# Reply to Media Queries on the Court of Appeal Hearing of 7 Jan 2016 - **Source:** Ministry of National Development - **Published:** 2016-01-07T15:00:00.000Z - **Author:** Ministry of National Development - **Original:** https://www.mnd.gov.sg/newsroom/press-releases/view/reply-to-media-queries-on-the-court-of-appeal-hearing-of-7-jan-2016 - **Topics:** HDB & Public Housing, Government & Policy ## Featured rationale The broader review signals stronger financial scrutiny of town-council operations and could reinforce accountability over estate funds, maintenance expenditure and payment recovery. ## AI summary The Court of Appeal required AHTC’s appointed accountants to examine all identified Section 35(c) non-compliances and potentially improper payments without limiting the review to FMSS and FMSI. ## Original article HDB and Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (“AHTC”) appeared before the Court of Appeal today, to seek further directions on the Court of Appeal’s judgment of 27 Nov 2015 (the “Judgment”) (see Background below). 2. We note, in this regard, that the media release issued by AHTC this evening (the “AHTC Statement”) is misleading, and presented a selective and incomplete account of the events that transpired before the Court of Appeal today. (i) Appointment of Accountants – AHTC’s Statement indicates that it will “further correspond with HDB on its nomination”. However: HDB had, earlier this week, written to AHTC to request for further information on AHTC’s proposed candidate, Business Assurance (see Background for details) so that these can be placed before the Court. AHTC did not respond to HDB’s queries by the time of the hearing. The Court ordered an adjournment, and directed AHTC to file an affidavit to respond to HDB’s queries. (ii) Accountants’ Terms of Reference – AHTC’s Statement refers to the Court’s “helpful clarification that the accountants… were not being given a carte blanche to look into the TC’s affairs”. However: the Statement fails to disclose that AHTC had tried, unsuccessfully, to limit the accountants’ terms of reference, to: (a) Only the non-compliances identified by the Auditor-General’s Report (the “AGO Report”) of Feb 2015, and (b) Only any improper past payments involving its former managing agent, FM Solutions & Services (“FMSS”) and FM Solutions and Integrated Services (“FMSI”). The Court disagreed with AHTC, and said that: (a) The Terms of Reference should include all non-compliances under Section 35(c) of the Town Councils Act which had been identified (i) by the AGO Report, and (ii) by AHPETC’s own auditors, in its subsequent audited financial statements for FY 13/14 and FY 14/15. (b) The Terms of Reference should extend to examining whether any past payments made by the Town Council were improper and should therefore be recovered, and should not be limited to only transactions involving FMSS and FMSI. (iii) Legal costs – AHTC’s Statement says that the Court rejected HDB and MND’s submission that AHTC’s conduct of its defence was egregious. However: the Statement did not disclose that AHTC had attempted to seek legal costs and disbursements from MND and HDB for the hearings before the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed this attempt, and agreed with HDB’s and MND’s submission that each of the parties should bear their own legal costs for the hearings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. 3. HDB looks forward to AHTC’s compliance with the CA’s direction and to receive the information it had earlier requested from the AHTC. Parties will appear before the Court of Appeal again late next week. HDB and MND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Background • In its ruling on 27 November 2015, the Court of Appeal had found various breaches on the part of then-Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (“AHPETC”). • The Court consequently ordered AHPETC to appoint accountants to assist in identifying its outstanding non-compliances with Section 35(c) of the Town Councils Act1, advise it on appropriate