Saturday, September 5, 2015

On Which Town Council Was Managed the Most Wisely

  
So, after yesterday's post on Why the Opposition Party Needs to Sell Stuff to Raise Money but Not the PAP? Someone asked me to give my 2 cents worth on whether AHPETC was mismanaged. Although I have read quite extensive from both sides of the issue. I was not satisfied with just depending on the numbers and opinions provided by other people. I needed to see the numbers for myself.

As such I went to download the 2013/1014 Annual Reports from all 16 Town Councils and poured through all the income and expenditure statements.Reading annual reports might be confusing for the average person, but I hope that my analysis below will shed light on the question of, Which Town Council Was Managed the Most Wisely in 2013 and 2014

The typical Income and Expenditure Statement looks like this (yes it's boring I know). It shows the income and expenditure for the year for the Town Council.



For the purpose of today's analysis. We will be focusing on 4 lines

1) Conservancy & Service Fees
2) Total Operating Expenditure
3) Government Grants
4) Operating Deficit

The Conservancy & Service Fees is one of the income streams of the Town Council. It is made up of S&C Fees collected during the year from the residents of the Town. It also makes up the bulk of the income for each Town Council.

The Operating Expenditure is the expense incurred by the Town Council to run a town. It comprises cleaning works, managing agent's fees, lift maintenance and all the operational expenses required to run a Town.

The Operating Deficit is the loss made by the Town Council from running a town. It is the Operating Income subtracted by the Operating Expenditure. Interestingly, all Town Councils incur an Operating Deficit before receiving Government Grants.

The Government Grants are grants provided by MND:

The Town Council receives three types of grants from Government, 

1) Service and conservancy charge grant (to meet the current year's operating expenditures)
2) Payments from citizens’ consultative committees and 
3) GST subvention grant. (granted to Town Councils to assist them to absorb the GST increases in Service and Conservancy Charge for HDB residential flats.)

So, I have collated all these numbers and to allow me to compare between Town Councils (who are of different sizes), I have divided them by the electorates in each Town. (I have not managed to find numbers on the number of residents in each Town and have used the number of electorates in each Town as a proxy for the size of the town)

This creates 4 main analysis below:


The first analysis is the Conservancy and Services Fees per electorate. This allows us to examine the "tax burden" placed on each person in the Town Council. In general, the higher the number, the more the average person is taxed on conservancy and services fees.

For both years, the "cheapest" town is East Coast Town Council, which is made up of East Coast GRC and Joo Chiat SMC. In 2013, AHPETC was the second "cheapest" town and it was ranked 11th most expensive (out of 15 Town Councils) in 2014. In this sense, AHPETC has a lower than average "tax burden" on residents among Town Councils.


The second analysis is the Operating Expense per electorate. This allows us to examine the the operational expenses incurred by each Town Council per electorate. In general, the higher the number, the more "spendthrift" the Town Council has been in each Town

For both years, the most spendthrift town is Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council, which is made up of Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC. In 2013, AHPETC was the second most penny pinching town and it was ranked 10th in spending per electorate in 2014. In this sense, AHPETC was more prudent in it's expenditure than the average Town Council.




The third analysis is the Government Grants per electorate. This allows us to examine much Government Support there is per electorate. 

The Town Council which received the most "government support" in 2013 was Ang Moh Kio TC which comprises of Ang Moh Kio GRC and Seng Kang West SMC, while AHPETC placed last. 

In 2014, The top place went to Tanjong Pagar TC which comprises of Tanjong Pagar GRC and Radin Mas SMC. AHPETC was placed 13th.In this sense, AHPETC has received less support from the government per electorate than most Town Councils.



The fourth analysis is the Operating Deficit per electorate. This allows us to examine the level of deficit that is incurred by each Town Council per electorate. 

The Town Council which has the lowest operating deficit in both years is Choa Chu Kang TC, which consists of Choa Chu Kang GRC and Hong Kah North SMC.

In 2013, AHPETC was placed 10th. It incurred less deficit than 5 other TCs and is among the top 67th percentile in terms of deficit management. However, in 2014, AHPETC was placed last. There was a $9 increase deficit per voter from 2013 to 2014. 

However, it would be good to note that the $38 deficit per voter would only be the 4th worst performance in 2013, ahead of Moulmein-Kallang, Tanjong Pagar and Potong Pasir all of which who had substantially higher deficits. As such, although it is a big jump between 2013 and 2014, the fall in ranking to last place was also due to a huge improvement by other Town Councils during the same period.

