that the Aljunied Hougang Town Council-Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council (AHTC-PRPTC) trial was over?

 

You’ve got another think coming.

 

On March 4, Workers’ Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh, who is one of the case’s defendants, shared a post (see below section) that detailed arguments that the independent panel suing them has not responded to in the course of the case.

 

The post on their In Good Faith case blog summarised their latest round of reply submissions, as prepared by their lawyers at Tan, Rajah & Cheah.

 

Key evidence not rebutted

 

According to Pritam’s team of defendants and their lawyers, the plaintiffs have to prove the following in order to succeed:

•The appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) was improper.

•The appointment of third party contractors was improper, and

•The respective payments were made to them.

They said the plaintiffs have not done so, and provided “key evidence” that they believe have not been rebutted in the course of the trial, which concluded on Oct. 30 last year.

 

“Crucial” witness not called

 

Examples of “key evidence” remaining “unrebutted” include:

•Aljunied Town Council’s incumbent managing agent, CPG Facilities Management Pte Ltd, asked to be released after the WP won Aljunied GRC;

•FMSS/FMSI (FM Solutions and Integrated Services) and third-party subcontractors did in fact carry out the services for which they were contracted;

•The appointments and payments were done in accordance with the processes of the Town Council.

According to Channel NewsAsia, lawyers for FMSS agreed that key evidence was not rebutted, and said that the plaintiffs did not call “crucial” witnesses like Jeffrey Chua, CPG’s managing director.

During the AHTC trial, it was revealed that Chua held shares in CPG’s parent company, which supposedly presented a conflict of interest because he also happened to hold the post of Secretary at Aljunied Town Council at the time.

 

Closing submissions in January

 

In their closing submissions filed on Jan. 18, 2019, lawyers from Shook Lin & Bok, who represent the AHTC panel, argued that the defendants did not act in good faith.

 

They also highlighted the alleged conflicts of interest involving FMSS, as well as the “surge in profits” the company received after they were appointed Managing Agent of AHTC.

 

Counsel for the defence, on the other hand, argued in their closing submissions filed on the same day that the defendants had acted in good faith and owed only statutory duties to the Town Council, not a fiduciary obligation.

 

The case in brief

 

AHTC’s lawsuit was initiated by an independent panel that had been appointed to help AHTC recover allegedly improper payments.

 

The panel included senior counsels Philip Jeyaretnam, N. Sreenivasan and KPMG managing partner Ong Pang Thye.

 

AHTC is suing eight defendants, chief of whom being WP leaders Pritam, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, over alleged improper payments involving millions of dollars.

 

They are also accused of breaching their fiduciary duties in the appointment of FMSS as their managing agent.

 

Both sides will present their final oral arguments in the High Court on April 9 and 10.

 

===============================================================================================

 

https://www.facebook.com/211352328887088/posts/2233476546674646

 

Pritam Singh

19 hrs ·

 

Dear friends,

 

Our reply submissions as prepared by our lawyers are as attached.

 

Sylvia, Mr Low and Pritam

 

Summary

————-

“For the Plaintiffs to succeed, they need to prove that the appointments of FMSS and the other third party contractors and the respective payments made to them were improper. They have not done so. The following key evidence of the Town Councillors remains unrebutted:

 

With respect to the Appointment and Payment of FMSS

 

(1) The incumbent MA, CPG requested to be released after WP was elected to Aljunied GRC.

 

(2) In appointing and paying FMSS, Ms Sylvia Lim was acting pursuant to the authority delegated to her by the TC to facilitate the handover during the interim period.

 

(3) When a tender was called in 2012 for the 2nd MA Contract and 2nd EMSU Contract, there were no bidders other than FMSS.

 

(4) The provider of the Town Council Management System (“TCMS”), Action Information Management Pte Ltd (“AIM”) terminated the provision of TCMS in June 2011.

 

(5) The incumbent EMSU contractors, CPG and EM Services did not wish to extend their provision of EMSU services after 30 September 2011.

 

With respect to the Appointment and Payment of FMSS and Third Party Contractors

 

(6) FMSS, FMSI and the other third party contractors did carry out the services which they were contracted for.

 

(7) FMSS, FMSI and the other third party contractors were paid in accordance with their respective contracts at rates charged by the previous contractors and/or were considered reasonable by the Town Councillors.

 

(8) The appointments and payments were in accordance with the processes of the TC.”

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Weez911

[Playtime]

Now we know what is this suit for....

 

===============================================================================================

https://mothership.sg/2019/03/ahtc-reply-submissions-rebut/

 

AHTC trial: WP leaders say AHTC lawyers suing them did not rebut key evidence

 

Next up, oral arguments in the High Court. ~ March 5, 11:08 am

 

 

Did you think that the Aljunied Hougang Town Council-Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council (AHTC-PRPTC) trial was over?

 

Youâve got another think coming.

