WP's Managing Agent's issue

[gobuster]

Well, well, well. CPG charged Aljunied TC under PAP $7.25 and FMSS charged AHTC $7.58. A comparison of the pricing across an equivalent year of 2012 would show that the difference in rate is at most 4.55%.

So, were the PAP MAs forced to cut price after GE2011 for certain political reasons? Someone care to look back at the rate pre-2011?

http://www.ahpetc.sg/media-release-15-may-2013/

 

[gobuster]

I would agree with you that PAP has limited the flow of information.

But apparently for this time round, the information released is simple and comprehensive, basically because it is favourable to them.

Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that FMSS has grossly overcharged.

Goh Meng Seng

PAP still hiding the details of the unit charge, not giving breakdown of the rate between commercial and residential units, not giving out historical price of past 10 years across all TCs. It is still selective to deceive people.

 

[gobuster]

It is a lame argument as I have already pointed out.

FMSS is indeed a skeleton empty shell as it was set up hastily just 4 days after GE2011, regardless of the $500K paid up captial.

If running GRC is so difficult than a SMC like HGTC, then we would not expect FMSS which only consists of experienced staffs from HGTC to perform the job as well!

Now, comparing FMSS the empty shell to the whole management team in HGTC, which one would have the ability to manage the GRC?

Goh Meng Seng

he he, GMS really can't tell there is difference between TC management and estate management. There are staff in HGTC not dealing with estate management, what really count are those specialize in estate management. They moved to FMSS. Also Danny Low was not HGTC staff at the time. Engaging FMSS to provide estate management service was the way to go.

GMS managed SMC / GRC estate before? FMSS able to handle AHTC simply because it is easy task or because FMSS work very hard to make things work?

GMS will say all startup empty shell company? LOL.

 

[tanwahp]

They could just amend existing contracts for PAP TC which changed boundaries. For AHTC, it is a totally new construct.

After the 2011 election, a few PAP town councils appointed new managing agents or new contracts. Eg Ang Mo Kio which switched from Esmaco(?) to CPG around Sep 2011 and West Coast which reappointed EMS in Apr 2012 although the contract expired in Mar 2011. The originator needs to be clearer if the figures are from the old contract or new contract. The intention to compare apples and oranges is clear.

Financial year ends 31 March. Thus, it is reasonable to expect a smaller than 12 months contract for FMSS.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. The financial year end in this table is for all the TCs, not only AHTC, hence it is not relevant to this discussion. The start period reflected in this table is the one in discussion and it remains disputed based on my above point.

By the way, financial year end doesn't mean contract ends. In 2012, AHTC did a tender for MA this time and FMSS was awarded. The tender was carried out in August 2012, not March 2012. Hence, I am not sure why the originator had to pro-rate the figure to 8.5 months when the contract awarded to FMSS should be a full year figure for a full year service.

 

[SgParent]

...........http://www.ahpetc.sg/media-release-15-may-2013/

Good info. Thanks

So what has Rabid GohMS got to say now?

 

[zhihau]

So what has Rabid GohMS got to say now?

don't worry, he'll find something to say... if he doesn't, me worry :o:o:o

 

[DEDEER]

What is the role of MA? Help to manage the term contractors of the TCs I suppose. These term contractors are awarded projects directly from TCs. Either by tender or direct appoint or by schedule of rates.

Now PAP is saying their TCs accounts all swee swee not much bad debts, MA fees cheap cheap, surplus bg big and their TCs run so efficiently as compared to WP. If that is the case why their TC fees still much much expensive than WP despite PAP's huge advantage in economies of scale. All these feel good factor about PAP TCs dose not translate to actual savings for residents then what for?

Another point to note : all these while PAP only claim that their MA fees are cheaper. They don't dare cliam their term contracts cheaper. Since they are charging more TC fees than WP, does it mean that even though PAP MA fees cheaper, they actually pay more to their term contractors (croonies) as compared to WP. So its a penny wise pound foolish issue. PAP trying to smoke as usual.

