You ask, so we retell. The AHTC saga was started by WP-appointed auditors and ended by WP-appointed Independent Panel.

This is one saga that has wearied Singaporeans for so long, we all wish to put it behind.

One Aljunied resident who had been overseas for 10 years asked many questions about what happened. This photo sums up the major events. It should be sufficient for him.

Briefly, it started with their own auditors flagging problems with account.

When the problems persisted, AGO audited their account and flagged problems of governance.

The court then directed the town councillors to appoint one of the Big Four to audit and fix problems.

WP appointed KPMG.

KPMG completed their report.

Through the courts, the town councillors were directed to appoint an independent panel to look into improper payment.

Pritam Singh appointed the independent panel to act on behalf of AHTC, saying it would be in the best interest of AHTC.

The independent panel reviewed the KPMG Report and then sued the 3 WP MPs who were the town councillors, along with a few employees.

So that's the story. It began with their own auditors flagging problems and ended with their own independent panel suing them.

Instead of answering so many questions in messages, we decided this is a better response because there could be others with similar questions.

WP's very successful political game in AHTC

WP's very successful political game.

In the beginning, Singaporeans did not know that FMSS was owned by close affiliates of WP.

Only WP and MND knew these facts.

But MND left them alone because, as then National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said, they allowed some latitude with regard to party affiliation because TCs are political by nature. So MND did not interfere with the award of contracts to FMSS.

Then one day, the WP decided to play politics in Parliament during the debate on AIM.

They wanted to whip up a furore over AIM being a company set up by PAP members.

Not knowing that MND knew the fact of FMSS being owned by close affiliates of WP, Pritam Singh boldly declared in Parliament that transactions with political party-owned companies should be banned by the TC Act.

That's when Mr Khaw Boon Wan rebutted the WP and told them to look in the mirror.

And so folks, that was how the whole of Singapore came to know that FMSS was owned by close party affiliates who acted as assenter and proposer to the WP's Ang Mo Kio GRC team in the 2006 General Election.

There's nothing wrong with WP appointing FMSS as their managing agent. This was why MND left them alone in the first place and did not interfere.

This is also why we are not surprised by the Court of Appeal saying that WP appointed FMSS in 'good faith'.

So WHAT IS THE ISSUE?

The issue was that they allowed their friends to set up a flawed payment system involving conflict of interest, and then being fully aware of this conflict of interest, did nothing to correct it and allowed it to persist until MND decided to step in and put things right.

And THAT is the issue today.

The issue is not that they appointed friends (in good faith).

They issue is that they allowed their friends to set up a flawed payment process (in bad faith).

The Court of Appeal found them to be woefully negligent, and acting in bad faith, and allowing this to persist for 3 years before MND stepped in and put an end to this payment process

In the words of the Court of Appeal: WP's MPs acted in bad faith

 

Workers' Party: AHTC should not be allowed to have a second bite at the cherry

The INDEPENDENT PANEL acting on behalf of AHTC has applied to the Courts to add amendments to the claims against Pritam Singh and four others.

The application was made in May 2020.

WP, TOWN COUNCILLORS OBJECT TO AMENDMENTS

They said AHTC "has offered no explanation as to why these new claims could not have been made earlier".

They also asserted that the town council "should not be allowed a to have a second bite at the cherry by amending its pleadings to suit the judgment.

In this battle between Workers' Party and the town council, the judges will decide if the town council/residents will have a second bite of the cherry.

Notes:
The Independent Panel acting on behalf of the town council was appointed by Mr Pritam Singh.