+0
Below are two excerpts from a newspaper:

1. Prime Minister xxx yesterday said his government has taken effective measures for restructuring intelligence agencies and coordination of their activities.

2. On the agencies’ failure to warn the government abut the mutiny, he said it is true various intelligence agencies could not come up with advance information.

My question is:

a) Is “has” grammatically correct in the first sentence? Should not it be “had”?

b) In the second sentence, is present tense form “is” correct? Should not it be “was”? And “advance information” or “advanced information” or “come up with information in advance”? Which one is correct?

Context: The PM’s statement came in the wake of a failure of the intelligence agencies to warn the government prior to a mutiny inside a military headquarters.

I would be glad if someone answers the questions above. Thanks in advance.
Comments  
a) "has" is OK because they're talking about the recent past, and the measures are still current and relevant. "had" is also OK. If the events happened in the more distant past then you would need to use "had": "In 1812, President XXX reported that his goverment had ..."

b) It's the same deal: "is" is OK because the advice is still current and relevant. "was" is also OK. For events in the more distant past you would use "was".

"advance information" is correct. "advanced" in this sense is a common mistake. "information in advance" is also OK but I prefer "advance information".
a) Is "has" grammatically correct in the first sentence? Should not it be "had"?-- We would normally expect 'had' in this reported speech, but this is newspaper English producing the 'historical present' to create immediacy for the reader.

b) In the second sentence, is present tense form "is" correct? Should not it be "was"?-- No, the fact remains true, so the choice of tense is available.

And "advance information" or "advanced information" or "come up with information in advance"? Which one is correct?-- All are acceptable, I suppose, but the usual is 'advance':

Advance –adjective
31.made or given ahead of time: an advance payment on a loan.
32.issued ahead of time: an advance copy of the President's speech.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thanks Mr Wordy. What about the following sentence?

The national prove committee on ... mutiny also pointed finger to the "failure of the main intelligence agencies, their inefficiency and organisational failure, collusion of the R Security Unit (RSU) with the mutineers ..." as some of the subsidiary causes played direct/indirect role behind the mutiny.

Is the phrase "pointed finger to" is appropriate here?
You have a typo: it should be "probe committee". Looking at the original, I suspect this article was not written by a native English speaker. It's largely correct English, but there's just the odd thing here and there that gives it away.

This is a case in point. The phrase is appropriate, but the standard expression is "pointed a/the finger at". "to" is possible I suppose (though less natural to me), but omitting the article is wrong.
Thanks MM for your splendid and useful coments.

Yes, Mr Wordy, you are right.Tthe sentence was written by a non-native English speaker.

One more question: do you think the sentence would sound less odd if one were to replace the words "pointed finger to" with the word "considered" or "termed"?

Thanks
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
AbilOne more question: do you think the sentence would sound less odd if one were to replace the words "pointed finger to" with the word "considered" or "termed"?
"pointed finger to" doesn't merely sound odd, it sounds plain wrong. After the necessary corrections, I don't think "pointed the finger at" sounds odd. OK, it sounds like journalese, but it is a newspaper article after all. "considered" is OK, but I would write it as "considered ... to be". (Normally "to be" is redundant with "considered", but in this case it helps to put the reader back on track after the long quote.)

"termed" does not seem right. For one thing the sense is "the wrong way round". A typical use of "termed" would be "The committee termed the <description of what it is> (a) <quote>".

Actually, looking at it again, I think would use "pointed to" in preference to any of the other suggestions. While we're at it, let's make a couple more changes:

The national probe committee investigating the BDR mutiny also pointed to the "failure of the main intelligence agencies, their inefficiency and organisational failure, [and] collusion of the Rifles Security Unit (RSU) with the mutineers…" as some of the factors that played a direct or indirect role in the mutiny.

I'm in two minds about whether to fix the quote so that the flow works in the containing sentence or leave it be. I changed "subsidiary causes" partly because it seems a bit odd for a "subsidiary" cause to play a "direct" role. "on the BDR mutiny" is not exactly wrong, but "investigating" seems much stronger, assuming that's what they're doing.
Excellent! Mr Wordy. Thanks a lot.