Goh Meng Seng their agent is defending them left right center. Still no mention about gang rape democracy huh PAP agent Goh.


Forget to add : MA fees in contract is 1 thing. Another thing MA can claim is attendance fees for term contractors they need to supervise. This is usually a certain % of that particular term contract work. The higher PAP pays the term contractors, the more than MA gets as attendance fees. This attendance fee will not be reflected in anyway in those figures PAP provided.

 

[fanta]

The more personal attacks are made on Goh Meng Seng, the more Goh Meng Seng is seen as telling the truth and WP has been check mate by PAP. Ad hominem attacks normally will produce the reverse results.

A few things that WP should clarify with Singaporeans is if WP fees are cheaper than the PAP, so far it looks like Sylvia Lim has not clarified on that (if Sylvia Lim has clarified, then why the hell Teo Ho Pin won't keep his mouth shut! Since Teo Ho Pin is still barking on the fees, it confirms that WP are overcharging). The second thing about FMSS-gate is WP has not clarified why their friends/supporters are double dipping in the town council funds - first time as employees of the town council and second time as owners of FMSS. There is speculation that this money from the double dipping is shared among the WP leadership, so WP would want to keep the double dipping accusation as quiet as possible.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

I do not see what WP has done is wrong. They have already clarified on what they have done. PAP has continued to hound them to cover up on the AIM scandal. Only suckers, idiots and PAP dogs like Got More Shit is using the social media and this forum to promote the PAP and dumb down on WP. Also please note conservancy charges are lower and the WP town councils are more well maintained than PAP ones. Also what about the losses of PAP town councils during the Lehman scandals? How come the reserves are soo huge for PAP councils that they can speculate on mini bombs etc? The answer is they have been overcharging their constituents and PAP supporters and ball lickers are too thick to see it. Guess the 60% just enjoy being gang rape by the PAP. Talk about Stockholm syndrome. Fuck the PAP and its supporters.

The more personal attacks are made on Goh Meng Seng, the more Goh Meng Seng is seen as telling the truth and WP has been check mate by PAP. Ad hominem attacks normally will produce the reverse results.

A few things that WP should clarify with Singaporeans is if WP fees are cheaper than the PAP, so far it looks like Sylvia Lim has not clarified on that (if Sylvia Lim has clarified, then why the hell Teo Ho Pin won't keep his mouth shut! Since Teo Ho Pin is still barking on the fees, it confirms that WP are overcharging). The second thing about FMSS-gate is WP has not clarified why their friends/supporters are double dipping in the town council funds - first time as employees of the town council and second time as owners of FMSS. There is speculation that this money from the double dipping is shared among the WP leadership, so WP would want to keep the double dipping accusation as quiet as possible.

 

[fanta]

Also please note conservancy charges are lower and the WP town councils are more well maintained than PAP ones.

Help me to see where PAP fudge the numbers. The following is from the table posted earlier in this thread and just following Teo to take Tampines as an example.

Aljunied-Hougang charges $7.78 while Tampines charges $5.09.

This shows that WP is charging more than PAP, help me to understand how WP conservancy charges are lower than PAP.

Ps. Teo did mention that WP did not include commercial units in their computation.

 

[The_Hypocrite]

The charges that WP TC charge its residents. I would not trust what THP says as he is a firm supporter of AIM and is covering his rear end. If the Aljunied etc is not happy with WP, rest assured WP will be voted out in the next Erection. IF PAP is so sure that WP is cheating etc, than as SL says..get CPIB to investigate them. But I hope since PAP is trying to raise its moral high ground from nothing, I hope PAP will ask CPIB to investigate their own Town Councils.

PAP is nip picking at WP by saying WP back yard has litter, but fail to see the shit hole and mountains of trash in its own living room.