There was also a 26% increase in operating expenditure in 2014 which requires further explanation from AHPETC.

In conclusion, AHPETC experienced marked increase in operating expenditure in 2014. However, AHPETC performs above the average Town Council in terms of tax burden and operating expenditure per electorate. Furthermore, AHPETC is among the bottom 20% or the lowest in terms of support from the Government through Government Grants.

To answer my question, the best managed Town Council (financially) goes to East Coast TC for both 2013 and 2014. In the words of East Coast GRC MP Lim Swee Say, ECTC is the "cheapest (in terms of Conservancy charges per electorate), betterest (among the lowest in deficit management) and fasterest (among the lowest in grant support, so their vendors can be paid off quickly without waiting for MND grants to come in)."

You can find the analysis in the link below:

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=CF7F78C43CE14ADC!3932&authkey=!AIFTcucOxQygt7E&ithint=file%2cxlsx

 

L.A.M.

If you liked this, you might also like:

Why do Opposition Parties need to sell stuff to raise money but the PAP doesn't?

 

On Whether AHPETC Overpaid it's Managing Agent?

 

On Beauty Parades and General Elections


Whether We Can Cut Military Spending by 5.75Bn

 

On SG Budget Babe's: The Truth About Temasek vs Chee Soon Juan's Claims


Did AHPETC inherit a deficit or a surplus from Punggol East SMC? If you are confused about it, read this:


The Day The Father of Accounting Rolled in His Grave.


Additional Notes:

So after I have written this post, there were a lot of questions and comments, I will try to answer as many of them as I can, but do note that I am not a full time blogger or MP and I have a busy day job, so if I can't answer any of them in time or have missed some of them, I apologize.

One of the questions was posed by Wen Zheng:


First, let me try to explain what is a CIPC grant. From Minister of National Development (MP Lim Swee Say), I quote

“The Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) provides funding support for infrastructural and recreational facilities, including general amenities for the benefit of residents in the whole constituency. Such facilities include covered walkways, footpaths, cycling tracks and playgrounds.

“CIPC funds are disbursed through the Citizens’ Consultative Committees (CCCs) as they are close to the ground and will be better able to decide on the projects which will be most useful for the local residents. We give the CCCs flexibility to assess the relevance of any proposal and to prioritise them for implementation so that the CIPC funds are optimally utilised. The operating principle for the CCCs is to ensure that the approved CIPC projects are useful, functional, represent value for money, freely accessible to the community and properly planned.

“Town Councils may approach their respective CCCs if they have other queries.” [Source]

So this CIPC grant is disbursed by the CCC. In the Annual Report it is located in the Notes to the Financial Statements under the Other receivables, deposits and prepayments section. (Below is an excerpt of the line from West Coast Annual Report 2013/2014)


However, CIPC grants have no bearing on the bottom line (Surplus for the financial year line) since it is transferred to the Town Improvement and Project fund and is less off from the government grants received during the year when used to calculate the surplus for the financial year.

As such to answer Wen Zheng's question, there is no direct impact on a TC's surplus/deficit for the financial year due to the CCC grant since it is transferred to the Town Improvement and Project Fund. However, we need to investigate further to see if the Town Improvement and Project Fund has any impact on the financials through other line items.

*However, it is still surprising that AHPETC does not receive any CCC Reimbursment in 2013, 2014 or 2015. (I am still investigating the impact of the Town Improvement and Project Fund


Furthermore, ALL of the Town Councils will be in deficit without any government grant, which in 2015, a portion of which was withheld from AHPETC.

36 comments :

Xavv said...

Interesting analysis, and I just have two comments.

1) Using the electorate number from GE2011 may render the per voter numbers slightly inaccurate, since there would be some changes in population numbers from 2011- 2013/2014. However, I guess you would be lacking that information as well so I think its a reasonable proxy.

2) I think some of the increase in numbers in AHPETC from FY2012/2013 to FY2013/2014 could be due to the inclusion of Punggol-East SMC for the latter number (especially since its a march year end). To that end, you can see S&CC/OPEX/Government grants all increasing.

If this were true, you should see a decrease in the town council which handed Punggol-East over. I am unsure of which town council it was before the by-election, but assuming it was Pasir Ris-Punggol (from the name), you can see that S&CC/OPEX has decreased in the same period. I'm not sure why government grants have remained about the same though.

