# Issuance of Correction Direction Under the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 to Mr Yee Jenn Jong

- **Source:** Ministry of National Development
- **Published:** 2024-08-25T16:00:00.000Z
- **Author:** Ministry of National Development
- **Original:** https://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/view/issuance-of-correction-direction-under-the-protection-from-online-falsehoods-and-manipulation-act-2019-to-mr-yee-jenn-jong
- **Topics:** Commercial & Industrial

## Featured rationale

The direction reinforces scrutiny of town-council financial governance and public-fund management, which may support confidence in accountability for municipal and estate operations.

## AI summary

MND directed Mr Yee Jenn Jong to publish corrections over Facebook claims concerning audits, withheld grants and the Independent Panel for AHTC.

## Original article

On 25 and 27 July 2024, Mr Yee Jenn Jong published posts on his Facebook page which made false and misleading statements regarding the Ministry of National Development (MND)’s basis and motivation for actions previously taken against the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC)[1]. These statements are:

MND was wrong to call in external auditors because it was Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM)'s termination of the Town Council Management System (TCMS)[2] on insufficient notice and handover issues with the previous Aljunied TC (ATC) that led to AHTC’s failures in reporting to MND and its audit findings;

MND’s decision to withhold grants from AHTC, to call in external auditors, and to call for an independent panel (IP) were politically motivated and not based on legitimate concerns;

MND withheld grants from AHTC in order to put pressure on AHTC to appoint an IP; and

The IP members were decided by MND, and were not independent.

The Minister for National Development has instructed the POFMA Office to issue a Correction Direction[3] under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA) to Mr Yee in respect of his Facebook posts on 25 and 27 July 2024.

MND had Legitimate and Sufficient Basis to Call in External Auditors as AHTC’s Audit Failures were Serious and Persisted Long after the 2011 Handover

First, Mr Yee claimed that MND was wrong to call in external auditors because it was AIM’s termination of the TCMS on insufficient notice and handover issues with the previous ATC that led to AHTC’s failures in reporting to MND and its audit findings. This is false.

MND called for further audit checks [by the Auditor General’s Office (AGO) in 2014 and KPMG in 2016] because AHTC’s own auditors (Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton) had flagged numerous issues with AHTC’s financial and accounting systems, raising serious questions about whether public funds in AHTC were properly applied. A substantial portion of TC funds are public funds. TC funds include the Service & Conservancy Charges (S&CC) collected from residents by the TCs and the S&CC Operating Grants disbursed by MND to the TCs.

Mr Yee’s post was misleading because it omitted important context that AHTC’s own auditors had highlighted serious lapses by AHTC, which then triggered the subsequent audits. MND therefore had legitimate and sufficient basis to call in the external auditors.

Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton had submitted a disclaimer of opinion for AHTC’s Financial Statements for two consecutive years – FY2011/12 and FY2012/13. Such disclaimers of opinion by auditors are highly unusual and serious matters. In this case, the disclaimer meant that AHTC’s own auditors could not say that the financial statements were a true and fair account of AHTC’s financial position.

Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton highlighted AHTC’s failures to:

Transfer part of its S&CC[4] to its Sinking Fund as required by law; and

Provide its auditors with the details of project management service fees paid to a related party, management accounts and records of minutes.

Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton was also unable to determine the validity and accuracy of items in AHTC’s financial statements amounting to over $20 million.

As such, AGO was directed by the Ministry of Finance to conduct a special audit in February 2014, which found:

AHTC had several lapses in governance and compliance with the Town Councils Act (TCA) and Financial Rules, relating to AHTC’s financial governance processes and usage of AHTC funds; and

Until AHTC addressed these weaknesses, there could be no assurance that AHTC’s accounts were accurate and reliable, or that public funds were properly spent, accounted for and managed.

AHTC then appointed KPMG as its Independent Accountants (IAs) to identify AHTC’s non-compliances with the TCA, advise the TC on appropriate remedial steps, and establish whether any past payments made by the TC were improper and ought to be recovered. This was pursuant to a ruling by the Court of Appeal in May 2015, made in response to MND’s application to Court for IAs to be appointed.