 

[tanwahp]

The more personal attacks are made on Goh Meng Seng, the more Goh Meng Seng is seen as telling the truth and WP has been check mate by PAP. Ad hominem attacks normally will produce the reverse results.

If WP is attacked, they have been checkmated. If Goh Meng Seng is attacked, he is telling the truth.

A few things that WP should clarify with Singaporeans is if WP fees are cheaper than the PAP, so far it looks like Sylvia Lim has not clarified on that (if Sylvia Lim has clarified, then why the hell Teo Ho Pin won't keep his mouth shut! Since Teo Ho Pin is still barking on the fees, it confirms that WP are overcharging).

You might want to follow the exchanges between THP and SL, as well as the exchanges on the accuracy on the figures in the table, before commenting with facts.

The second thing about FMSS-gate is WP has not clarified why their friends/supporters are double dipping in the town council funds - first time as employees of the town council and second time as owners of FMSS. There is speculation that this money from the double dipping is shared among the WP leadership, so WP would want to keep the double dipping accusation as quiet as possible.

Agree that the clarification in this area should be more in-depth.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Just read this from another person... precisely my point:

http://mrnewbird.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/why-the-need-of-managing-agent-in-town-council/

WHY THE NEED OF MANAGING AGENT IN TOWN COUNCIL?

Rate This

Today, everyone were talking about the Managing Agent (MA) Fee which had blown out of proportion. Now let looks into different perspective view that I’m going to touch on.

What is a MA? Answer taken from the web.

In the case of residential developments, e.g. a blocks of flats, an individual investor or a property company may hold the freehold, or the owners of the individual flats may own it collectively.
In the case of leasehold properties the lease is a contract between the lessee, and the freeholder (often referred to as the lessor), under the terms of the lease the freeholder may be required to manage the property e.g. maintain the exterior and common areas, provide insurance etc.
A managing agent is a person or company appointed by the freeholder of a property, or a management company, to manage that property.
The managing agent contracts with the freeholder, or management company, to manage the property in accordance with the terms of the lease and statutory requirements.
The managing agent is only an agent of the freeholder therefore legal responsibility for the full and proper management of the property remains with the freeholder, or the management company.
In the case of the town council, town council are the owner while MA is just a middleman managing the properties. So as to say, the management of the town council had actually being “OUTSOURCE” to the MA.

My main question here is: do the management of the town council necessary need to be outsource to MA? The answer from me is a firm NO!

Let me list out the reasons why management of the town council is not necessary to be out source.

1) Take for example, who is the person in charge of Hougang TC is non other than the director of FMSS. Why do WP need to engage FMSS to be MA when the director of FMSS is a PAID salary in the town council? He had the expertise in managing the town council.

2) Out-sourcing your own core duties/business are just heading doom. For Example, Like being a service provider, you outsource your service to the third parties, effectively you are giving away your core business.

3) Outsourcing might not be necessary cheap! Take this example, the MA must make a profit in order for them to survive. Thus, if this is all done by the town council themselves, it can save a huge amount of dollars for other development and sinking fund.

4) Outsourcing will not improve the life of the cleaner, road sweeper etc. If the town council manage themselves, the saving can translate into more into for the employees.

5) Outsourcing will only benefit a small group of people rather than as a whole.

In short, I don’t favour outsourcing of town council management to the MA, as outsourcing in my own view is a “dirty word”. Just take a look around us. Outsourcing had taken place everywhere, in IT, in cleaning industries, telemarketer, telephone operators etc.

In the town council, I hoped that be it PAP or WP to come clean why they need a MA in their town council which now have the conflict of intere

 

[ThePlen]

On lazy Sunday morning, Leong Sze Hian highlighted Holland-Bt Panjang TC's MA Fee being 30% more expensive than Tampines' TC latest deal ($4.99). No surprise why Holland-Bt Panjang chosen by him, as the TC pays the most expensive MA Fee among PAP's TCs.

