Sammyboy RSS Feed
25-01-2016, 06:40 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
This post is extracted from source: http://g$$$$$l/cFCNm2
AHTC Court of Appeal Case - Is this what the WP calls being honest?
by Blogger: Blue Light
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MJ00-RjmXso/VqGOXv-ndDI/AAAAAAAAABI/GpYdMU3ebas/s400/Pritam%2B22%2BJan%2B2016.jpg
The ongoing saga on AHTC’s finances made headlines again this week.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal, Singapore’s highest court, made scathing comments about AHTC’s recent conduct.
Here is what happened -
In a judgment last year, the Court directed the appointment of independent accountants to fix the various breaches and lapses in the Town Council’s accounts.
AHTC’s initial choice was a sole proprietorship called Business Assurance (“BA”), run by Mr Alex Chai (“Chai”).
The Town Council told the Court that BA was amply qualified for the job, and claimed that Chai had “extensive experience”.
But, when the Court ordered the Town Council to provide further information about BA’s expertise and experience, BA withdrew its nomination the very next day.
AHTC then tried to nominate a new candidate, MRI Moores Rowland (“MRI”).
But, when similar questions were asked about MRI’s expertise and experience, the firm followed suit, and again withdrew from nomination.
This is a disturbing pattern of conduct.
The Town Council assured the Court that BA and MRI were suitable candidates. But both firms promptly withdrew, when basic questions were asked.
Why were they so afraid to answer these questions? What were they trying to hide?
The Court expressed concern “that all facts may not have been provided in a candid manner”.
Mr Pritam Singh told the Court, on more than one occasion, that BA’s withdrawal was due to “intense media scrutiny”.
But the Court said that this “could only be half the story”.
The other half, which Mr Singh did not disclose? Mr Chai wanted to keep private his grading in a regulatory Practice Monitoring Programme (“PMP”) review conducted by ACRA.
The Town Council also says that MRI withdrew on 17 January - the day before Mr Singh’s latest two affidavits were filed.
But Mr Singh’s affidavits made no mention of MRI’s withdrawal. And continued to suggest that MRI was still being put forward for nomination.
Based on this timeline, the Court said that Mr Singh’s non-disclosure was “troubling”.
Mr Singh lied, and tried to mislead the Court, by suppressing critical information. This, despite the fact that he is a qualified lawyer, and officer of the Court.
Appalling conduct, by any count.
Yet, AHTC’s lawyer has the gall to say that this is “water under the bridge”.
Is this what the Worker’s Party means by transparency and accountability?
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?224067-Is-this-what-the-WP-calls-being-honest&goto=newpost).
This post is extracted from source: http://g$$$$$l/cFCNm2
AHTC Court of Appeal Case - Is this what the WP calls being honest?
by Blogger: Blue Light
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MJ00-RjmXso/VqGOXv-ndDI/AAAAAAAAABI/GpYdMU3ebas/s400/Pritam%2B22%2BJan%2B2016.jpg
The ongoing saga on AHTC’s finances made headlines again this week.
On Wednesday, the Court of Appeal, Singapore’s highest court, made scathing comments about AHTC’s recent conduct.
Here is what happened -
In a judgment last year, the Court directed the appointment of independent accountants to fix the various breaches and lapses in the Town Council’s accounts.
AHTC’s initial choice was a sole proprietorship called Business Assurance (“BA”), run by Mr Alex Chai (“Chai”).
The Town Council told the Court that BA was amply qualified for the job, and claimed that Chai had “extensive experience”.
But, when the Court ordered the Town Council to provide further information about BA’s expertise and experience, BA withdrew its nomination the very next day.
AHTC then tried to nominate a new candidate, MRI Moores Rowland (“MRI”).
But, when similar questions were asked about MRI’s expertise and experience, the firm followed suit, and again withdrew from nomination.
This is a disturbing pattern of conduct.
The Town Council assured the Court that BA and MRI were suitable candidates. But both firms promptly withdrew, when basic questions were asked.
Why were they so afraid to answer these questions? What were they trying to hide?
The Court expressed concern “that all facts may not have been provided in a candid manner”.
Mr Pritam Singh told the Court, on more than one occasion, that BA’s withdrawal was due to “intense media scrutiny”.
But the Court said that this “could only be half the story”.
The other half, which Mr Singh did not disclose? Mr Chai wanted to keep private his grading in a regulatory Practice Monitoring Programme (“PMP”) review conducted by ACRA.
The Town Council also says that MRI withdrew on 17 January - the day before Mr Singh’s latest two affidavits were filed.
But Mr Singh’s affidavits made no mention of MRI’s withdrawal. And continued to suggest that MRI was still being put forward for nomination.
Based on this timeline, the Court said that Mr Singh’s non-disclosure was “troubling”.
Mr Singh lied, and tried to mislead the Court, by suppressing critical information. This, despite the fact that he is a qualified lawyer, and officer of the Court.
Appalling conduct, by any count.
Yet, AHTC’s lawyer has the gall to say that this is “water under the bridge”.
Is this what the Worker’s Party means by transparency and accountability?
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?224067-Is-this-what-the-WP-calls-being-honest&goto=newpost).