Follow-up Audit as an Accountability Mechanism of Public Sector Performance Auditing
Sarimah Umor, Zarina Zakaria, Nor Adwa Sulaiman
Abstract
Public sector performance auditing poses significant role in appraising the accountability of government through monitoring the operation of public power, especially how public resources are being used. In parallel, follow-up audit appears to be important to recheck on the responsiveness of auditee towards audit recommendation on various issues raised pertaining to improper use of public fund. Lack of audit follow-up may cause a problem to measure the real value of performance audit and expected results of audit recommendation. Accountability mechanism pertaining to follow up audit in public sector performance audit perspective need to be enforced not by sole actor but various actors. Accountability mechanism regarded as either the right to argument or questions information conveyed and information flow pertaining to unresolved performance audit issues by various actors for settlement. During the follow-up audit, a free flow of information by all those actors enable them to voice their concern or stand to ensure performance audit issues are well taken care in terms of corrective as well as preventive action. In other words, it implies how auditors with the influence of Parliament, PAC, Media and citizen or general public participating during the follow-up audit and consequently become one of the accountability mechanism of public sector performance auditing. Since it involves various actors within the accountability circle, this study is anticipated to provide empirical facts on the influence of each actors in the current practice of follow-up audit as perceived by the SAI auditors based on the developed conceptual framework.
Introduction
The underlying reason and rationale of accountability are undeniable in fulfilling the demand for better public services, prompt responsiveness of public administration, and more citizens participation. In particular, public accountability appears important for public sector performance enhancement as well as to increase public trust on government. In this context, Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) poses key challenges to report for performance of government that public resources are being used wisely. SAI is a domestic agency responsible for auditing and checking on government income and expenditure (INTOSAI, 2004, p. 33). As an accountable organization, SAI works on performance audit is progressively anticipated to contribute to the broader policy discussions; deliver policy recommendation and offer guidance to governments about how public administration can improve its work performance. Thus, the utmost way to measure performance of government agencies activities is through performance audit accomplish by the SAI. As stipulated in Article 106 of the Constitution and in Section 1 of the revised Audit Act 1972 (original 1957) the Auditor General (AG) that represent SAI of Malaysia is responsible for ensuring accountability of public sector administration in managing public fund through their performance auditing activity. Nevertheless, perceived impact of performance auditing are under question mark in terms of its real value due to lack of audit recommendation implementation. Repetitive performance audit issues reported and tabled in Parliament seem lacking corrective as well as preventive action. Amongst the repetitive issues are improper payment, unjustified delays in project completion, unreasonable cost overruns, unacceptable quality of work, unnecessary equipment and supplies delays, unwanted white elephants project, unachievable intended objectives and unfortunate maintenance of government facilities. As a result of that, all these issues likely have an influence in destroying public confidence towards government.
Therefore, public sector auditors particularly the SAIrsquo;s auditors has crucial role to embrace the impact of their performance audit finding and recommendation. SAIs auditors have a key position in the accountability process (Justesen amp; Skaelig;rbek, 2010) as they provide status of performance information to parliament; overseeing ministries and general public on how the government agencies uses public funds. Numbers of audit recommendation is not the matter of concern rather its implementation are the ultimate goal. Auditors of SAI trails the auditeesrsquo; responsiveness towards audit recommendation through follow up audit (Mzenzi amp; Gaspar, 2015; Morin, 2014; Irawan, 2014; Aikins, 2012). Here, there is need for an effective follow up audit process from the perspective of SAI auditors.
On such a continuum, this paper then is structured as follows. Following section, highlights brief overview of background and followed by the key features of this study which include literature review on follow-up audit; performance auditing and accountability mechanism. Section three discusses the conceptual models as well as execution of hypotheses. Subsequently, followed by section four that cover the research methodology. Finally, a key conclusion is provided.