HOWEVER, when The Workers' Party asked about "outlier", the table clearly shows this: even at the cost WP's claim ($7.58), AHTC's MA Fee was still 13% more expensive than the most expensive PAP's TC paid.

Source: Financial Statement for FA ended 31 Mar 2012 for each Town Council.
Link to all TCs' website: http://app.sgdi.gov.sg/listing.asp?agency_subtype=dept&agency_id=0000007289

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear GMSS.

Let me try to explain and let me see whether the explanation suffices.

a. The previous MA or GM for Aljunied was appointed by CPG. When CPG resigned he resigned as well. He resigned to. Similarly FMSS is the company appointed and the MA its is appointed agent within the TC. I refer you to the definition of an MA and the excerpt stating

"A managing agent is a person or company appointed by the freeholder of a property, or a management company, to manage that property."


b. Your question is why should a previously paid employee of a town council go private ? You are a businessman, you know businessmen and for many out there if a long term employee choses to take his knowledge and build a private enterprise , it is something that is not uncommon.

c. Should contracts be managed directly by the TC or through a MA and management company ? I believe I answered your question earlier as to the nature of the business. All the management companies outsource to the extent that All contractors like PCK outsource. Why is that ? Why pay a contractor his 20 to 30% margin so that he just outsources everything ? The reason being, do u know in depth the carpentry guy ? The flooring guy ? The laminate guy ? The partition guy ? The plumbing guy ? The M n E engineer ? The guy who contacts the fire and safety guy ? Do you know who does a better job ? Do you who know does it cheaper better and faster ? Do u know whose workmanship is better ? Do u know who can be trusted to deliver rectification and correctional work ? Multiply the issues to a town council and therein you have the problem.

d. The reason that one has an MA is that it allows you time to to your "political activities" which you agree is the point of being an MP



Locke

Just read this from another person... precisely my point:

http://mrnewbird.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/why-the-need-of-managing-agent-in-town-council/

WHY THE NEED OF MANAGING AGENT IN TOWN COUNCIL?

Rate This

Today, everyone were talking about the Managing Agent (MA) Fee which had blown out of proportion. Now let looks into different perspective view that I’m going to touch on.

What is a MA? Answer taken from the web.

In the case of residential developments, e.g. a blocks of flats, an individual investor or a property company may hold the freehold, or the owners of the individual flats may own it collectively.
In the case of leasehold properties the lease is a contract between the lessee, and the freeholder (often referred to as the lessor), under the terms of the lease the freeholder may be required to manage the property e.g. maintain the exterior and common areas, provide insurance etc.
A managing agent is a person or company appointed by the freeholder of a property, or a management company, to manage that property.
The managing agent contracts with the freeholder, or management company, to manage the property in accordance with the terms of the lease and statutory requirements.
The managing agent is only an agent of the freeholder therefore legal responsibility for the full and proper management of the property remains with the freeholder, or the management company.
In the case of the town council, town council are the owner while MA is just a middleman managing the properties. So as to say, the management of the town council had actually being “OUTSOURCE” to the MA.

My main question here is: do the management of the town council necessary need to be outsource to MA? The answer from me is a firm NO!

Let me list out the reasons why management of the town council is not necessary to be out source.

1) Take for example, who is the person in charge of Hougang TC is non other than the director of FMSS. Why do WP need to engage FMSS to be MA when the director of FMSS is a PAID salary in the town council? He had the expertise in managing the town council.

2) Out-sourcing your own core duties/business are just heading doom. For Example, Like being a service provider, you outsource your service to the third parties, effectively you are giving away your core business.

3) Outsourcing might not be necessary cheap! Take this example, the MA must make a profit in order for them to survive. Thus, if this is all done by the town council themselves, it can save a huge amount of dollars for other development and sinking fund.

4) Outsourcing will not improve the life of the cleaner, road sweeper etc. If the town council manage themselves, the saving can translate into more into for the employees.

