This is a response to the blogger of Rise of the Strawberry Nation.
” Do people even know what Disclaimer of Opinion means? AHPETC appointed auditors had to write Disclaimer of Opinion in their reports. “
Well here it is, I am no expert, and I relied on the Internet for the following definition, together with a definition for an auditor’s ADVERSE OPINION to show the distinction between them.
DEFINITION OF DISCLAIMER OF OPINION
Statement by auditors that they do not express an opinion on the financial position of a firm because (1) they have not completed an examination of its accounts, or (2) the examination is not broad enough in scope to enable them to form an opinion.
DEFINITION OF ‘ADVERSE OPINION’
A professional opinion made by an auditor indicating that a company’s financial statements are misrepresented, misstated, and do not accurately reflect its financial performance and health. Adverse opinions are not a good thing for audited entity for it implies wrongdoing.
In other words, I would interpret this as the AGO saying that AHPETC’s case is still a works-in-progress, i.e., it is still pending. Funnily, I recall that at least part of the reason was because some required data had not been forthcoming from the (then) outgoing PAP Aljunied TC team.
NEVERTHELESS, THE IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE AGO HAS APPARENTLY NOT FOUND ANY WRONGDOING ON AHPETC’s PART DURING ITS AUDIT DESPITE SOME LAPSES (WHICH I UNDERSTAND ARE ACTIVELY BEING PURSUED BY AHPETC AND MADE GOOD).
I hope this will put into proper context and perspective to help clarify the real status of AHPETC’s account that attracted the auditor’s Disclaimer of Opinion.
In this light, we should know where to put all those fishy RED HERRINGS and orchestrated melodrama that the PAP politicians are trying very hard to cast all over the place.
But not only that, any fair-minded person has to read the AHPETC situation in the context of the cause-and-effect AFTERMATH of the AIM saga, one that is clearly masterminded by the PAP to undermine the proper running of any PAP TC taken over by an opposition party.
There can be no plausible rational or valid reasons for those contractual terms to be included that give AIM the absolute and complete right to terminate its support/service with a month’s notice to a TC. Why would any sane TC be a party to put itself in harm’s way self-sabotaging itself in such a manner? Evidently, there are ulterior motives and things are suspiciously not above board in the inclusion of such a clause.
TO REHASH THE BACKGROUND:
THE PAP TCs SOLD THEIR FINANCIAL SOFTWARE PACKAGE — WHICH IS AT THE HEART OF THEIR EVERYDAY CORE FUNCTIONS AND WHICH WAS DEVELOPED AT HUGE COST OF MILLION OF DOLLARS — FOR A MERE PITTANCE TO AIM (A $2 COMPANY) , AND THEN IN RETURN SIGNED A SERVICE CONTRACT WITH AIM, PAYING AIM FOR THE USE OF THE PACKAGE TO RUN THEIR TCs!
I do not see the commercial or operational logic behind this, if there is any.
So what could have been the ‘aim’ of this? Nobody seems to know why nor cared to explain themselves. Perhaps, the TCs are too lazy/busy to administer and maintain the package themselves or, maybe not one among them felt competent enough to do this or, this is another golden opportunity for them to make money for the party or for some of their numbers who are ex-MPs (who set up AIM).
Given the dearth of information, my own speculation is that had the PAP TCs been running the TC financial software themselves, it would have been difficult for them to find an acceptable excuse to prevent or to refuse an incoming opposition ward’s TC (such as WP Aljunied GRC) to continue running the ward without any stoppages or disruptions to work flow. There could also be some ‘stuffs’ that the PAP TCs would rather not want an opposition ward TC to know for reasons best known to themselves. So they hit upon this rather devious and deviant idea of basically handing the software over in a golden platter (the software was developed at huge cost and sold for a mere pittance) to an ‘external’ agency (i.e. AIM) which is run by one of their own (ex-PAP MPs) and then ingenuously signed a service contract (IMO, a sham contract) with that infamous ‘cut throat’ (see below) contract clause inserted.
To my mind, this is like using the law to kill legally.
