AIM Saga Summary of Views

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

The software's main attribute and reason is to penalise residents for late or non payment of Town council fees. There is very little else that the town councils require in terms of a customised software. THe software is used to send out, on time, reminders and penalties for those that are late in paying their Town Council fees.

Take aim at THP but also aim your discontent and disapproval at the PM. He is afterall all knowing and should bear the brunt of this highly questionable transaction of a property owned by the citizens that has been transferred to a private company.

The effect of this transaction is easy to see that it will hurt residents not only in opposition wards today and tomorrow but all residents in all wards as the fees payable are unknown and the IP rights have been largely given away based on the fees sold and the monthly costs to Town councils.

This is a very serious case where the PAPzis have not been able to walk away as cleanly as they would wish. Not only is the act itself an abhorrence but the resultant explanation seems to have compounded the initial delinquency and brought on even more contempt.

The PM has to answer to this issue and provide the required answers or admit defeat and apologize for the transgression and disallow such frivolous politicking from hurting itself and more so, to the citizens that it has been given the mandate to govern in a systematically ethical and prudent manner. If the PM cannot assure that his men conduct their private and political lives in an ethically upright manner then he should resign and a new leader that is able to lead his men, in government, towards a creditable and ethical manner should be brought forward.

Please push this case to the PM. It is his boat and it is highly impossible that he did not know about this transfer of ownership of IP rights from the citizens to AIM. Send your interests to the PM's facebook or email and also through your MPs.

We should not let this case rest. Not only AJTC is affected badly but all citizens are also affected badly because the transfer of IP rights affects every citizen.

 

[kingrant]

What is SCM?

This is really a momentous occasion where the social media has reached maturity in providing reliable content and compelling analysis of an important issue in a timely manner. As I was reading the commentaries, I realised that we do have quality people and more importantly they are very much aligned in their analysis and content. I thus felt that it is only right that such quality stuff needed to be put together for the benefit of everyone.

The SCM is totally incapacitated and marooned in their own world.

We of course on behalf of SBF claim association with Lucky Tan and credit as he started his blog life here.

 

[kingrant]

Teo Ho Pin's boat's broken mast is drifting to LHL's boat, inevitably. The Titanic must sink.

Please push this case to the PM. It is his boat and it is highly impossible that he did not know about this transfer of ownership of IP rights from the citizens to AIM. Send your interests to the PM's facebook or email and also through your MPs.

We should not let this case rest. Not only AJTC is affected badly but all citizens are also affected badly because the transfer of IP rights affects every citizen.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

What is SCM?

State Controlled Media is SCM

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Further background information is that that the chairman of Deloitte & Touche is Chaly Mah. The following is his bio:

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_SG/sg/about-deloitte/leadership/index.htm


Mr Mah is currently also Chairman of the Singapore Land Authority.

http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/abo/abo05.htm

This is totally unacceptable! SLA is the one that earns the most from over-pricing of public housing in Singapore. While HDB repeatedly admits losses, SLA is silent on the hundreds of billions it has earned from land sales.

 

[aurvandil]

More background info on Chaly Mah, Chairman of Deloitte & Touche Singapore which made the AIM recommendation. Previously Chaly Mah was the auditor partner in charge of Barrings Bank !

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/72501849/Interview-with-Chaly-Mah

It has been a long time since the Barrings Bank Case, in which as the auditor partner in charge, you were prosecuted and then cleared from professional misconduct ...

 

[kingrant]

Clearly, those PAP scums are telling us they are too big to fail. So let's chisel them down to size.

 

[gz0707]

TOC Breaking news :

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long is taking legal action against blogger Alex Au for "false and baseless allegations" in post about town councils.

Alex Au is to remove AIM saga blog post on town councils containing "defamatory allegations" and apologise within 3 days

 

[scroobal]

Yer another substantive piece.


