The important concept of the harmonisation is considered with the collaboration of different systems in a certain method. The procedure of accounting policy is maintained as per the increasing compatibility setting constraints and accounting practices and depicting the way they change. The basic reason for the study is to assess the financial position after the harmonisation process (Adrian-Cosmin, 2015).
Rationale of harmonisation
In general harmonisation in account is based on the similarity with the accounting standards and financial reporting. Harmonization not only puts emphasis on the elimination of the contradiction rules but also overcome the reduction in the global differences to achieve the reduction in the contradiction rules. The process of harmonisation in accounting has been able to overcome the global differences for achieving an improved international comparability for the financial statements. The present reporting standard has been able to highlight the subsequent transition to “Financial Reporting Standards” “(FRS) and INT FRS”. As per the changes with the significant difference in the balance sheet and income statement for “Singapore Press Holdings”. As per the opinion by SmithKline Beecham and Daimler-Benz the difference and the segregation has been able to change the main purpose for the result of accounting requirement implementation process. The main aim for the harmonisation is seen with the financial statements which are comparable with the other countries and same countries. The main form of the conceptualisation of the harmonisation is important for the organizations operating with other business situations (Frezatti, B. Carter, & F.G. Barroso, 2014).
Compliance with the Standard of IASC
The IASC is seen to maintain the accounting standard with the published financial statements. The important form of the compliance is further taken into account with the standards helpful for harmonisation of the standards which are used by national accounting requirements (Auvinen et al., 2014).
Compliance with the Asia
In Singapore the “The Accounting Standards Council” was seen to be conceptualized in 2007. The financial analysts are able to consider that the consolidated financial condition of the FBOs are seen with the relevant key accounting differences and the various types of the supervisory impacts to perform “Strength of Support Assessment (SOSA)”. The IFRS implementation has been depicted with "a single set of high quality, uniform, globally-applied, and enforced accounting standards which is conducive for both domestic and cross-border investment and financing decisions”. The adaptation of IFRS is taken into account with greater reliance on the financial statement reporting aspects, which is presented with by FBOs and other genres of enterprises (Sauer, 2015).
The accounting standards which are followed in Asia is based on the compliance of both IAS and GAAP. The increase in the accounting standard compliance has been further able to comply accounting standard which is taken into account with the globalization criteria. The main effect on the globalization is considered with numerous enterprises franchised and setup other than Asian countries. Due to this, harmonization of accounting standard is seen to be related with the overall presentation and understanding of the financial presentations of the report in various countries in which it is seen to be operational. The adoption process of accounting harmonization is seen to be conducive with undertaking the responsibilities of the investors in a better way. This has been further able to assess the concerns with the financial data presented in the annual report. This particular consideration is further seen to be based on various factors of harmonization process (Visvikis, 2014).
Issue in harmonisation
The main issue in harmonization is seen with compliance of single accounting standard which are stated below as follows:
This is considered with attitudes, religion and various problems of language barrier. The research considered with Hofstede and Trompenaar has depicted the difference among the cultural barrier. The auditors of Singapore have seen to eclipse the personal and the close reaction and rejection of any form of gifts in the business. The differentiated behaviour and values of the individuals has its implication on the international standards (Oulasvirta & Bailey, 2016).
The main problem in the new accounting standard implemented in Singapore is evident with the FRSs which is implemented in the “beginning on or after January 1, 2003, apart from FRS 39”.
FRS has been further able to show the disclosure valuation for the independent values and annual valuation process. The other disparity is seen with business combinations, leases, borrowing cost and different types of the related party transactions (Calmel, 2014).
The recognition criteria for the integration process has been further seen to be evident with the combinations of both standards. These are seen with of “FRS/SAS 7, FRS 16/SAS 14, FRS 17/SAS 15, FRS 22/SAS 22, FRS 23/SAS 19, FRS 28/SAS 27 and FRS 39/ SAS 33”. In various cases the disparity in the recognition for the new standard is seen with the exemption like “Accounting for Investments in Associates”. The implementation of the new method is further considered with specific exemptions per applying new method for equity in the accounting method. The FRS recognition criteria has included the goodwill evaluation which is taken into consideration after the reserves of 1994. This has been further seen to be based on the several types of the depictions as per the FRS recognition. It is also discerned that FRS does not need to depict this but in case of SAS the restatement needs to be done accordingly (Ahmed & Ali, 2015).