On the surface, things may just appear a little ‘odd’ (the clause), but in reality we now all know only too well that it is meant to be a clandestine/subterfuge device to trigger the sabotage and subvert the work of an incoming opposition party which has taken over a PAP ward. It, at once speaks of the devious political machination that the PAP is capable of but it also illustrates how INSECURE about its position the ruling party has since become in the last decade or so.
This is wicked politics at its damnest, perpetrated at the expense of the interest of ALL Singaporeans, including PAP’s own supporters, residing in an opposition run ward. I personally find such politics unbecoming, deplorable and despicable, when citizens’ interest are made secondary to a political party’s self-interest. It is awful to see the depths that the PAP brand has now sunk to.
Two analogies may reasonably be applied to the situation:
- The financial software package is akin to the HEART in the circulatory system of the human body. At the centre of this system is the heart which pumps life-giving blood around and throughout the different parts of the body. So can you imagine how and what it would be like for a part (i.e. AHPETC) when it was forcibly removed (by AIM) from the blood circulation and now has to find a replacement heart for itself and have it stitched in place in a jiffy in order to survive?
We can all also appreciate how difficult and long it must take a heart transplant patient to recover, and the sort of complication and side effects that could surface along the road to recovery. What happened at AHPETC is very similar to this.
It cannot be as simple as what Khaw Boon Wan had claimed (and belittled the extent of the challenge posed by the termination of AIM’s services to AHPETC) in parliament. He wanted you to believe that you can simply go shopping for one ‘off the shelf’. An idea of the kinds of issues that can arise is very well described here —http://www.tremeritus.com/2015/08/20/what-you-should-know-about-the-ahpetc-aim-saga/3:10 AM 2015-08-21.
So it is not as simple as what Khaw wanted you to believe.
That the PAP TCs paid double-digit millions of dollars to develop the CUSTOMIZED package using the services of a professional software house which took many, many months to do the job, underscores the LIE in Khaw’s claim that you can simply ‘pluck’ one off the shelf and use it.
- The second analogy is about the ‘terminating’ clause deliberately inserted into the contract between the PAP TCs and AIM.
Think about it. Isn’t it like the TCs voluntarily handing AIM a huge knife with which it can UNILATERALLY decide when to cut one of their own throats. What sane person would do that unless, of course, all the while the intended victim(s) under consideration was NOT going to be one of their own kind! In the event, the knife was used on AHPETC. And we should not have any illusion or be surprised at all, since the late founding prime minister himself had in his own words ‘promised’ the voters of Aljunied GRC retribution on the eve of the PAP’s defeat on polling day of GE2011– to make the voters ‘REPENT’ for their ‘sin’, if they dared to throw out the PAP. In the event, the voters of Aljunied did throw out the PAP which leaves his prime minister son, perhaps for reasons of ‘filial piety’, to fulfill the dead founding prime minister’s ‘curse’ upon Aljunied GRC.
It is also convenient that the son, like the proverbial acorn falling not far from the oak, had publicly pledged on one infamous occasion, to preoccupy himself with how he can ‘FIX’ the opposition and buy the votes of residents IF IN HIS OPINION THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM IN PARLIAMENT FOR HIM TO HANDLE.
It is impossible for the PAP, caught with these THREE SMOKING GUNS in its hand to convincingly or even satisfactorily rebut or deny their dark ulterior motives. BECAUSE, EVEN WITHOUT GLUE, IT WOULD STICK!
In as much as the moral abyss that the PAP has allowed itself to sink into in its bid to stay dominant, we Singaporeans must ask ourselves whether we can or should allow this assault on the body politic of Singapore by the PAP to continue, UNCHECKED. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. The AHPETC case is but the tip of an iceberg of power abuse by the ruling party. Are these the sort of dishonorable political behaviour Singaporeans should support or accept in our strive for ‘one people’, ‘one nation’ and ‘one Singapore’?
THINK OF YOUR FUTURE AND YOUR CHILDREN’S FUTURE AND VOTE WISELY.