# MND’s 5 June Response to AHPETC’s media release

- **Source:** Ministry of National Development
- **Published:** 2015-06-05T13:00:00.000Z
- **Author:** Ministry of National Development
- **Original:** https://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/view/mnd-s-5-june-response-to-ahpetc-s-media-release
- **Topics:** Investment & Capital Markets

## Featured rationale

The unresolved funding and oversight dispute could create uncertainty around estate finances and the delivery of essential services to residents under AHPETC.

## AI summary

MND said AHPETC had not answered questions required for safeguarded FY14/15 S&CC grant disbursement or proposed alternatives to PwC as Independent Accountants.

## Original article

MND has reached out to AHPETC to offer to disburse the S&CC grants with safeguards, but AHPETC has consistently ignored MND’s offers. A chronology of exchanges is attached at Annex A.

First, AHPETC’s request for the entire FY14/15 grant to be placed in its Sinking Funds is unusual, as ordinarily, in line with the Town Councils Act and Rules, the grant ought to be split between sinking fund and operating fund components.

Notwithstanding this, on 2 May 2015, MND informed AHPETC that MND is prepared to consider its suggestion. We asked AHPETC for the reason for its request, and its cash flow information, to ensure that its proposal, if acceded to, will not affect delivery of essential services to residents.

However, AHPETC has to date ignored MND’s offer. AHPETC wants the grants, but refuses to answer reasonable and legitimate questions, to ensure accountability for public funds.

This is a repeat of what happened in 2014. AHPETC told MND that it needed the grants critically, but when MND offered AHPETC half-grants, and asked that Ms Sylvia Lim declare that the cash-flow information she earlier provided to MND was true, she did not take up the offer. A chronology of exchanges is attached at Annex B.

Second, AHPETC continues to disagree with the proposed appointment of PwC as Independent Accountants (IAs), even though the High Court Judge found no basis for AHPETC’s objection.

Notwithstanding this, on 2 May 2015, MND informed AHPETC that MND is prepared to consider other candidates it may have, and invited AHPETC to propose names and CVs. Again, AHPETC has to date not responded to MND’s offer.

Third, AHPETC continues to resist the appointment of IAs to examine past payments and recover any lost monies, even though this is in the residents’ interest.

The Judge observed that it “is probably right in that any conditions imposed by the Minister will be unacceptable to AHPETC and this will result in further court proceedings.” MND has thus no choice but to apply to Court for a swift resolution.

## Chinese translation

> Translation model: grok_cli

### 国家发展部5月5日对阿裕尼—后港—榜鹅东市镇理事会媒体声明的回应

国家发展部已主动联系阿裕尼—后港—榜鹅东市镇理事会（AHPETC），提出在设有保障措施的前提下拨付服务与杂费（S&CC）津贴，但该市镇理事会一直无视国家发展部的提议。相关往来时序见附件A。

首先，AHPETC要求将整个2014/15财政年度津贴全部拨入其偿债基金的做法并不寻常；按惯例，根据《市镇理事会法令》及有关规则，津贴应分拆为偿债基金与营运基金两部分。

尽管如此，国家发展部于2015年5月2日告知AHPETC，愿考虑其建议。我们要求AHPETC说明提出该请求的理由，并提供其现金流资料，以确保若接纳其建议，不会影响向居民提供基本服务。

然而，AHPETC迄今无视国家发展部的提议。AHPETC想要津贴，却拒绝回答合理且正当的问题，以确保公共资金的问责。

这与2014年的情况如出一辙。当时AHPETC告诉国家发展部，其迫切需要津贴，但当国家发展部提出拨付半数津贴，并要求林瑞莲女士声明其早前向国家发展部提供的现金流资料属实时，她并未接受该提议。相关往来时序见附件B。

其次，AHPETC继续反对拟委任普华永道（PwC）为独立会计师（IAs），尽管高等法院法官裁定AHPETC的反对并无依据。

尽管如此，国家发展部于2015年5月2日告知AHPETC，愿考虑其可能提出的其他人选，并邀请AHPETC提交人选姓名与履历。同样，AHPETC迄今未回应国家发展部的提议。

第三，AHPETC继续抗拒委任独立会计师审查过往付款并追讨任何损失款项，尽管此举符合居民利益。

法官指出，“部长施加的任何条件大概都会令AHPETC无法接受，并导致进一步的诉讼程序，这一判断很可能是正确的。”国家发展部因此别无选择，只能向法院申请迅速解决。