Of course I am not saying that the entire increase is justified or not, just pointing out a possible reason for part of it has increased. I for one, am also interested whether AHPETC has really been properly managed!

Ethan said...

Can you further break down the grant to 3 types. 1 S&CC grant. 2 lift upgrading and NRP type grant. 3 township improvement grant

Chronically Unaware said...

Know the political system. Don't be CHRONICALLY UNAWARE.

http://chronicallyunaware.blogspot.sg

Julioo said...

Thank you for this. The rise of $9 x 200000 in deficit approximates to the rise in the amount the MA paid themselves right?

Anonymous said...

Hi John, are the deficit amounts for each town council before or after the grants are factored in?

John Lam said...

The Operating Deficit used in my analysis is Operating Income less the Operating Expenditure. If you look at the Income and Expenditure Statement. It is before government grants are taken into account.

I used this line and not the Surplus/Deficit for the year line because it is fairer source of comparison and agnostic to government grants.

John Lam said...

Yes Xavv, very good points

1) Yes, if I have access to the numbers for each year, that would be good for comparison. Unfortunately, electorate numbers are not refreshed every year.

2) That is a very good point. I used the Operating Deficit and not the Surplus/Deficit for the year line. So this is before incorporating the losses incurred by Punggol East SMC from the handover (which amounts to 280,000). This also won't be impacted by the government grant which should have included Punggol East SMC.

However, the points you raised are interesting and valid and worth re-looking into the numbers for 2014.

John Lam said...

@Ethan,

For the grants, although many TCs have breakdown for the grants. Some TCs do not have such a breakdown. Which proves to be difficult for me to break it down further and to compare. Furthermore, this analysis, is more of a basic analysis and is more "layman", for the everyday man to understand, having a breakdown may improve the comprehensiveness of this study but may not outweigh the increase in complexity of understanding for the layman.

blueutopia said...

Can you tell if the CCC grants for punggol east were actually given to AHPETC when WP took over? This is the almost million dollar question...

Anonymous said...

Need to update your table for CIPC grant, the figure u looking at are the amount receivable as at year end, which may not necessary be the grant for the FY.

John Lam said...

@Anonymous: You are right. I have updated the numbers accordingly. I should have taken from NTA Government Grant and not NTA Other Receivables.

@blueutopia: Based on the AHPETC 2013/2014 and 2014/2015 qualified reports, there is no CCC grant given from Punggol East.

I have updated the analysis accordingly at the end of the blogpost

nofearSingapore said...

Hi John
Thanks
Fantastic detective work.
Please check if you reversed the nos 3&4 headings in the discussion?
ie No 3 should be Govt grant and no. 4 op deficit ?
Otherwise, outstanding work that makes all of us understand what is white and what is black.
Cheers
Dr Huang

Anonymous said...

Hello John,
Thank you for your time & effort and sharing what you have.

This Town Council issue is multi faceted and to explain it in
layman's language will be tough.

1. The governing parameters: The Town Council Act
2. Accounting codes and practice
3. Grants and all its varied sources
4. The political perspective.

Each intertwined in a complex web... If anyone can unravel it.. bravo!
But I sense that the people who have the resources will leave it be.

Thank you for all your insightful posts, enjoyed them!

Anonymous said...

Hi John,
Stumble upon your analysis. Thanks for the amount of of detailed work.
We are just enjoying the fruit of your labour. I am sharing your analysis on my FB. Hope it's OK.

John Lam said...

Yes, please go ahead and share. No issues with me.

Anonymous said...

Hi John, I must say you've put in a lot of effort to get all the annual reports. Do you know where to get hold of the Ponggol East annual report, before it was merged with AHPETC? Specifically, I'm referring to the April 2013 which Mr Low flashed during WP's rally; as well as the full year till 30 March 2013.

Anonymous said...

Hi John, please do not take offence, but I believe you are incorrect to present a "Surplus less CCC" in your analysis.
- Reason being: the "Surplus/Deficit" which you have compiled in the "TC Surplus vs CCC Funding" page, is after ADD total government funding (i.e. include CCC funding) and after LESS any transfer to Town Council Improvement and Project Fund (which is the exact same amount as the CCC funding).

