There is in fact NO REBUTTAL.
From what readers could glean from the ST report entitled “PAP rebuts claims by WP that Punggol East was in deficit” (ST, 7 Sep 2015, PageA4), which is at best sketchy, DPM Teo so-called ‘rebuttal’ is problematic and questionable.
This is because the ‘claimable as reimbursement from the Community Improvement Projects Committee fund’ (CIPC) of $303,372, quoting Zainal Sapari (chairman of the Pasir Ris-Ponggol TC) would have been already accounted for in the Income and Expenditure Statement.
So it is WRONG for Zainal to claim ‘an actual surplus of $21,363’ (subtracting $282,009 from $303,372).
One should note that the ‘20-over pages in the accounts’ mentioned by DPM Teo, are no more then SUPPLEMENTARY DETAILS to explain the Income and Expenditure Statement (aka Profit and Loss Statement) and the Balance Sheet.
BTW, receivables (like the $303,372 from the CIPC) are debit entries which would have to be balanced with credit entries in the Income and Expenditure Statement.
Looks like the PAP don’t even know how to read financial statements, and yet it has stooped to finding fault with AHPETC, or is the PAP trying to MISLEAD the people once again? Looks like it is DPM Teo who is giving only a part of the picture and not Low Thia Khiang. Another sign of desperation?