Mr. Yee claimed in his articles on July 25 and July 27 that it was improper for MND to request additional auditors because transfer problems and inadequate notice contributed to AHTC’s failures to report to MND and the agency’s audit findings.
Mr. Yee’s statement was misleading because it omitted crucial details that AHTC’s individual auditors had identified as significant errors by AHTC, which sparked the subsequent audits. Thus, the ministry believed the ministry had a satisfactory and legitimate basis to request the appointment of external auditors.
It claimed that KPMG’s investigations revealed that the community agency’s governance framework and accounting practices were to blame for AHTC’s shortcomings and that these failures had been present for a significant period of time.
Mr. Yee also claimed that MND’s decision to withhold grants from AHTC, to request external auditors, and to request an independent panel ( IP ) was “politically motivated and not based on legitimate concerns” by the ministry.
He added that MND withheld funding from AHTC in an effort to press the agency to assign an independent section.
” These are false”, said MND.
This deception, if left unchecked, raises questions about the credibility of MND and various organizations that participated in AHTC’s investigation.
The government claimed that it only took action because of the numerous audit questions that the AGO and AHTC’s individual auditors raised.
It added that MND’s distribution of withheld offers was not contingent upon the establishment of an independent board, and that offers were made possible after AHTC appointed KPMG as its separate officer.
” In truth, all withheld provides were disbursed in April 2016, before the Internet was formed in February 2017″, said MND.