AIM Fiasco: Don’t ignore the elephant in the room
Published by The Online Citizen on January 4, 2013

TOC Editorial


The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) strategy for addressing the glaring conflict of interest in its MPs running its Town Councils awarding an important contract to its own company is now clear: simply ignore it.
Simply ignore the fact that this is what everyone other than the mainstream media is talking about. Simply ignore all the emails that Singaporeans had sent to PAP MPs using the form email provided by TOC (see here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2013/01/toc-editorial-the-problem-with-the-aim-case-and-what-you-can-do/) flagging this as the key issue.
Dr Teo Ho Pin’s statement had a lot of words, but simply ignored the central issue in this controversy. Indeed, he even had the audacity to claim that the PAP’s ownership of Action Information Management Pte Ltd was in fact a good thing – because it showed that AIM would honour its commitments. No doubt because he is from the PAP and knows first-hand how the PAP operates.
In the commercial world, one does not rely on the reputation of the beneficial owner of a $2 company to back up the company’s commitments. One asks for a performance bond or banker’s guarantee; after all, the very reason why companies are incorporated is to shield shareholders from the company’s own liability.
But in the PAP MPs’ topsy-turvy world, one ignores commercial reality, and day is night and night is day. Either the PAP MPs are completely unschooled in the realities of commercial negotiations, or they are willfully ignoring the conflict of interest, no doubt hoping for Singaporeans to forget.
And even as Dr Teo’s statement danced around the elephants in the room, it added even more to the stench surrounding them.

Unanswered questions about tender process
Dr Teo’s statement continued to sidestep the very many questions around the tender process that have been raised. Instead, Dr Teo asserted that National Computer Systems (NCS) and at least one other company had apparently considered bidding for the contract, before deciding not to do so because of the terms of the tender.
He no doubt hoped that this would be enough to allay Singaporeans’ concerns about the propriety of the tender. But tellingly, the CEO of one of the companies who had obtained the tender document told the Straits Times (“IT deal done to benefit town councils: Teo Ho Pin”, Jan 3, 2013) that “it had not bid as the tender document did not give enough details and it did not have enough time to make an assessment.”
In addition, an eagle-eyed Internet user (see the comment by “Chanel” on 3 Jan 2013 on Alex Au’s blog, here: http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-4/) has pointed out that according to Dr Teo, AIM submitted its bid on 20 July 2010; but the tender notice provided for the tender period to close on 14 July 2010. This then begs the question of whether the PAP Town Councils had undertaken the proper steps to extend the tender period, and had also given the other companies more time as well, to ensure a fair tender process.
Dr Teo also attempted to justify the sale of the software based on the alleged obsolescence of the TCMS. He said that as of 2010, it had become clear that the PAP Town Councils would need a new software system to replace the TCMS, and it would take “18-24 months or even longer” to complete the process.
But as of today, 2½ years later, the PAP Town Councils are still using, and NCS is still maintaining, the same TCMS that was allegedly “becoming obsolete and unmaintainable” in 2010. More damningly, even today, AIM is only just inviting potential vendors to pitch to the PAP Town Councils.
For something allegedly so urgent, AIM and the PAP Town Councils have truly been taking their own sweet time. So either there is more to it than meets the eye, or AIM and the PAP Town Councils are staggeringly incompetent at this.

The management fees that were not disclosed earlier
Dr Teo’s statement also contained the bombshell that apart from the leaseback payments by the PAP Town Councils disclosed earlier, they were also required to pay AIM an additional sum of $33,150 as “management fees” for the period of November 2011 to April 2013. So while the PAP Town Councils saved a grand total of $8,120 from selling the TCMS software to AIM, they ended up incurring the cost of this management fee.
In other words, entering into this contract with AIM cost the PAP Town Councils $25,030 more than their cost if they had never contracted with AIM.
First and foremost, why did Dr. Teo and AIM chairman Chandra Das not disclose this very material fact earlier? Their earlier statements had suggested that AIM did not financially benefit from this contract and instead the PAP Town Councils had saved money; we now know that this is incorrect. The PAP’s failure to make full and frank disclosure at the earliest opportunity is extremely troubling, and it needs to account to Singaporeans for this failure.
Secondly, how was this management fee calculated? How much is it, compared to the maintenance fees paid to NCS? After all, the management fee must be proportionate to the value of the services that AIM is purportedly managing. Why did the PAP MPs think it fit to pay AIM $33,150 to “manage” the maintenance contract with NCS, when that would seem to the responsibility of Dr. Teo as the coordinating chairman of the PAP Town Councils?
Thirdly, what happened to the $33,150? Mr Das had earlier said that the current directors of AIM “do not receive directors’ fees or any other benefits”. AIM and the PAP need to clearly state what AIM did with the $33,150. More generally, who profits from AIM's activities? Does AIM declare dividends for its shareholders?

