[When AGO did a 10-month audit on AHPETC, was the opening account of Punggol East a deficit or a surplus?]
During election, the PAP talked and stressed so much about integrity. After the election, they seems to forget the importance of integrity. So much so that they are not able to provide a ‘definitive clarification’, one week after the election.
Where is the productivity and efficiency of the PAP? They have all the accounts at their hands. And yet it takes them so long to explain the deficit or the surplus as they claimed.
Teo Chee Hean’s teammate, Sun Xue Ling, is an investment director at Temasek. Sun should be able to explain to Teo that deficit is different from surplus. And Income Statement and Notes to Income Statement are two different concepts.
Of course, Teo and Charles Chong may have ill intention of spreading misleading information, as claimed by Workers Party, to gain political advantage. They wanted to mislead voters in Punggol East and other constituencies and used it to paint a question mark on WP’s integrity.
In some other countries, this reason alone can lead to a re-match or a by-election by the Courts. However, the PAP just pretended they are right and have no detailed explanation. The Election Department also pretended this had nothing to do with fair election. And the media has once again failed to clarify and check the basic accounting principles.
If Teo and Chong are the faces of PAP integrity, then we can conclude they have a questionable integrity, so do Ng Eng Hen who voiced out and said the PAP would certainly provide a ‘definitive clarification’.
Integrity is so important to the PAP. They warned voters to elect candidates with high integrity. And they told voters WP’s integrity was questionable as they had not handled AHPETC accounts properly. Voters should think carefully. This could be another PAP misleading information just for political gain.
Are these PAP candidates, like Teo, Chong and Ng, having a higher credible and integrity than WP candidates? Unfortunately, voters have failed to differentiate them. Voters continue to believe the PAP. They are too kind to the PAP but too harsh to WP.
When analysing the GE 2105 result, no one has mentioned about the integrity of the PAP. No one has said this could be a contributing factor for the PAP big win. Maybe we should re-think the integrity of the PAP? Teo, Chong and Ng have yet to explain how a deficit becomes a surplus at Punggol East.
on 6 September 2015, I posted this:
Deficit = Surplus. PAP is a liar.