5) Outsourcing will only benefit a small group of people rather than as a whole.

In short, I don’t favour outsourcing of town council management to the MA, as outsourcing in my own view is a “dirty word”. Just take a look around us. Outsourcing had taken place everywhere, in IT, in cleaning industries, telemarketer, telephone operators etc.

In the town council, I hoped that be it PAP or WP to come clean why they need a MA in their town council which now have the conflict of intere

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Just read this from another person... precisely my point:

http://mrnewbird.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/why-the-need-of-managing-agent-in-town-council/

WHY THE NEED OF MANAGING AGENT IN TOWN COUNCIL?

My main question here is: do the management of the town council necessary need to be outsource to MA? The answer from me is a firm NO!

Let me list out the reasons why management of the town council is not necessary to be out source.

1) Take for example, who is the person in charge of Hougang TC is non other than the director of FMSS. Why do WP need to engage FMSS to be MA when the director of FMSS is a PAID salary in the town council? He had the expertise in managing the town council.

You are now veering into a different direction. You should be asking the other PAP Town councils, save Bishan-ToaPayoh, why they also have Managing Agents. Why can't they all follow the example of BTP? Why the director of Jurong TC's managing agent is also under the employ of the PAP TC?

Mind you, the WP has only one GRC Town council, the PAP on the other hand has many GRC town councils, and its all the same practices, except for Bishan-TP.

Let's see you pose this to the PAP for a change.

 

[SgParent]

...........

Go read post.256 before regurgitating the same crap as the White Scums, Braddell Road Brothel publications, Rabid GohMS, etc, etc.

Parroting wise words may make you sound smart but I can almost guarantee parroting crap only make you stink.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Fanta

The comparison between contracts only make sense if it is apples and apples. That is the scope of a contract from Aljunied to Jurong are exactly the same and thus a price comparison becomes easier.

However the variance in a contract is wide because of how some MA's manage or what they are allowed to directly manage. The S n C fees represent what the consumer pays, the final price for a plate of chicken rice, How that cost for that plate of chicken rice is derived at is for the Chicken rice store owner to decide. Should he prepare his chicken in house and thus buy his own chicken and everything else from his own contacts, Should he buy his chicken and chilli seperately from suppliers and just prepare the chicken. Should he outsource his dishwashing to the HC or do it himself etc etc etc.


Locke

Help me to see where PAP fudge the numbers. The following is from the table posted earlier in this thread and just following Teo to take Tampines as an example.

Aljunied-Hougang charges $7.78 while Tampines charges $5.09.

This shows that WP is charging more than PAP, help me to understand how WP conservancy charges are lower than PAP.

Ps. Teo did mention that WP did not include commercial units in their computation.

 

[scroobal]

Leong stated that he could not make any conclusion without all the details. I will be surprised if you can.

The fair thing to do is get an foreign independent body to make a finding based on all the facts available.

On lazy Sunday morning, Leong Sze Hian highlighted Holland-Bt Panjang TC's MA Fee being 30% more expensive than Tampines' TC latest deal ($4.99). No surprise why Holland-Bt Panjang chosen by him, as the TC pays the most expensive MA Fee among PAP's TCs.

HOWEVER, when The Workers' Party asked about "outlier", the table clearly shows this: even at the cost WP's claim ($7.58), AHTC's MA Fee was still 13% more expensive than the most expensive PAP's TC paid.

Source: Financial Statement for FA ended 31 Mar 2012 for each Town Council.
Link to all TCs' website: http://app.sgdi.gov.sg/listing.asp?agency_subtype=dept&agency_id=0000007289

 

[scroobal]

First you stated you do not want estate management to be done by MPs and then you claim that they should run the estate by themselves without a MA. You do realise that the positions are mutually exclusive.

So do you want sugar in your coffee or not?

In the town council, I hoped that be it PAP or WP to come clean why they need a MA in their town council which now have the conflict of intere