Mr Yee’s insinuation that MND placed excessive and unnecessary pressure on AHTC paints a misleading picture. Contrary to Mr Yee’s claims, there is no reasonable basis to suggest that AIM’s termination of the TCMS contract on insufficient notice or handover issues had caused all the TC’s process and system weaknesses.

Several of AHTC’s lapses were inherent to AHTC rather than due to AIM’s termination of the TCMS or handover issues in 2011.

In fact, based on KPMG's findings, the root causes of AHTC’s lapses were related to AHTC’s governance framework and policy management, accounting practices, and AHTC’s accounting system used to record and account for the TC’s transactions, as well as the TC’s Finance Department’s capability and retention of management personnel.

KPMG also found that AHTC’s control failures were pervasive, cutting across the key areas of governance, financial control, financial reporting, procurement and records management over the course of five years, which shows that they persisted for a significant time. Even as late as 2016, some of the lapses flagged by AHTC’s own auditors in 2014 remained unresolved.

Mr Yee’s assertion that AHTC’s reporting failures were due to AIM’s termination of the TCMS is groundless. In December 2014, AHTC blamed its failure to report its S&CC arrears to MND on not being able to use AIM’s TCMS. This ignores the fact that AHTC had submitted its monthly arrears reports for 19 months from October 2011 to April 2013 without using AIM’s TCMS. Furthermore, Hougang TC was able to submit its S&CC arrears reports to MND for years since 2008 without using AIM’s TCMS.

In fact, Mr Yee’s claim that AIM’s TCMS was terminated on insufficient notice is also false. AHTC asked for extensions to use AIM’s TCMS on two occasions[5], which AIM agreed to. Given that both requests for extension were acceded to and AHTC did not request for any further extension, there is no basis for alleging that the TCMS was terminated on insufficient notice.

MND’s Actions against the TC were Necessary to Safeguard Public Funds

Second, Mr Yee’s posts suggested that MND’s decisions to (a) withhold grants from AHTC; (b) call in external auditors; and (c) call for an Independent Panel were politically motivated and not based on legitimate concerns. Third, Mr Yee claimed that MND withheld grants from AHTC in order to put pressure on AHTC to appoint an IP. These are false.

If left unaddressed, this falsehood calls into question the integrity of MND and other agencies which were involved in looking into the matter of AHTC.

MND acted because of the many audit concerns raised by AHTC’s own auditors and AGO.

MND was fulfilling its statutory responsibility under the TCA to ensure that TCs have adequate governance processes in place to safeguard public funds that are entrusted to them and to channel these funds to the purpose for which they are given:

Withholding of grants. Given the deficiencies in AHTC’s financial governance processes flagged by the various audits, it would have been irresponsible for MND to have disbursed the S&CC Operating Grants to AHTC without any safeguards. As such, MND offered on two occasions in October 2014 and August 2015 to disburse the grants to AHTC, with reasonable conditions such as (i) AHTC to declare that all earlier submitted statements were true; (ii) AHTC to put in place safeguards for the proper accountability of the disbursed funds; and (iii) AHTC to provide its latest bank account position. However, AHTC did not take up MND’s offer on both occasions.

Disbursement of withheld grants. The withheld grants were disbursed to AHTC in April 2016, after AHTC had appointed KPMG as its IA and accepted MND’s conditions set in relation to the grants.[6] This was because as AHTC’s appointed IA, KPMG would help AHTC identify its non-compliances with the TCA, advise the TC on appropriate remedial steps, and establish whether any past payments made by the TC were improper and ought to be recovered.

Formation of the IP. The formation of the IP was not a precondition for MND’s disbursement of the withheld S&CC Operating Grants, as claimed by Mr Yee. In fact, all withheld grants were disbursed in April 2016, before the IP was formed in February 2017.

KPMG’s Past Payments Review Report, submitted to AHTC and HDB on 31 October 2016, identified large sums of improper payments from TC funds. Therefore, HDB wrote to AHTC in November 2016, to request that the TC appoint a suitable third party to follow through to recover the improper past payments identified by KPMG.

This was because KPMG found that AHTC might potentially look to its Town Councillors for the recovery of losses arising from any breaches of their fiduciary duties. As Town Councillors make decisions for TCs, having an independent third party to represent the interests of the TC would avoid any potential conflict of interest.