Negative impacts on the small business
The integration problem of SAS and FRS is seen as the main problem for the “Small and medium size entities (SME)” in Singapore. The changing nature of the global demand is seen with the different types of the implications for FRS to become more complex for the smaller companies. The SMEs need to take into account the various type of the considerations for the companies based in Singapore. The integration of the “Singapore Financial Reporting Standards (SFRS)” for SE is not considered to accountable publicly and the consideration for the gross assets is restricted with more than S$10 million (Warren, Moffitt, & Byrnes, 2015).
Moreover, the designated problems of the smaller multinationals have been seen to be based on the compliance cost percentage of the total revenues in compare to the organizations which are larger in size. The burgeoning costs in some cases are restricted with the different types of the aspects to grow and make the significant nature of progress especially for the larger organizations. The integration process of the different types the accounting standard has seen to be taken into consideration with the increasing cost of the small business operating in Singapore (Aarsand & Sandberg, 2014).
Licensing and Enforcement
The accountants as individuals are able to adhere with the different types of the licensing process which has been seen to be taken into consideration with the appropriate law-making body. As per the international council for the accounting the lack of the different aspects has been seen to be evident with the prosecution actions (Kamla & Haque, 2017).
The main issue for the political grouping is seen to be short termed. It is also discerned that that the political grouping is seen to be appropriate in the emerging countries.
International Sovereignty Issues
The particular form of the associated concerns has been seen to be based on the differ types of the depictions which are associated with the CPA licensing laws. In several occasions the contradicting tax laws, financial regulation and securities laws has been evident with dictating the appropriate principles of accounting (Bahri, 2014).
Country Level Analysis
Rationale for Majority of IFRS in Singapore
The main form of the driving force of the accounting standard in Singapore is seen with the application of the different types of the standards which are seen to be based on the significant nature of the depictions as per IASB. IASB is considered to be important with the “independent, standard-setting” body of the IFRS. The important objective for IASB is identified with the harmonization process which are seen to be based on the different types of the adoption of the worldwide recognition process. IFRS is recognised to issue the majority of the accounting standards which are based on the significant nature of the depiction taken into account with the majority of the accounting standard followed in Singapore. In Singapore the main form of the accounting standard is seen to be depicted with the “Singapore Financial Reporting Standards (SFRS)” which are in compliance with IFRS. Henceforth, al the companies need to adhere to the various types of the significant standards which are adhered with the standards reported on or after 1 January 2003 (Barrett, Mayson, & Bahn, 2014).
Efforts to Harmonise SAS with FRS
The important form of the initiative for the harmonisation has been taken into account with “Council on Corporate Disclosure and Governance (“CCDG”)”. The min establishment for this is further seen to be made in 16 August 2002. The important form of the motive for the recommendation of the corporate governance models has been closely modelled with the Financial Reporting Standards (“FRSs”). The essential form of the dissolution is depicted with the “Accounting Standards Council (ASC)” which are responsible with the “Singapore Financial Reporting Standards (SFRS)”. The important initiative for ASC is seen with the convergence of SAS and IFRS for ensuring the global comparability and transparency of the information (Hellman et al., 2015).
Case study on Singapore and “Singapore Press Holdings”
Background of the Company
“Singapore Press Holdings Ltd.” is considered to be a multichannel facility for the overall advertising system which is based on media organization in Singapore. The business operations in are further identified with the consideration of the “print, Internet and news media”.
Implementation process of FRS from Local SRS
Before the implementation of “Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)”and “SFRS in 2003”, it has been depicted that the important form of the reporting aspects is considered with the disclosures which is taken into account with the ICPAS and FRS. The advisory committee is initiated “Ministry of Finance (MOF)” with the “Accountant-General's Department (AGD)”.