Earlier PAP Town Council contracts with AIM
Another shocking new revelation lay deep in a report by the Straits Times, which said: “The Straits Times understands that [AIM] has served PAP town councils before they contracted NCS to develop a common IT platform in 2003” (“Aim put in bid ‘to help’ PAP councils”, Jan 3, 2013).
In other words, this is not the first time PAP Town Councils had contracted with this PAP-owned $2 company. This may explain why the PAP seems to see nothing wrong with its Town Councils deal with AIM despite the clear conflict of interest, as it was presumably not the first time.
This raises a whole slew of questions about just how much business PAP-owned companies have done with PAP Town Councils.
When asked by TODAY, the PAP declined to comment on the number of companies owned by it; in contrast, the opposition parties contacted by TODAY all confirmed that they did not own any companies (see here: http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC130103-0000057/PAP-explains-software-sale-to-AIM).

The PAP must account to Singaporeans
Many Singaporeans already think the PAP is no longer able to deliver the same results that they used to; now, many more Singaporeans can also how the PAP has become so used to its power, that it seems to think it is unaccountable and can get away with dealings as clearly inappropriate as this.
As angry as we are at the apparent contempt that the PAP has for Singaporeans’ intelligence, TOC is also sad that the PAP can be so blasé about something as strikingly controversial as its Town Councils dealing with its own companies in problematic tenders.
As the ruling party that forms the government of the day, and as the party that runs most of the town councils in Singapore, it is in everyone’s interests for the PAP to be clean and to be seen as being clean. TOC hopes that the PAP can come to its senses and fully and openly account to Singaporeans for how and why its companies do business with its Town Councils.

 

[Dreamer1]

TOC Breaking news :

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long is taking legal action against blogger Alex Au for "false and baseless allegations" in post about town councils.

Alex Au is to remove AIM saga blog post on town councils containing "defamatory allegations" and apologise within 3 days

Wow,the battle has begun,PM Lee might have made a mistake,as it is not 1959 but 2013,the year of awkening by the Grace of God after fatel 21 Dec 2012 DEADLINE,
God bless,amen
Allahu Akbar,
Namaste
南无阿弥陀佛
南無觀世音菩薩
南無妙法莲华经.

 

[scroobal]

" State Controlled Media" to truly reflect accurately the state of affairs. Courtesy of one of the forummers here only recently.

What is SCM?

 

[gz0707]

Part I has been removed from alex au blog. It should have been preserved for prosperity. anyway, its been copied on forums virally.

Wow,the battle has begun,PM Lee might have made a mistake,as it is not 1959 but 2013,the year of awkening by the Grace of God after fatel 21 Dec 2012 DEADLINE,
God bless,amen
Allahu Akbar,
Namaste
南无阿弥陀佛
南無觀世音菩薩
南無妙法莲华经.

 

[scroobal]

I noticed that too. This is one particular episode that folks here had various interpretation and were placing importance on different parts on what had transpired.

i can't help noticing across the plethora of forummers here, this AIM issue brings out consistently the various individual fixation : some are fixated on WP shameful performance again, some analyst decry mediocrity and pump for meritocrary again, while the usual idiot savants continue to stalk and needle their idols because that is their sole purpose in life to assuage a lifelong hurt ....

My grandson would say 'chao kiasu' and call it plain cowardice.

 

[scroobal]

Agree with you absolutely. The PM is answerable. We must not relent.

The PM has to answer to this issue and provide the required answers or admit defeat and apologize for the transgression and disallow such frivolous politicking from hurting itself and more so, to the citizens that it has been given the mandate to govern in a systematically ethical and prudent manner. If the PM cannot assure that his men conduct their private and political lives in an ethically upright manner then he should resign and a new leader that is able to lead his men, in government, towards a creditable and ethical manner should be brought forward.

Please push this case to the PM. It is his boat and it is highly impossible that he did not know about this transfer of ownership of IP rights from the citizens to AIM. Send your interests to the PM's facebook or email and also through your MPs.

We should not let this case rest. Not only AJTC is affected badly but all citizens are also affected badly because the transfer of IP rights affects every citizen.

 

[zhihau]

Agree with you absolutely. The PM is answerable. We must not relent.

when in doubt, ask :p:p:p
no answers now, no problems at all, see you at the polls

 

[Dreamer1]

Part I has been removed from alex au blog. It should have been preserved for prosperity. anyway, its been copied on forums virally.