AHTC’s IP Members were Independent and Not Decided by MND

Third, Mr Yee claimed that AHTC’s IP members were decided by MND, and were not independent. This is false.

MND did not decide on any of the IP members.

The IP is an agent of AHTC pursuant to section 46(2) of the TCA.

It was AHTC that appointed the IP Chairman in 2017 and allowed him to make the decision on the identity of the other two IP members as he deemed appropriate, or to pick one member from a shortlist by AHTC and the other from a shortlist by HDB. The IP Chairman only made his selection after confirming with AHTC that it had no objection to him making his selection from HDB’s shortlist. It is unclear whether AHTC itself provided any shortlist to the IP Chairman.

Per the IP’s Terms of Reference, the IP did not take any direction or instruction from HDB, MND or any other person. The IP was independent and impartial, and as an agent for AHTC, supposed to act in the best interests of AHTC.

Correction Notice

Mr Yee will be required to carry a correction notice on his Facebook posts, which states that the posts contain false statements of fact and to provide a link to the Government’s clarification. This will allow readers to read both versions and draw their own conclusions.

For the facts of the case, please refer to the Factually article “Corrections regarding falsehoods published by Mr Yee Jenn Jong on 25 and 27 July 2024” at the following link: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually260824.

Issued by: Ministry of National Development

Date: 26 August 2024

[1] Following the Workers’ Party’s win at the by-election for the Punggol East Single Member Constituency (SMC) in 2013, AHTC was known as “Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council” or AHPETC. After the General Election in 2015, it was reconstituted and changed its name to AHTC on 1 October 2015, as the Punggol East SMC was won by the People’s Action Party and grouped under the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council. For purposes of this press release, we will refer to the Town Council as AHTC for simplicity.

[2] AIM’s TCMS was an integrated system that TCs used to manage their resident and property data, and essential services such as S&CC collection, contractor payments, facility bookings, etc. TCs also used the platform to generate data used in their annual financial statements.

[3] A Correction Direction is a Direction issued to a person who has communicated a falsehood (i.e., the recipient) that affects the public interest. It requires the recipient to publish a correction notice, providing access to the correct facts. The Direction does not require the recipient to take down their post or make edits to their content and does not impose criminal sanctions.

[4] Based on AHTC’s financial statements for FY2012/13, it failed to transfer $12.46 million into its Sinking Fund.

[5] In June and August 2011, AHTC had requested to extend its use of AIM’s TCMS by one month (1 to 31 August 2011) and by nine days (1 to 9 September 2011) respectively. The full circumstances and chronology of events are set out in MND’s 2013 Town Council Review Report which was debated in Parliament in May 2013.

[6] The conditions included AHTC setting up segregated bank accounts to receive the grants, and getting the IAs to co-authorise and co-sign large payments out of these accounts.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 根据《2019年防止网络假信息和网络操纵法》向余振忠先生发出更正指示

2024年7月25日及27日，余振忠先生在其Facebook专页发布帖文，就国家发展部（MND）此前针对阿裕尼—后港市镇会（AHTC）[1]所采取行动的依据与动机作出虚假且具误导性的陈述。这些陈述为：

MND不应引入外部审计师，因为是Action Information Management Pte Ltd（AIM）在通知不足的情况下终止市镇会管理系统（TCMS）[2]，以及与前任阿裕尼市镇会（ATC）的交接问题，导致AHTC在向MND汇报及审计发现方面出现失误；

MND扣留AHTC津贴、引入外部审计师，以及要求成立独立小组（IP）的决定是出于政治动机，并非基于正当关切；

MND扣留AHTC津贴是为了向AHTC施压以任命IP；以及

IP成员由MND决定，并非独立。

国家发展部部长已指示POFMA办公室，就余先生于2024年7月25日及27日的Facebook帖文，根据《2019年防止网络假信息和网络操纵法》（POFMA）向其发出更正指示[3]。

MND有正当且充分的依据引入外部审计师，因AHTC的审计失误严重，且在2011年交接后长期持续

首先，余先生声称MND不应引入外部审计师，因为是AIM在通知不足的情况下终止TCMS，以及与前任ATC的交接问题，导致AHTC在向MND汇报及审计发现方面出现失误。此说不实。

