• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

AIM Saga Summary of Views

I believe hanging THP out to dry is probably the least of the evils for the establishment and the investigation may be dragged on for a long time to avoid a BE, albeit drawing unfavorable public opinion. In this scenario, only a few individuals are implicated and the ruling party has ways to protect or compensate its men, even though they could be shamed in public (MP was a good example), but for the other options, either the party or the government would be implicated. But PAP needs to really review the way they play politics.
 
Last edited:
THis type of 'fixing' is the mildest form, trust me.

:eek: Dun scare me, you mean there is worse ? :eek:

Like my petty brother, happened to also called Lee Hsien Loong, who took away all my toys, because I beat him in Mr Brave contest.

So, as punishment to all the members, including those who voted me, he took away the club house so we cannot meet, took away the piggy bank so we have no money to buy ice-cream, took away the Xbox, iphone and the toy car.

So I won the election, but left with nothing to run the country!
 
Foreign media are starting to take notice of the AIM case.

PAP uses clout to deny services to opposition constituency

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5088&Itemid=181

On Dec. 21, a Singapore blogger named Alex Au published a report questioning transactions between Singapore's ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and private company, Action Information Management (AIM) over a financial software system that had been developed for Singapore's town councils, which maintain the common areas of public housing flats.

Au followed up his original blog with three others delving into other concerns as the issue began to gain traction among Singaporeans.

For his troubles, Au received a demand letter from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong saying that his claims were "false and baseless" and asking him to take down his first blog post -- along with accompanying comments -- and issue an apology. It was a familiar move: the Singapore government has often been criticized for using defamation suits to silence dissenters.

The story began with the Ministry of National Development's release of the Town Council Management Review. In the review, it was stated that the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, run by the opposition Workers' Party after they won Aljunied in the 2011 general election, had received a "red score" for its management of arrears of service and conservancy charges.

However, the opposition town council had been handicapped by the abrupt removal of financial software used to keep its accounts after AIM decided to terminate the lease "due to material changes to the membership of the town council." The Workers' Party was thus forced to develop its own software on short notice.

The termination of the lease upon the Workers' Party takeover led to suspicions that the services had been denied an opposition ward for political reasons. It would not be the first time such suspicions have been held: the PAP has been criticized for using promises of upgrading to win votes, while constituencies who vote for the opposition will have to wait. It has also been suspected that the government chose not to open a new train station in opposition-held Potong Pasir until it returned to the PAP. In fact, during the 2011 General Election, former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had warned voters that they would "repent" if they voted for the opposition.

AIM's termination of the lease to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council became more controversial, however, after it emerged that the company is wholly owned by the PAP. The website TR Emeritus revealed AIM to be a dormant company with paid-up capital of a mere S$2. Its three directors, Lau Ping Sum, Chandra Das and Chew Heng Ching, had all been former PAP members of parliament.

The revelations sparked concerns among Singaporeans over the fact that a piece of software developed by public funds for the running of town councils had been sold to a private company wholly owned by the governing political party.

A stream of press releases and statements from both the PAP and AIM have sought to deny any impropriety. A statement by Dr Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of the 14 town councils in the hands of the PAP, was published in full in the mainstream media, in which he explained that although five companies had collected tender documents, only AIM submitted a bid, and was therefore selected.

"We were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honor its commitments," Teo wrote.

AIM's director, Chandra Das, also came forward to explain why AIM had submitted a tender proposal while the other four companies who had picked up documents chose not to: "AIM participated in the tender not knowing other companies would not do so. The sums involved in the transactions are modest. But as a PAP company, we wanted to be helpful to the PAP Town Councils. So we were ready to take on the task and submitted the proposals to help the PAP Town Councils achieve their goals."

Yet none of these statements addressed the major issue. Critics question the propriety of selling off public services to companies with political affiliations.

The prime minister's reaction to Alex Au's blog posts indicates that the government may not be eager to address this concern. Au has removed the posts from the Internet. On Jan. 5, the blogger issued a public apology saying he recognized that publication of the controversy was an accusation of corruption on the part of Lee Hsien Loong.
 