Before and after harmonisation of impact on the financial statement
The “Singapore Reporting Standard (FRS) 102” has been able to depict that the different types of the significant considerations for the share based payment which is inclusive of the expenses which are related to the transactions and grants given to the employees. The post implementation process of new FRS (on or after January 1, 2003) has been stated with the cost less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses. The change in the PPE is taken into consideration as per the estimated useful lives for the furniture and fittings for the next 7-10 years as per the SAS. The revised FRS consideration is based on the estimated useful lives of the furniture and fittings for the next 5-10 years.
The SAS subsidiaries are included with the financial statements considered with the cost and provision for the diminution of the value other than the determination of the individual values. As per the new standards of FRS considerations the interest in the subsidiaries are based on the balance sheet of the company at a cost less the impairment losses. The various types of the indication for the impairment has been taken into assessment with the written down value of the recoverable amount. In this case, the lower is the amount of the impairment losses, the same has been depicted in the income statement.
The FRS integration for the Goodwill arising for the acquisition has been recorded in the balance sheet ad put forward to test the impairment as per “FRS 103 – Business combinations” in FY 2005. This factor has been further seen to be applicable as per reserves considered after 1994. In this case, the treatment of SAS and SHP is seen to be having the relevant authority for the external borrowings and the internal resources associated to the finance requirements for the final purchase or acquisition of the ordinary shares.
Conclusion and recommendation
The main from of the consideration of the harmonisation in accounting has been considered with the concept of comparing the financial information with other countries. The main process for the harmonization are further seen to be vital for the companies those are willing to operate in the various business environment and multiple regions on a global basis. The significant issues concerning the harmonisation is regarded with “Cultural Obstacles, Integration Problems, Negative impacts on the small business, Licensing and Enforcement”.
Aarsand, A. K., & Sandberg, S. (2014). How to achieve harmonisation of laboratory testing -The complete picture. Clinica Chimica Acta, 432, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2013.12.005
Adrian-Cosmin, C. (2015). Accounting Information System - qualitative characteristics and the importance of accounting information at trade entities. Annals of the Constantin Brâncu?i University of Târgu Jiu, Economy Series, II(1), 168–174.
Ahmed, K., & Ali, M. J. (2015). Has the harmonisation of accounting practices improved? Evidence from South Asia. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management, 23(4), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-12-2014-0082
Auvinen, H., Clausen, U., Davydenko, I., Diekmann, D., Ehrler, V., & Lewis, A. (2014). Calculating emissions along supply chains - Towards the global methodological harmonisation. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 12, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2014.06.008
Bahri, P. (2014). Pharmacovigilance-Related Topics at the Level of the International Conference on Harmonisation. In Mann’s Pharmacovigilance: Third Edition (pp. 47–62). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118820186.ch5
Barrett, R., Mayson, S., & Bahn, S. (2014). Small firms and health and safety harmonisation: Potential regulatory effects of a dominant narrative. Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185613498629
Calmel, M.-P. (2014). Harmonisation of EPSASs (European Public Sector Accounting Standards): Developments and Prospects. Accounting, Economics and Law, 4(3), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1515/ael-2014-0018
Frezatti, F., B. Carter, D., & F.G. Barroso, M. (2014). Accounting without accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(3), 426–464. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2012-00927
Hellman, N., Gray, S. J., Morris, R. D., & Haller, A. (2015). The persistence of international accounting differences as measured on transition to IFRS. Accounting and Business Research, 45(2), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.987202
Kamla, R., & Haque, F. (2017). Islamic accounting, neo-imperialism and identity staging: The Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.06.001
Legenzova, R. (2016). A Concept of Accounting Quality from Accounting Harmonisation Perspective. Economics and Business, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/eb-2016-0005
Oulasvirta, L. O., & Bailey, S. J. (2016). Evolution of EU public sector financial accounting standardisation: critical events that opened the window for attempted policy change. Journal of European Integration, 38(6), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2016.1177043
Sauer, F. (2015). European pharmaceutical harmonisation. Pharmaceuticals Policy and Law, 17(1–2), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.3233/PPL-140396
Visvikis, C. (2014). Evolution in electric vehicle safety legislation and global harmonisation activities. In 2013 World Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, EVS 2014. https://doi.org/10.1109/EVS.2013.6915024
Warren, J. D., Moffitt, K. C., & Byrnes, P. (2015). How big data will change accounting. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 397–407. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51069