Blog Archive

Friday, 4 September 2015


There is a question that arise comparing YOG over spending with that of AHPETC overpayment at the Workers Party Facebook.
While this is plainly using another wrong to wiggle out one's guilt, it is good for us to know that these don't come under similar circumstances.
Firstly for the then MCYS to foul up on its budgeting for YOG is absolutely undesirable, and inexperience is of no excuse.
If inexperience is an acceptable excuse, then let's let AHPETC go because they also claimed they are inexperienced. But wait, the Workers Party openly said that they have had 20 years of experience running a successful town council before going on to win Aljunied GRC. So how will they get out of this contradiction?
In the case of MCYS, it is believable though not excusable, reason being YOG has no precedence, not in any where.
The fault with YOG is they were too eager to keep spending low and underestimated the extent of the event with too much unpredictable variables. I suspect someone must have plucked out a figure and the rest tried to work within that figure and eventually confronted by the truth that the figure is a mission impossible. It doesn't pay to impress.
Having said that, what happened in AHPETC has none of these unpredictable variables at all. In fact they took over a healthy set of accounts, and existing MA was at its disposure but they chose to discontinue contracted with FMSS instead. Everything was ongoing with precedence.
It must be noted that where municipal services are concern, indeed the AHPETC has demonstrated they measure up to expectations. I believed no residents should complain of that level of performance.
However the matter before us, and in question is a comparison between over payment to the contractor that undertakes all management and maintenance works of the town.
Where YOG is concern, it was a one time project and the final account was open to public scrutiny.
AHPETC however had the accounts delayed, and when belated accounts were presented, operating surpluses accumulated by previous council was completely wiped off and went into deficit.
So the question arises, if labour, material and ancillary costs for providing such municipal services are relatively similar across the board, and with AHPETC's charges pegged higher than other town councils, then there is a reason to question why is there no operating surpluses like the others and instead a deficit happened?
Ministry of National Development suggested the money had gone to over paying FMSS in related fees and charges. The ministry provided numbers from their searches of FMSS.
However, Chairman of AHPETC Ms Sylvia Lim refuted that there is no overpayment citing the pursuant of contract. She took issue with MND's use of the word "abnormal".
Let's be clear here. MND is pointing finger at FMSS for over charging AHPETC. The Workers Party Town Council is supposed to be the victim here. Why is Sylvia Lim going all out to defend FMSS? Wasn't she interested in know why her town council was being overcharged and how could she recover the money from the former managing agent?
As she had categorically said again and again, this is a commercial transaction between AHPETC and FMSS.
Do we not have sufficient reason to question AHPETC now?

No comments:

Post a Comment