In effect, the grants from CCC is presented separately in the Town Council and Project Fund and the expenditure is also shown there.
- Whilst you are right to highlight that AHPETC did not receive any CCC funding, they continue to incur expenditure in their Town Council Improvement and Project Fund, where the deficit ($241,910 for FY2014 - see page 26) has to be further appropriated from their "Surplus/Deficit" (ie it worsen the $2,008,212 deficit for FY2014 - add up 2nd last row and 3rd last row on page 7 will give the $241,910).
- If we look at Pasir Ris - Punggol TC, they actually incurred more expenditure than what they have for their Town Council Improvement and Project Fund, thus the deficit was also further appropriated from their "Surplus/Deficit".
=> ie in general, the "Surplus/Deficit" is already a apple-to-apple comparison across all TCs.

In fact, for East Coast TC which also incurred more expenditure than what they have for their Town Council Improvement and Project Fund, it has choosen to present that deficit of $208,887 (see page 21) as part of determining its current year "Surplus/Deficit" (see page 4 for "Town improvement works").
=> Thus a apple-to-apple comparison for East Coast TC is to remove this effect, and restate the "Surplus/Deficit" from $1,877,850 to $2,086,737.

John Lam said...

I have not managed to find it. If anyone does, please let me know as it would be interesting to analyze.

John Lam said...

No need to apologize. I don't claim to be right in everything and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

I haven't had the time to digest what you wrote. Also I'm not a full time blogger and have a day job. So I will try to look at it as soon as I can but bear with me, because it will not be immediate.

John Lam said...

Hi Dr. Huang, thanks for the encouragement. Yes, if I switch the headings, it would be clearer and more systematic with the flow. Initially the heading for the numerics were for when the operating deficit and government grant first appears in the income and expense statement. But I have changed the order based on your suggestion for better flow.

Linus Lim said...

Thank you John for the interesting analysis and digging out the numbers. I have some concerns about the way you interpreted the numbers though, and here are my thoughts:

1. Conservancy and Service Fees: Low CSF = Low tax burden. But an interesting point to note is that AHPETC's CSF rose 3 rankings in one year. Basically, AHPETC saw a 30% price hike ($50 per voter increase from $183) in just one year. All the other TCs remain relatively constant, most not charging any price hikes, many reducing in price, and none seeing an increase nearly as drastic. For reference, the second highest price increases were in Tampines and Choa Chu Kang tied at $18 per voter.

2. Operating Expense: Operating Expense is comprised of various essential services like cleaning, maintenance, and utilities, as well as the controversial managing agent fee. Seeing that AHPETC has been largely criticised for overpaying its MA, I can only guess that they have been spending way less on the other essential services. I think that OE is not an indicator of thriftiness, but merely an indicator of how much services are actually being provided in the area. A more interesting comparison would be the Operating Expense in relation to actual services provided (but that would be really hard to quantify).

3. Grants: I believe you failed to highlight that after Tanjong Pagar (which got a boost for $8 per voter), the second highest increase in grants given out was to AHPETC ($5 per voter) from 2013 to 2014. I can see that MND is trying to lend them a hand here. Almost all other TCs saw a reduction in grants per voter in this same year, a few even got more than $10 per voter less year-on-year. I believe grants are disbursed on a needs-based basis, as well as depending on which areas have been determined as needing additional upgrades for that particular year based on long-term weathering effects etc. Really shortsighted to just look at two years, and say that they are being unfairly treated (even then, they are getting more grants than before already).

4. Operating Deficits: This is the big one. Every TC operates on deficit because they aren't profit making companies. Hence the government grants. Now, the thing to be concerned about, is the change in operating deficit. If year-on-year you suddenly see yourself in much deeper deficits, then there is cause for concern. All of a sudden the TC is spending way more than it can collect in fees and grants. There are only 3 TCs that saw a deficit increase from 2013 to 2014. Marine Parade (increase by $1 per voter), Sembawang (increase by $4 per voter, red alert!), and AHPETC (increase by $9 per voter!!!). I would like to point out that meanwhile Sembawang saw a $8 per voter decrease in grants, while Marine Parade saw a $2 per voter decrease in grants, which suggest that in both cases, the increase in deficits are closely tied to the decrease in grants. They actually managed to scale back on their expenditure significantly in light of the reduced grants expected, but the scaling back was not fast enough to ensure a consistent deficit. Now, the super troubling thing is that AHPETC saw a $9 per voter increase in deficit, DESPITE a $5 per voter increase in grants. This suggests that in the past year alone, AHPETC has overspent beyond its usual capacity by a staggering $14 per voter, and is the only TC listed in the entire chart that overspent at all.