Literature Review
Background
There are various organizations that regulate external audit and the most prominent being are the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which function as an umbrella body for the external government audit community. Under the initiative of Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (ASOSAI), public auditing is the field where Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) all over the Asian country share and exchange ideas. In particular, a manual has been developed by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) as a guidance and support for Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) to use when undertaking performance audit activity in the
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
武汉理工大学毕业论文
论社会保障基金审计存在的问题及对策
外文翻译
学院（系）： 管理学院
专业班级： 会计 1601班
学生姓名： 张晨月
指导教师： 邓厚平
Follow-up Audit as an Accountability Mechanism of Public Sector Performance Auditing
Sarimah Umor, Zarina Zakaria, Nor Adwa Sulaiman
Abstract
Public sector performance auditing poses significant role in appraising the accountability of government through monitoring the operation of public power, especially how public resources are being used. In parallel, follow-up audit appears to be important to recheck on the responsiveness of auditee towards audit recommendation on various issues raised pertaining to improper use of public fund. Lack of audit follow-up may cause a problem to measure the real value of performance audit and expected results of audit recommendation. Accountability mechanism pertaining to follow up audit in public sector performance audit perspective need to be enforced not by sole actor but various actors. Accountability mechanism regarded as either the right to argument or questions information conveyed and information flow pertaining to unresolved performance audit issues by various actors for settlement. During the follow-up audit, a free flow of information by all those actors enable them to voice their concern or stand to ensure performance audit issues are well taken care in terms of corrective as well as preventive action. In other words, it implies how auditors with the influence of Parliament, PAC, Media and citizen or general public participating during the follow-up audit and consequently become one of the accountability mechanism of public sector performance auditing.
Introduction
The underlying reason and rationale of accountability are undeniable in fulfilling the demand for better public services, prompt responsiveness of public administration, and more citizens participation. In particular, public accountability appears important for public sector performance enhancement as well as to increase public trust on government. In this context, Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) poses key challenges to report for performance of government that public resources are being used wisely. SAI is a domestic agency responsible for auditing and checking on government income and expenditure (INTOSAI, 2004, p. 33). As an accountable organization, SAI works on performance audit is progressively anticipated to contribute to the broader policy discussions; deliver policy recommendation and offer guidance to governments about how public administration can improve its work performance. Thus, the utmost way to measure performance of government agencies activities is through performance audit accomplish by the SAI. As stipulated in Article 106 of the Constitution and in Section 1 of the revised Audit Act 1972 (original 1957) the Auditor General (AG) that represent SAI of Malaysia is responsible for ensuring accountability of public sector administration in managing public fund through their performance auditing activity. Nevertheless, perceived impact of performance auditing are under question mark in terms of its real value due to lack of audit recommendation implementation. Repetitive performance audit issues reported and tabled in Parliament seem lacking corrective as well as preventive action. Amongst the repetitive issues are improper payment, unjustified delays in project completion, unreasonable cost overruns, unacceptable quality of work, unnecessary equipment and supplies delays, unwanted white elephants project, unachievable intended objectives and unfortunate maintenance of government facilities. As a result of that, all these issues likely have an influence in destroying public confidence towards government.
Therefore, public sector auditors particularly the SAIrsquo;s auditors has crucial role to embrace the impact of their performance audit finding and recommendation. SAIs auditors have a key position in the accountability process (Justesen amp; Skaelig;rbek, 2010) as they provide status of performance information to parliament; overseeing ministries and general public on how the government agencies uses public funds. Numbers of audit recommendation is not the matter of concern rather its implementation are the ultimate goal. Auditors of SAI trails the auditeesrsquo; responsiveness towards audit recommendation through follow up audit (Mzenzi amp; Gaspar, 2015; Morin, 2014; Irawan, 2014; Aikins, 2012). Here, there is need for an effective follow up audit process from the perspective of SAI auditors.
Literature Review
Background
There are various organizations that regulate external audit and the most prominent being are the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) which function as an umbrella body for the external government audit community. Under the initiative of Asian Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions (ASOSAI), public auditing is the field where Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) all over the Asian country share and exchange ideas. In particular, a manual has been developed by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) as a guidance and support for Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) to use when undertaking performance audit activity in their respective jurisdictions. Whereas, INTOSAI initiate the development of International Standard for Supreme Audit Institution (ISSAI), an internationally best practice auditing standard and guidance for SAIrsquo;s in performing auditing task. As described in INTOSAI (2011), ISSAI provide standard, guidelines, guidance and related documents to incorporate the requirements of quality control. ISSAI is based on the principle to gain quality, credibility and professionalism in SAIrsquo;s auditing activity. The aims are to earn trust of citizen and reduce a
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[234225]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