remedial steps to be taken, and establish whether any past payments made by AHPETC were improper and ought therefore to be recovered. • Given the complexity of the work entailed, the appointed accountant(s) should have the requisite depth of expertise and experience, as well as a proven professional track record. The accountant(s) should also have the resources to conduct a thorough audit to address the public interest issues noted by the Court. On this basis, HDB had suggested to Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) that it appoint any of the major four public accounting firms in Singapore. • The Town Council proposed to nominate M/s Business Assurance. HDB subsequently conveyed to AHTC that based on the information it had submitted, Business Assurance did not appear to have the requisite expertise, experience and capacity to carry out the duties envisaged by the CA’s orders. The Town Council disagreed and proceeded to apply to the CA on 11 Dec 2015 for directions on the appointment of its accountants. • The Court of Appeal has directed AHTC to provide the following information on Business Assurance to HDB: (a) Size of Business Assurance; (b) Whether the team proposed by Business Assurance are Chartered Accountants, and their respective years of experience in each of the areas of (i) regulatory investigations, (ii) forensic services, and (iii) audits of public institutions including Town Councils; (c) A list of all notable engagements undertaken by members of the team proposed by Business Assurance in the areas of (i) regulatory investigations, (ii) forensic services, and (iii) audits of public institutions including Town Councils; and (d) Latest ACRA’s Practice Monitoring Programme (PMP) inspection results of members of the team proposed by Business Assurance 1 Under Section 35(c) of the Town Councils Act, a Town Council shall do all things necessary to ensure that all payments are correctly made and properly authorised, and that adequate control is maintained over the Town Council’s assets and expenditures. ## Chinese translation > Translation model: grok_cli ### 就2016年1月7日上诉庭聆讯回应媒体询问 建屋发展局（HDB）与阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会（“AHTC”）今日出席上诉庭，就上诉庭2015年11月27日的判决（“该判决”）寻求进一步指示（见下文背景）。 2. 我们注意到，AHTC今晚发布的媒体声明（“AHTC声明”）具有误导性，并对今日上诉庭所发生的事件作了选择性且不完整的陈述。 (i) 会计师的委任——AHTC声明表示，其将“就提名事宜与HDB进一步通信”。 然而：HDB于本周早些时候已致函AHTC，要求提供有关AHTC拟议候选人Business Assurance的进一步资料（详见背景），以便提交予法院。 在聆讯时，AHTC尚未回应HDB的询问。法院下令押后，并指示AHTC提交誓章以回应HDB的询问。 (ii) 会计师的职权范围——AHTC声明提及法院“有益地澄清，会计师……并非获赋予全权审查市镇理事会事务的空白授权”。 然而：该声明未披露AHTC曾试图限制会计师的职权范围，但未获成功，其限制内容为： (a) 仅限于审计长公署2015年2月报告（“AGO报告”）所指出的不合规事项；以及 (b) 仅限于涉及前管理代理FM Solutions & Services（“FMSS”）及FM Solutions and Integrated Services（“FMSI”）的任何不当过往付款。 法院不同意AHTC的主张，并表示： (a) 职权范围应包括所有根据《市镇理事会法令》第35(c)条已被指出的不合规事项，包括(i) AGO报告所指出者，以及(ii) AHPETC本身的审计师在其后FY 13/14及FY 14/15经审计财务报表中所指出者。 (b) 职权范围应延伸至审查市镇理事会所作的任何过往付款是否不当、因而应予追回，而不应仅限于涉及FMSS与FMSI的交易。 (iii) 法律费用——AHTC声明称，法院驳回了HDB与国家发展部（MND）关于AHTC答辩行为恶劣的陈述。 然而：该声明未披露AHTC曾试图就高等法庭及上诉庭聆讯向MND与HDB追讨法律费用及垫付开支。 上诉庭驳回了这一尝试，并同意HDB与MND的陈述，即各方应各自承担其在高等法庭及上诉庭聆讯中的法律费用。 3. HDB期待AHTC遵守上诉庭的指示，并收到其较早前向AHTC要求的资料。各方将于下周末再次出席上诉庭。 建屋发展局与国家发展部 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 背景 • 在2015年11月27日的裁决中，上诉庭裁定当时的阿裕尼—后港—榜鹅东市镇理事会（“AHPETC”）存在多项违规。 • 法院因此命令AHPETC委任会计师，以协助识别其尚未履行的《市镇理事会法令》第35(c)条1不合规事项，就应采取的适当补救步骤向其提供意见，并确定AHPETC所作的任何过往付款是否不当、因而应予追回。 • 鉴于所涉工作的复杂性，获委任的会计师应具备所需的专业深度与经验，以及经证明的专业往绩。会计师亦应具备资源进行全面审计，以处理法院所指出的公众利益问题。基于此，HDB曾向阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会（AHTC）建议，其应委任新加坡四大公共会计师事务所中的任何一家。 • 市镇理事会拟提名M/s Business Assurance。HDB其后向AHTC转达，根据其所提交的资料，Business Assurance似乎不具备上诉庭命令所设想职责所需的专长、经验与能力。市镇理事会不同意，并于2015年12月11日向上诉庭申请就委任会计师作出指示。 • 上诉庭已指示AHTC向HDB提供有关Business Assurance的以下资料： (a) Business Assurance的规模； (b) Business Assurance拟议团队成员是否为特许会计师，以及其分别在以下各领域的经验年数：(i) 监管调查，(ii) 鉴证/法证服务，以及(iii) 包括市镇理事会在内的公共机构审计； (c) Business Assurance拟议团队成员在以下领域所进行的所有重要业务清单：(i) 监管调查，(ii) 鉴证/法证服务，以及(iii) 包括市镇理事会在内的公共机构审计；以及 (d) Business Assurance拟议团队成员最新的ACRA执业监察计划（PMP）检查结果 1 根据《市镇理事会法令》第35(c)条，市镇理事会须采取一切必要措施，确保所有付款均正确作出并获妥善授权，并对市镇理事会的资产与支出维持充分管控。