Linus Lim said...

In light of what I have just discussed, I would like others to read this too:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ahpetc-we-can-fulfil/2055748.html

The shocking spike in deficits is not the only cause for concern. AHPETC has been failing to make payments into sinking funds as per the law. It already has a late payment of $4.5m since July, and a further $4.5m is expected next month. Judging from the numbers shown in this article, there are absolutely no signs that they will be able to make the next two payments. (unless of course, they win another GRC next week and comingle the funds again)

Sinking Funds are essentially forced savings for big ticket items. Every year, all TCs have to make a certain contribution to it, which is saved up to pay for large projects like lift upgrades, or building a new CC, new community space, etc. Their failure to transfer to sinking funds will impact the community not now, but in the long-term future. When every other town gets lift upgrades, AHPETC will fail to pay for their own (and then probably blame the PAP).

Now, AHPETC is doing something strange and asking for the MND grant to go purely into sinking funds (so that they can at least appear to comply with the law). But the grants are not meant to go into sinking funds. There are regulations where it has to go partially into funds, and partially into operating: for the benefit of the residents. What AHPETC is doing, is taking the grant, using it to help them comply because they failed to do so due to mismanagement, and then deprive their residents from the benefits from the grants. Do they mean it when they say they are doing this for the people?

But nevertheless, MND is already agreeing to AHPETC's unusual and highly suspect request, on the simple requirement for AHPETC to declare their cash flow position (so that they know where the money is going to, and if AHPETC can continue to sustain essential services at all if all the money goes into sinking funds.) But it is AHPETC that never got back to declaring their cash flow (something fishy in there they want to hide?).

It seems that the more we actually try to understand this situation and uncover whats going on, the more reason there is to believe that AHPETC is intentionally trying to hide something. What's the point of waving audited accounts at a rally, just to hide cash flow statements from the MND? Who's to blame for them not getting the grants?

Ultimately, I feel that despite AHPETC acting super weird and clearly irresponsibly, the MND is still trying their best to help the residents ensure that things continue to function and its business as usual in their GRC. Please don't make them out to be the villain, they are actually doing their job properly to safeguard taxpayer's money.

John Lam said...

Thanks for responding. You have raised some interesting points and I will try to respond here

1) Yes I have raised this issue on the 26% price hike which I also mentioned, require explanation from AHPETC. However, we will need to examine the numbers for 2014 against 2015 to understand if the price reductions were delayed for AHPETC because the price reductions of this magnitude by other TCs are not considered stable.

2) yes what you are suggesting will be hard to quantify. This is a quick and dirty way of trying to break down operating expense

3) The $5 increase in MND grant should NOT be included in the analysis. I calculated the Operating Deficit which is Operating Income minus Operating Expense. This figure is BEFORE the inclusion of government grants. So additional government grants from MND will NOT reduce operating deficit. Furthermore, another impact to note should be the inclusion of Punggol East SMC to the impact on the operating deficit (PESMC was transferred from PRPTC in 2013) which will be hard to quantify.

4) as I have explained above, the operating deficit is calculated before the inclusion of government grants therefore it has no bearing on the operating deficit. You have confused the operating deficit with the deficit/surplus for the financial year which is after the inclusion of the government grant. Therefore point 4 of your argument is not valid.

John Lam said...

In the 2015 AR, the MND grants were withheld from AHPETC. Although it is unusual to ask MND to transfer the grant directly into the sinking funds, it is not necessarily wrong.

For a TC that is short of funds, their priority should be to pay off any short term debt obligations or vendor payments first. Sinking funds are by definition, savings for big ticket items that have yet to occur. Therefore, there is nothing wrong for AHPETC to delay payments to the sinking funds, if it does not receive the MND grants in time, as the short term obligations have a greater importance and will carry greater interest costs if they are not met.

Working in the finance industry, one of the things I have learnt is that the timing of flows can have a huge impact on the balance sheet of a company or organization. As such the holding back of MND grants will force AHPETC to bootstrap in order to meet short term obligations. As ALL TCs will be in deficit without government grants, if MND withholds grants, I will expect other TCs to do the same.

Hope this clarifies your question on the organizational behavior we have observed here in light of the delay of expected receivables.

Linus Lim said...

Thanks John for clarifying. My mistake on point 4 for mixing up when the grants come in.