The bad mark on the AHTC in the audit should be seen as a commendable approach of managing delinquencies. Unlike PAP TCs which are quick to serve legal notices, which cost the TC money, on residents with arrears, the AHTC did not take such high-handed approaches. That's why the AHTC scored a bad mark on the audit which is dictated by the PAP government.
The AHTC should get a special mention of efficiency; the residents are well-served, perhaps better than the PAP wards, with less money. That's efficiency working, unlike the big talks of the PAP wards.
 
Tan Jee Say has issued the following statement on AIM. As a former PPS, he asks a lot of hard questions about how the tender procedure has deviated from the tender procedure that is supposed to be practiced in the Singapore Civil Service.

Does PAP pass the "smell" test?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tan-jee-say/does-pap-pass-the-smell-test/406305486115399

If the PM hopes to stop social media talk (and coffeeshop talk) on the AIM saga with his lawyer's defamation letter to well-known blogger Alex Au, he will be sorely disappointed. In fact, Alex has just posted Part 6 of his legendary "PAP''s misAIMed blow" series of blogs as he had promised when he posted his apology. I admire Alex for his persistence and tenacity which can only mean one thing - that he truly believes in what he has written and done to expose questionable deeds and do society good. Well done Alex! Many other bloggers have joined in too, adding greater clarity.

Most postings have so far concentrated on the transaction itself, its propriety or lack thereof, the conflict of interest, the sale of a public-funded asset to a partisan body and many other related aspects. I have not noticed much being written about the supervisory aspects, the rules and regulations of governance which if properly and duly followed could have prevented this misAIMed episode. I hope to fill the gap with this posting.

What are these rules and who are responsible for supervising them? The official website

http://www.TownCouncils.sg states :

"MND sets the broad legislative framework and financial guidelines under the Town Councils Act and Town Council Financial Rules to ensure proper governance and accountability by Town Councils. As the public housing authority, HDB advises and assists MND in its regulatory duties. HDB also works closely with Town Councils in its capacity as the owner of common property in HDB estates."

So there is a close working relationship between MND, HDB and the town councils, and the Minister for National Development has a lot to answer for in this particular issue; however, he has been unusually quiet these days, which is so uncharacteristic of him; remember the Yaw Shin Leong affair when he was all guns blazing in Parliament, demanding WP to come clean on all aspects, yet was quiet as a mouse when confronted with his fellow PAP MP Michael Palmer's fling? Did HDB officers bring this matter to the minister and if so, what was his response? Did he declare that he was an interested party by virtue of the fact that the bidder was a PAP company? Were the procedures followed? The public tender announcement stated that the closing date of tender was 14 July 2010, but AIM submitted its bid on 20 July, six days after the closing date and was accepted. Was the tender period extended and if so, why and how was this communicated?

68610_406320859447195_944011738_n.jpg

Note the tender's closing date of 14 July 2010 - AIM's bid was submitted on 20 July 2010.


Since it was a single bid, did MND/HDB officers ensure that MOF's financial guidelines on single bids were followed? DPM and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament on 13 August 2012 that "for procurements where only a single bid is received, MOF will require the officers responsible to provide additional justifications to the Approving Authority within each agency, setting out why they consider the single bid competitive or reflective of market prices, before a decision is made to award the contract." Did the MND/HDB officers set out the additional justifications as required of them before AIM was awarded the contract, and if so what were these justifications particularly in light of the basic eligibility requirement stated in the tender announcement that the bidder be "an experienced and reputable company with relevant track record"? Was the MND satisfied with these justifications? Was the opinion of the MOF sought on this matter? If so, what was MOF's response?

So there are more parties involved in this issue of governance than just the bidder and town councils. This should be the case as public money is involved and proper checks and balances need to be in place. The all-important question is whether the gatekeeper is doing his job. The ultimate gatekeeper of the nation's finance is of course the President, but should his office be involved in this matter? Yes I believe so as the sole bidder was a company owned by the ruling party and only someone above party politics can be a judge of its propriety.
 
