Sammyboy RSS Feed
21-07-2015, 01:50 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015...al-discipline/ (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/07/ago-report-emblematic-of-the-paps-gasak-buta-approach-to-financial-discipline/)
AGO also audits the Government’s financial statements and is supposed to check on whether ministries have in place precautions against negligence and extravagance. The Government’s financial statements sailed through the audit as usual with an unqualified audit opinion yet we heard nothing about the substance of those statements. In particular the AGO did not comment on the Government’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Since 2012 I have pointed out that this statement cannot be an accurate measure.
In fact, I wrote an open letter to the Finance Minister a few months ago asking him why the figure for assets was so low and why certain funds like the National Productivity Fund (NPF) did not appear in the statement while others did. I am not holding my breath waiting for a reply.
While a few ministries, funds, statutory boards and government companies were audited for financial negligence and waste, the report was noteworthy for what it did not cover. Even the limited number of audits it conducts are only test checks. This means that major frauds and irregularities may go uncovered if AGO does not look in the right places or selects too small a sample to be representative of the whole.
Unless prescribed by law the AGO does not audit funds unless they are asked to do so by the Finance Minister. Since the Finance Minister controls the money in the funds he has a conflict of interest. Even for funds where the law setting them up prescribes an audit the AGO only audits them on a rotational basis. For instance this year AGO chose to audit the National Research Fund (NRF). But the number of funds are increasingly so rapidly that there seems to be less and less oversight by the AGO, even if this were a truly independent oversight agency.
I have highlighted the NPF which does not appear in the Government’s statement of assets and liabilities and also does not appear to have ever published any accounts that have been seen by Parliament or released publicly. I asked Tharman for answers on this subject (see above) but he has not replied.
Yet it has received $3.5 billion of taxpayers’ money while productivity growth has been negative since it was set up and began handing out money. We urgently need an audit of the NPF to find out where the money has gone.
Similarly despite the NRF audit no public accounts of NRF have been published. In spite of highlighting serious issues in monitoring the disbursement of grants and how they were spent, the AGO report contains no details about follow through or how it intends to continue oversight to see whether the NRF complies. At the very least the NRF should be placed in administration until stricter financial controls are in place. The same should be applied to the NPF if we do not get satisfactory answers about where the money has gone.
Both the NRF and the NPF are part of the PMO so if there has been gross negligence or wastage of money the PM should be surcharged for the full amount. The same goes for other ministers in charge of ministries where government money has been wasted.
Conclusion
We can conclude that while this year’s AGO report has uncovered some worrying lapses they mostly concern relatively small amounts, in the context of a close to $400 billion economy and upwards of $800 billion of Government assets, and also relatively small fry.
Even in the case of the NRF there is evidence of waste and negligence in the administration of grants and we can assume that the same or worse is likely or very likely with regard to the other funds that the Government has set up which have puzzlingly not been audited by AGO or their accounts presented to Parliament. Also AGO is not empowered or able to catch sophisticated financial fraud such as might occur at our sovereign wealth funds.
While the PAP are no doubt hoping that this will convince Singaporeans that they are whiter than white and leave no stone unturned to root out corruption, this report provides no satisfactory answers. The only way to get the answers is to elect people to Parliament who are not scared to ask the right questions.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?210868-AGO-report-fails-to-explain-black-holes-in-Govt-s-Statement-of-Assets-and-Liability&goto=newpost).
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015...al-discipline/ (http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2015/07/ago-report-emblematic-of-the-paps-gasak-buta-approach-to-financial-discipline/)
AGO also audits the Government’s financial statements and is supposed to check on whether ministries have in place precautions against negligence and extravagance. The Government’s financial statements sailed through the audit as usual with an unqualified audit opinion yet we heard nothing about the substance of those statements. In particular the AGO did not comment on the Government’s Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Since 2012 I have pointed out that this statement cannot be an accurate measure.
In fact, I wrote an open letter to the Finance Minister a few months ago asking him why the figure for assets was so low and why certain funds like the National Productivity Fund (NPF) did not appear in the statement while others did. I am not holding my breath waiting for a reply.
While a few ministries, funds, statutory boards and government companies were audited for financial negligence and waste, the report was noteworthy for what it did not cover. Even the limited number of audits it conducts are only test checks. This means that major frauds and irregularities may go uncovered if AGO does not look in the right places or selects too small a sample to be representative of the whole.
Unless prescribed by law the AGO does not audit funds unless they are asked to do so by the Finance Minister. Since the Finance Minister controls the money in the funds he has a conflict of interest. Even for funds where the law setting them up prescribes an audit the AGO only audits them on a rotational basis. For instance this year AGO chose to audit the National Research Fund (NRF). But the number of funds are increasingly so rapidly that there seems to be less and less oversight by the AGO, even if this were a truly independent oversight agency.
I have highlighted the NPF which does not appear in the Government’s statement of assets and liabilities and also does not appear to have ever published any accounts that have been seen by Parliament or released publicly. I asked Tharman for answers on this subject (see above) but he has not replied.
Yet it has received $3.5 billion of taxpayers’ money while productivity growth has been negative since it was set up and began handing out money. We urgently need an audit of the NPF to find out where the money has gone.
Similarly despite the NRF audit no public accounts of NRF have been published. In spite of highlighting serious issues in monitoring the disbursement of grants and how they were spent, the AGO report contains no details about follow through or how it intends to continue oversight to see whether the NRF complies. At the very least the NRF should be placed in administration until stricter financial controls are in place. The same should be applied to the NPF if we do not get satisfactory answers about where the money has gone.
Both the NRF and the NPF are part of the PMO so if there has been gross negligence or wastage of money the PM should be surcharged for the full amount. The same goes for other ministers in charge of ministries where government money has been wasted.
Conclusion
We can conclude that while this year’s AGO report has uncovered some worrying lapses they mostly concern relatively small amounts, in the context of a close to $400 billion economy and upwards of $800 billion of Government assets, and also relatively small fry.
Even in the case of the NRF there is evidence of waste and negligence in the administration of grants and we can assume that the same or worse is likely or very likely with regard to the other funds that the Government has set up which have puzzlingly not been audited by AGO or their accounts presented to Parliament. Also AGO is not empowered or able to catch sophisticated financial fraud such as might occur at our sovereign wealth funds.
While the PAP are no doubt hoping that this will convince Singaporeans that they are whiter than white and leave no stone unturned to root out corruption, this report provides no satisfactory answers. The only way to get the answers is to elect people to Parliament who are not scared to ask the right questions.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?210868-AGO-report-fails-to-explain-black-holes-in-Govt-s-Statement-of-Assets-and-Liability&goto=newpost).