Workers’ Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang met a few reporters at his Meet-the-People Session in Aljunied GRC last evening, to address a pretty hard-hitting 68-page KPMG report on AHTC’s payment transactions from May 2011 to November 2015.

Basically, the report sounded serious enough for the auditor to mention the possibility of criminal conduct.

Unfortunately, the "potato camera" mode of reporting among the media was in vogue last night, so many of us probably were unable to follow closely what Low actually said about the KPMG report.

Fret not, we have decided to transcribe all the remarks we can find of Low from Straits Times, TODAY and Lianhe Zaobao.

Below are the three main points he mentioned:

1. The process by KPMG has taken up much time and resources -- eight months, 72 staff deployed, and many of the WP MPs and key staff being interviewed.

2. The report indicated "improper payments" but the report also found no fictitious, fraudulent nor duplicate payments.

3. The report is a more detailed than the AGO’s report, but the report remains inconclusive despite the manpower and resources spent.

Below is the full transcript:

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

The amount of resources KPMG used:

"KPMG has camped at the town council office for eight months, they have deployed at least 72 KPMG staff, who ploughed through millions of accounting entries as well as examining documents. They used their forensic, technology analytical methods.

They also used their own proprietary system to look into some personal particulars, they requested from the Members of Parliament (MPs), the town councillors, as well as some key staff, particulars of their parents, spouse, siblings, so that they can examine again using their own corporate intelligence system to examine.

And the result is that the report has not said anything about conflict of interest between the MPs, town councillors, staff and the managing agent we appointed, or any contractors who are working for the town council."

Low on "improper payments"

"The report also found no fictitious, fraudulent nor duplicate payments.

So that is what is important for the public to know. They have talked about improper payments, but it's important to look into the definition of improper -- what do you mean by improper? So these are important questions and important factors I hope the public will look into it, read the report to understand better what do they mean by 'improper', so that they can get a sense of what is this all about.

If there is any further development, the town council will issue further media release, so the public will be informed."

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>

On Low's reaction to the report:

“The report seems to have a lot of answering (to do) despite the fact that they had deployed so many manpower, public monies (were) used, and eight months spent. The town council also spent a lot of manpower in responding to their queries. The MPs were also being interviewed to satisfy the questions they want, but unfortunately the report seems to be inconclusive in that sense. So that’s it.

The town council has studied the report:

“Well, the town council has studied the report.

To me, the report is simply more detailed than the AGO’s report, in terms of the framework, and the kind of lapses they found are basically as the AGO’s but in more detail, yes, because they had spent a lot of time going through the records. It is a forensic audit.

So that's all I have to say. If there are further information, I think the town council will let you know."

Sounds like this town council saga is not going to end anytime soon.

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.