MND要求进一步审计检查[由审计总署（AGO）于2014年及KPMG于2016年进行]，是因为AHTC自身的审计师（Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton）已指出AHTC财务与会计系统存在多项问题，引发对AHTC公共资金是否妥善运用的严重疑问。市镇会资金中相当大部分属公共资金。市镇会资金包括市镇会向居民收取的服务与保育费（S&CC），以及MND向市镇会发放的S&CC营运津贴。

余先生的帖文具有误导性，因其省略了重要背景：AHTC自身审计师已指出AHTC存在严重疏漏，并由此触发后续审计。因此，MND有正当且充分的依据引入外部审计师。

Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton连续两年——2011/12财年及2012/13财年——对AHTC财务报表出具无法表示意见（disclaimer of opinion）。审计师作出此类无法表示意见极不寻常，亦属严重事项。在本案中，该无法表示意见意味着AHTC自身审计师无法认定财务报表真实公允地反映AHTC的财务状况。

Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton指出AHTC未能：

依法将部分S&CC[4]转入其储备基金（Sinking Fund）；以及

向审计师提供向关联方支付的项目管理服务费详情、管理账目及会议记录。

Foo Kon Tan Grant Thornton亦无法确定AHTC财务报表中总额超过2,000万元的项目是否有效及准确。

因此，财政部于2014年2月指示AGO进行特别审计，发现：

AHTC在管治及遵守《市镇会法》（TCA）与财务规则方面存在多项疏漏，涉及AHTC的财务管治流程及AHTC资金的使用；以及

在AHTC纠正这些弱点之前，无法保证AHTC账目准确可靠，或公共资金得到妥善支出、记账与管理。

AHTC随后委任KPMG为其独立会计师（IAs），以识别AHTC对TCA的不合规之处、就适当补救措施向市镇会提供意见，并确定市镇会过往付款是否不当及应予追回。此乃根据上诉法院于2015年5月就MND申请委任独立会计师所作的裁决。

余先生暗示MND对AHTC施加过度且不必要的压力，描绘出误导性画面。与余先生的说法相反，并无合理依据表明AIM在通知不足的情况下终止TCMS合约或交接问题导致了市镇会所有流程与系统弱点。

AHTC的若干疏漏本身即属AHTC所固有，而非因AIM终止TCMS或2011年交接问题所致。

事实上，根据KPMG的调查结果，AHTC疏漏的根本原因涉及AHTC的管治框架与政策管理、会计实务、用于记录与核算市镇会交易的会计系统，以及市镇会财务部门的能力与管理人员留任。

KPMG亦发现，AHTC的管控失误广泛存在，在五年间贯穿管治、财务控制、财务汇报、采购及记录管理等关键领域，显示其持续了相当长时间。甚至迟至2016年，AHTC自身审计师在2014年指出的部分疏漏仍未解决。

余先生关于AHTC汇报失误因AIM终止TCMS所致的断言毫无根据。2014年12月，AHTC将其未能向MND汇报S&CC欠款归咎于无法使用AIM的TCMS。这忽略了AHTC在2011年10月至2013年4月共19个月内，在未使用AIM的TCMS的情况下仍提交了每月欠款报告这一事实。此外，后港市镇会自2008年起多年在未使用AIM的TCMS的情况下，亦能向MND提交S&CC欠款报告。

事实上，余先生关于AIM的TCMS在通知不足的情况下被终止的说法亦不实。AHTC曾两度[5]要求延长使用AIM的TCMS，AIM均予同意。鉴于两次延期请求均获批准，且AHTC未再要求进一步延期，并无依据指称TCMS在通知不足的情况下被终止。

MND对市镇会的行动是保障公共资金所必需

其次，余先生的帖文暗示MND决定（a）扣留AHTC津贴；（b）引入外部审计师；以及（c）要求成立独立小组，是出于政治动机，并非基于正当关切。第三，余先生声称MND扣留AHTC津贴是为了向AHTC施压以任命IP。这些说法不实。