 

On March 4, Workersâ Party (WP) Secretary-General Pritam Singh, who is one of the caseâs defendants, shared a post (see below section) that detailed arguments that the independent panel suing them has not responded to in the course of the case.

 

The post on their In Good Faith case blog summarised their latest round of reply submissions, as prepared by their lawyers at Tan, Rajah & Cheah.

 

Key evidence not rebutted

 

According to Pritamâs team of defendants and their lawyers, the plaintiffs have to prove the following in order to succeed:

â¢The appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) was improper.

â¢The appointment of third party contractors was improper, and

â¢The respective payments were made to them.

They said the plaintiffs have not done so, and provided âkey evidenceâ that they believe have not been rebutted in the course of the trial, which concluded on Oct. 30 last year.

 

âCrucialâ witness not called

 

Examples of âkey evidenceâ remaining âunrebuttedâ include:

â¢Aljunied Town Councilâs incumbent managing agent, CPG Facilities Management Pte Ltd, asked to be released after the WP won Aljunied GRC;

â¢FMSS/FMSI (FM Solutions and Integrated Services) and third-party subcontractors did in fact carry out the services for which they were contracted;

â¢The appointments and payments were done in accordance with the processes of the Town Council.

According to Channel NewsAsia, lawyers for FMSS agreed that key evidence was not rebutted, and said that the plaintiffs did not call âcrucialâ witnesses like Jeffrey Chua, CPGâs managing director.

During the AHTC trial, it was revealed that Chua held shares in CPGâs parent company, which supposedly presented a conflict of interest because he also happened to hold the post of Secretary at Aljunied Town Council at the time.

 

Closing submissions in January

 

In their closing submissions filed on Jan. 18, 2019, lawyers from Shook Lin & Bok, who represent the AHTC panel, argued that the defendants did not act in good faith.

 

They also highlighted the alleged conflicts of interest involving FMSS, as well as the âsurge in profitsâ the company received after they were appointed Managing Agent of AHTC.

 

Counsel for the defence, on the other hand, argued in their closing submissions filed on the same day that the defendants had acted in good faith and owed only statutory duties to the Town Council, not a fiduciary obligation.

 

The case in brief

 

AHTCâs lawsuit was initiated by an independent panel that had been appointed to help AHTC recover allegedly improper payments.

 

The panel included senior counsels Philip Jeyaretnam, N. Sreenivasan and KPMG managing partner Ong Pang Thye.

 

AHTC is suing eight defendants, chief of whom being WP leaders Pritam, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim, over alleged improper payments involving millions of dollars.

 

They are also accused of breaching their fiduciary duties in the appointment of FMSS as their managing agent.

 

Both sides will present their final oral arguments in the High Court on April 9 and 10.

 

===============================================================================================

 

https://www.facebook.com/211352328887088/posts/2233476546674646

 

Pritam Singh

19 hrs ·

 

Dear friends,

 

Our reply submissions as prepared by our lawyers are as attached.

 

Sylvia, Mr Low and Pritam

 

Summary

ââââ-

âFor the Plaintiffs to succeed, they need to prove that the appointments of FMSS and the other third party contractors and the respective payments made to them were improper. They have not done so. The following key evidence of the Town Councillors remains unrebutted:

 

With respect to the Appointment and Payment of FMSS

 

(1) The incumbent MA, CPG requested to be released after WP was elected to Aljunied GRC.

 

(2) In appointing and paying FMSS, Ms Sylvia Lim was acting pursuant to the authority delegated to her by the TC to facilitate the handover during the interim period.

 

(3) When a tender was called in 2012 for the 2nd MA Contract and 2nd EMSU Contract, there were no bidders other than FMSS.

 

(4) The provider of the Town Council Management System (âTCMSâ), Action Information Management Pte Ltd (âAIMâ) terminated the provision of TCMS in June 2011.

 

(5) The incumbent EMSU contractors, CPG and EM Services did not wish to extend their provision of EMSU services after 30 September 2011.

 

With respect to the Appointment and Payment of FMSS and Third Party Contractors

 

(6) FMSS, FMSI and the other third party contractors did carry out the services which they were contracted for.

 

(7) FMSS, FMSI and the other third party contractors were paid in accordance with their respective contracts at rates charged by the previous contractors and/or were considered reasonable by the Town Councillors.

 

(8) The appointments and payments were in accordance with the processes of the TC.â

Yet... we are told, husband and wife working in what are structurally adversarial positions that would crack alarm bells in pte sector... all OK.

[Weez911]

The End.

https://www.straitstimes.com/politic...2010%3A10%3A15

SINGAPORE - Workers' Party chief Pritam Singh and his fellow Aljunied GRC MPs Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang have been found liable for damages suffered by the Aljunied Hougang Town Council (AHTC), which is said to have made millions in improper payments under their watch.