However, doesn't it still mean that among all TCs, AHPETC's operating deficit change is still a clear outlier at an increase of $9? Whether or not PESMC had a part to play, both are now under WP's team and is the spike in operating deficit not a sign of financial distress?

And while the grants have no bearing on operating deficit, am I wrong to say that it still stands that AHPETC is receiving a significant increase in grants disbursed year-on-year for 2013-2014? So technically, MND is helping them, not harming them?

Do the grants withheld in 2015 AR have any bearing on the financial performance in 2013-2014? The way I see it, is that the grants have been withheld precisely because MND has detected financial distress in AHPETC and requested for increased financial prudence in the form of appointing independent accountants (which the MND would pay for). AHPETC rejected this arrangement for reasons unknown. But it seems that you are attributing the financial distress in 2013-2014 to grants withheld in 2015.

Or am I misunderstanding your point?

To me, this is the time line

2013: base
2014: operating deficit spikes $9 per voter
2014: government bodies respond to help, increasing grants per voter by $5
2015: situation not improved
20152Q: MND responds by withholding grants, requests for IA to be appointed
20153Q: AHPETC is 2 months late on sinking funds transfer, refuses IA arrangement, requests for grants anyway and that all are transferred to sinking funds
2015 (now): MND requests for cashflow position to assess AHPETC's standing and whether or not transferring all grant money into sinking fund is a good idea. AHPETC does not respond.

Please correct me if I am wrong... This is a complex situation after all ^^;

John Lam said...

On your observation about the spike in operating deficit. That is correct and as I have mentioned could be a cause for concern.

Regarding the spike in grants by $5, although yes, there is a spike, if you look at the ranking of grants per voter, AHPETC is dead last at 15th place. So although yes, there is an increase, the overall grants given is still the lowest among the other Town Councils.

The grants in 2015, does not affect any lines above the operating deficit line. However, as you have rightly mentioned, AHPETC was late in making payments to its sinking funds. In my opinion, that is a natural cause of action because the grants for 2015 were withheld. I will not comment whether MND was right in holding back the grants but I will state that AHPETC's actions following that (ie not paying sinking funds) is not necessarily wrong if they need to prioritize their payments.

Finally, I am not linking the withholding of grants to the 2013-2014 finances, instead I am linking it to the other topic you brought up which is payments to sinking funds in 2015.

Ken said...

hi john,
im curious how come so many accounts / finance managers wasn aligned ? Yes although the full sets of accounts should be taken into consideration. the bottom line the one with the double line at the final line whereby everybody signs off stated with the surplus/deficit is the final final for the year as at 31 mar is still contested with other receivables ? maybe the fundamental of Balance Sheet got confused over the years ? ie the bottom line is eventually balanced off with whatever receivable or payable ... ??

nofearSingapore said...

Hi John,
I must commend you on your extra-ordinary patience!
After all, what you have done here, albeit a great piece of detective work, is but a guessitimate as the whole is based on certain assumptions that the other non-Singaporean residents are in equal proportion in different TC's and hence do not skew the conclusions. Imagine, if AHPETC has many more non-citizens than others, then it could be no 1 for everything! or conversely, if for some quirky reasons it only has Singaporeans and no PR's/ foreigners, then the whole conclusion is worth less than shit! Right?
So it is so assuming to see some of our friends here trying to make you confirm their already biased conclusions about the AHPETC.
For patience, you are no 1.
Why you so free ah? haha
Dr Huang

Anonymous said...

Lam,

First off, thanks for your hard work and time spent in doing this excellent comparisons and summary, albeit without access to all the resident summary data.

This certainly beats all the soundbites, parliamentary response, reports by the politicians and the mainstream media. They gave you "A is better than B", without any details to back up.

It seems that whether any TC is in black or red financial situation, depends heavily on govt grants.

Any idea how these govt grants are determined? Are these grants "fairly" allocated to various TCs?

Brandon said...

Before any analysis can be done, the source of information must be credible first.
All the figures in the annual reports will mean something ONLY if the auditor gives unqualified opinion of the report.
In AHPETC case, there is Disclaimer of Opinion from 2011 to 2014. Even the recent one.
How to trust the figures in the annual reports in this case?

Anonymous said...

using electorate number do not really make sense.

Grants and charges are given/paid based on number of resident units and commercial units, not the number of electorate.

Osman raheem said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mrs Sharon Sim said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr Purva Pius said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mrs.Irene Query said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr Aliu Shadira said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.