若不加以纠正，这一虚假信息将质疑MND及其他参与调查AHTC事宜的机构的诚信。

MND采取行动，是因AHTC自身审计师及AGO提出多项审计关切。

MND履行的是TCA下的法定责任，确保市镇会具备充分的管治流程，以保障托付予其的公共资金，并将这些资金用于其指定用途：

扣留津贴。鉴于各项审计指出的AHTC财务管治流程缺陷，若MND在无任何保障措施的情况下向AHTC发放S&CC营运津贴，将属不负责任。因此，MND曾于2014年10月及2015年8月两度提出向AHTC发放津贴，并附合理条件，例如（i）AHTC声明此前提交的所有报表属实；（ii）AHTC就所发资金的妥善问责落实保障措施；以及（iii）AHTC提供最新银行账户状况。然而，AHTC两次均未接受MND的提议。

发放被扣留的津贴。在AHTC委任KPMG为其独立会计师并接受MND就津贴所设条件后[6]，被扣留的津贴于2016年4月发放予AHTC。这是因为作为AHTC委任的独立会计师，KPMG将协助AHTC识别其对TCA的不合规之处、就适当补救措施向市镇会提供意见，并确定市镇会过往付款是否不当及应予追回。

成立IP。成立IP并非如余先生所称，是MND发放被扣留S&CC营运津贴的先决条件。事实上，所有被扣留津贴均于2016年4月发放，早于IP于2017年2月成立。

KPMG于2016年10月31日提交予AHTC及HDB的《过往付款审查报告》，指出市镇会资金中有大额不当付款。因此，HDB于2016年11月致函AHTC，要求市镇会委任合适第三方，跟进追回KPMG所识别的不当过往付款。

这是因为KPMG发现，AHTC或可能就其市镇议员因违反受信义务所造成的损失向其追偿。由于市镇议员为市镇会作出决策，由独立第三方代表市镇会利益，可避免潜在利益冲突。

AHTC的IP成员独立，并非由MND决定

第三，余先生声称AHTC的IP成员由MND决定，且并非独立。此说不实。

MND并未决定任何IP成员。

根据TCA第46(2)条，IP是AHTC的代理人。

是AHTC于2017年委任IP主席，并允许其自行酌情决定另外两名IP成员的人选，或从AHTC的候选名单中选一人、从HDB的候选名单中选另一人。IP主席仅在向AHTC确认其对从HDB候选名单中作出选择无异议后，才作出选择。尚不清楚AHTC本身是否向IP主席提供了任何候选名单。

根据IP的职权范围，IP未接受HDB、MND或任何其他人的任何指示或指令。IP独立且公正，作为AHTC的代理人，理应维护AHTC的最佳利益。

更正通知

余先生将被要求在其Facebook帖文上附上更正通知，说明帖文包含虚假事实陈述，并提供政府澄清内容的链接。这将使读者得以阅读双方版本并自行得出结论。

有关本案事实，请参阅Factually文章《关于余振忠先生于2024年7月25日及27日发布的不实信息的更正》，链接如下：https://www.gov.sg/article/factually260824。

发布机构：国家发展部

日期：2024年8月26日

[1] 在工人党于2013年榜鹅东单选区（SMC）补选胜出后，AHTC曾称为“阿裕尼—后港—榜鹅东市镇会”或AHPETC。2015年大选后，其于2015年10月1日重组并更名为AHTC，因榜鹅东SMC由人民行动党胜出，并划入巴西立—榜鹅市镇会。为本新闻稿之目的，为简明起见，我们将该市镇会统称为AHTC。

[2] AIM的TCMS是市镇会用于管理居民与物业数据，以及S&CC收取、承包商付款、设施预订等基本服务的综合系统。市镇会亦使用该平台生成其年度财务报表所用数据。

[3] 更正指示是向传播影响公共利益的虚假信息者（即接收人）发出的指示。它要求接收人发布更正通知，提供获取正确事实的途径。该指示并不要求接收人删除其帖文或修改其内容，亦不施加刑事制裁。

[4] 根据AHTC 2012/13财年财务报表，其未能将1,246万元转入其储备基金。

[5] 2011年6月及8月，AHTC曾分别要求将使用AIM的TCMS延长一个月（2011年8月1日至31日）及九天（2011年9月1日至9日）。完整情况与事件时间顺序载于MND 2013年市镇会检讨报告，该报告于2013年5月在国会辩论。

[6] 条件包括AHTC设立独立银行账户以接收津贴，并由独立会计师共同授权及联署从这些账户支出的大额付款。