Well,it is in the forum,may PM try with Boss Sam,God bless,amen

 

[aurvandil]

Reform Party statement by KJ. First political party to call for CPIB and Auditor General to take action.

---

RP’s statement on the sale of AHTC’s Computer Systems to a PAP connected company

http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/0...-computer-systems-to-a-pap-connected-company/

The Reform Party is appalled by the recent revelations arising from the conflict between Aljunied Town Council and the PAP controlled Company AIM. They suggest the management of Town Council financial information systems is shamefully being exploited for political purposes.

The central watchwords of the Reform Party have always been accountability and transparency. We have consistently called for good governance, independent regulators and a political system that serves the interests of all Singaporeans rather than that of any one political party. We are named the Reform Party because we believe that we need to reform the electoral and political systems that currently serve to create divisions or grant absolute power.

The same systematic reform is necessary whether it is the unfettered discretion of a PM to call or not to call a by-election, the unfettered discretion of a MOF subsidiary to loan money to an international financial organization or the unfettered control of 15 town councils’ information management systems.

It is inevitable that Singapore will progress towards true democracy. This will necessarily involve changes of political parties in various seats and in time even a change of government. The Reform Party believes that it is vital that we come together as one Nation to overhaul our political and electoral systems sooner rather than later so that a stable and fair independent governance framework can be put in place for the benefit of the people., no matter what their political persuasion.

The statements released thus far by both the PAP and the WP have posed more questions than they have provided answers. It is disappointing that the issue of ownership of information management systems only came to light in response to a bad review of the AHTC almost a year after the sale.

The RP now calls on the Auditor General to step in, cut through the fog and provide public clarification through a thorough audit of the tender process. We would like to know what value AIM provides as a middleman when NCS continues to be the service provider. We also need to know what has happened in the other 14 Town Councils when the initial term of the lease was set to end on October 31st 2011. What possible commercial purpose or non -commercial benefit to the residents could be served by a lease that only went up to October 2011? This date seems to too neatly coincide with the last possible date for a GE to be called.

It is also essential that the four companies who picked up tender forms and subsequently did not tender, be revealed along with the reasons why they did not tender. After all the total purchase price of $140,000 appears to be a bargain when set against the monthly lease payments due from each council. An audit could show us how fair market value for the systems were determined.

There must therefore also be a CPIB inquiry. According to Chandra Das and Dr. Teo Ho Pin, AIM has a capitalization of $2. With this kind of capitalization why was it not excluded from the tender process?

How could it have been expected to assume liability for the performance of its obligations under the service contract?

How could they even have guaranteed payment to the service company NCS under the agreement?

How did AIM raise the $140,000 to purchase the software for fifteen Town Councils?

Why was such a termination clause allowed to stay in the TC’s contracts in the first place? It clearly failed to serve the interests of the residents.

The WP statement has also thrown up questions. Chairperson Sylvia Lim’s statement indicates that Hougang’s information systems had been developed and managed by WP over a period of 10 years and that their aim was to adapt the same system for use in Aljunied.

On the other hand Dr. Teo says that AHTC itself gave notice in June 2011 and that AIM did not terminate the contract. We find Dr. Teo’s response to be disingenuous, as Aim’s lease would have expired on October 31st 2011 in any event. WP’s statement suggests that a lack of co-operation from Aim and in particular WP’s belief that the notice period would not be extended prevented WP from putting its own system in place in time. We must also pose the same question to WP and ask what provisions are in place for a smooth transfer of systems in the event of WP losing power in Hougang?

The citizens of Singapore deserve higher standards and transparent processes that lead to full accountability.

.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam

 

[enterprise2]

KJ better cool it or he will get lawyer letter next!

 

[watchman8]

KJ better cool it or he will get lawyer letter next!

He's not worried. Already stashed bulk of assets overseas, untouchable by MIW.

 

[watchman8]

TOC Breaking news :

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Long is taking legal action against blogger Alex Au for "false and baseless allegations" in post about town councils.

Alex Au is to remove AIM saga blog post on town councils containing "defamatory allegations" and apologise within 3 days

Stupid move by LHL. But maybe he's pressured by from within the party to fake a kunckle duster swing. If Alex Au has balls (and sufficient retirement assets kept overseas), he can let the 3-day deadline pass. See what the son is really capable of.