In a much-anticipated judgment released on Friday (Oct 11), High Court Judge Kannan Ramesh said that Ms Lim and Mr Low had breached their fiduciary duty, while Mr Singh had breached his duty of skill and care in the hiring of the town council's managing agent FM Solutions & Services (FMSS).

This resulted in the town council paying at least $33.7 million to FMSS from July 2011 to July 2015.

During that period, Ms Lim was chairman of the town council, while Mr Low was secretary-general of the WP.

Mr Singh, meanwhile, was a member of the town council's tenders and contracts committee.

At this point, it is unlikely that the judgment will affect their position as MPs, as it arises from civil proceedings. The MPs can decide whether to appeal against the verdict.

The case will move on to a second round of hearings to assess and determine the quantum of damages suffered by the town council, and how much it can recover from the MPs.

AHTC had asked for "equitable compensation" for any sum wrongfully paid out in its statement of claim.

If the WP MPs cannot pay up, they will be made bankrupt and lose their parliamentary seats.

Last year, the three WP MPs, in their personal capacity, raised more than $1 million in three days for their legal fees in a crowdfunding effort.

The civil suit was initiated in 2017 under the direction of an independent panel set up by the town council to recover improper payments.

Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) had also sued to recover its share of losses incurred when Punggol East constituency was managed by the WP-led town council from 2013 to 2015. The WP had won the seat in a 2013 by-election but lost it in the 2015 General Election.

The claims by both town councils centred on $33.7 million that AHTC paid to its former managing agent FMSS between 2011 and 2015.

Friday's verdict brings to a close the first tranche of the trial to determine liability.

Over 17 days last year (2018), 14 witnesses were called and questioned by lawyers, resulting in robust exchanges and debates, as well as unexpected disclosures before an often-packed public gallery.

The case is the latest turn in an ongoing saga that goes back to 2011.

AHTC had been unable to submit an unqualified set of accounts since 2011, after the WP won Aljunied GRC in the 2011 General Election.

The state of affairs led to a special audit by the Auditor-General's Office (AGO), which found significant governance lapses at AHTC.

The AGO's findings were raised in Parliament, and the Court of Appeal directed AHTC to appoint a Big Four accounting firm to help it fix the lapses and ensure compliance with the law. AHTC appointed independent auditor KPMG in 2016 to look into its books.

KPMG found that the lapses at AHTC had put public funds running into millions of dollars at risk of improper use. AHTC appointed an independent panel to look into the improper payments and take action, including recovering the money.

The WP MPs and town councillors were represented by Tan Rajah & Cheah, with lawyer Chelva Retnam Rajah as lead counsel. while FMSS was represented by Netto & Magin.

The independent AHTC panel was represented by a team from Shook Lin and Bok, led by lawyer David Chan.

PRPTC was represented by Drew & Napier, led by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh who is now at Davinder Singh Chambers.

[Kyrios]

May i say..the timing of the verdict is just nice...everything well planned and swee swee..good job!

[Ash2017]

i asked my fellow colleagues in parliament why do we put lives of our Singaporeans risk when we tie MPs job to running town council. 

 

guess what answer they came back with

 

bopiah boss say so

[Watwheels]

Simi the end?

They are not going to hang. If bankrupt got chance to discharge and make comeback some other day.

[Kyrios]

Sorry got noob question...why ho sun and kong hee no need to return the money they took while in this case...criminal vs civil case?

[Weez911]

38 minutes ago, Watwheels said:

Simi the end?

They are not going to hang. If bankrupt got chance to discharge and make comeback some other day.

It's over. Even if they can pay the damages, the electorate has lost their confidence in them. This is a popularity contest, remember?

I do hope to be proved wrong next year.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Weez911

[RH1667]

Now that verdict is out, means election should be soon. 

 

[Kyrios]

Well it does give something for the IBs to cheer over the weekend. I wonder if for the alternate voice in singapore, does the Hydra mantra mean anything: Cut off one head, two more shall arise? 😄

[Ysc3]

53 minutes ago, Weez911 said:

It's over. Even if they can pay the damages, the electorate has lost their confidence in them. This is a popularity contest, remember?

I do hope to be proved wrong next year.

Apparently you or most of the ppl replying here has not ... So they still have a chance. 

OK... Donation box open again ... 

Last time donate the money from govt... This time leh?  Oh yah...  U-save... 

[Kyrios]

6 minutes ago, Ysc3 said:

Apparently you or most of the ppl replying here has not ... So they still have a chance. 

OK... Donation box open again ... 

Last time donate the money from govt... This time leh?  Oh yah...  U-save... 

Bro..it is 34mirrion this time..dun think will be achievable..yeah looks like they will be finger snapped soon

[Ysc3]

4 minutes ago, Kyrios said:

Bro..it is 34mirrion this time..dun think will be achievable..yeah looks like they will be finger snapped soon

Wow!!  I thought another 1 mil can let them play on first .... Liddat kankor liow...