Last edited:
Tan Jee Say has issued the following statement on AIM. As a former PPS, he asks a lot of hard questions about how the tender procedure has deviated from the tender procedure that is supposed to be practiced in the Singapore Civil Service.

Does PAP pass the "smell" test?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/tan-jee-say/does-pap-pass-the-smell-test/406305486115399

If the PM hopes to stop social media talk (and coffeeshop talk) on the AIM saga with his lawyer's defamation letter to well-known blogger Alex Au, he will be sorely disappointed. In fact, Alex has just posted Part 6 of his legendary "PAP''s misAIMed blow" series of blogs as he had promised when he posted his apology. I admire Alex for his persistence and tenacity which can only mean one thing - that he truly believes in what he has written and done to expose questionable deeds and do society good. Well done Alex! Many other bloggers have joined in too, adding greater clarity.

Most postings have so far concentrated on the transaction itself, its propriety or lack thereof, the conflict of interest, the sale of a public-funded asset to a partisan body and many other related aspects. I have not noticed much being written about the supervisory aspects, the rules and regulations of governance which if properly and duly followed could have prevented this misAIMed episode. I hope to fill the gap with this posting.

What are these rules and who are responsible for supervising them? The official website

http://www.TownCouncils.sg states :



So there is a close working relationship between MND, HDB and the town councils, and the Minister for National Development has a lot to answer for in this particular issue; however, he has been unusually quiet these days, which is so uncharacteristic of him; remember the Yaw Shin Leong affair when he was all guns blazing in Parliament, demanding WP to come clean on all aspects, yet was quiet as a mouse when confronted with his fellow PAP MP Michael Palmer's fling? Did HDB officers bring this matter to the minister and if so, what was his response? Did he declare that he was an interested party by virtue of the fact that the bidder was a PAP company? Were the procedures followed? The public tender announcement stated that the closing date of tender was 14 July 2010, but AIM submitted its bid on 20 July, six days after the closing date and was accepted. Was the tender period extended and if so, why and how was this communicated?

68610_406320859447195_944011738_n.jpg

Note the tender's closing date of 14 July 2010 - AIM's bid was submitted on 20 July 2010.


Since it was a single bid, did MND/HDB officers ensure that MOF's financial guidelines on single bids were followed? DPM and Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam told Parliament on 13 August 2012 that "for procurements where only a single bid is received, MOF will require the officers responsible to provide additional justifications to the Approving Authority within each agency, setting out why they consider the single bid competitive or reflective of market prices, before a decision is made to award the contract." Did the MND/HDB officers set out the additional justifications as required of them before AIM was awarded the contract, and if so what were these justifications particularly in light of the basic eligibility requirement stated in the tender announcement that the bidder be "an experienced and reputable company with relevant track record"? Was the MND satisfied with these justifications? Was the opinion of the MOF sought on this matter? If so, what was MOF's response?

So there are more parties involved in this issue of governance than just the bidder and town councils. This should be the case as public money is involved and proper checks and balances need to be in place. The all-important question is whether the gatekeeper is doing his job. The ultimate gatekeeper of the nation's finance is of course the President, but should his office be involved in this matter? Yes I believe so as the sole bidder was a company owned by the ruling party and only someone above party politics can be a judge of its propriety.

TJS should be President!
 
The bad mark on the AHTC in the audit should be seen as a commendable approach of managing delinquencies. Unlike PAP TCs which are quick to serve legal notices, which cost the TC money, on residents with arrears, the AHTC did not take such high-handed approaches. That's why the AHTC scored a bad mark on the audit which is dictated by the PAP government.
yeah. this is a fair representation of what is happening.
 
PM Lee has finally broken his silence and issued a press statement.

17024651034148627759.jpg


PRESS STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG: MND TO REVIEW AIM TRANSACTION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN TOWN COUNCILS

http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosi..._statement_byprimeministerleehsienloong0.html

Last week, Mayor Teo Ho Pin explained the circumstances of the sale of Town Council (TC) management software belonging to PAP TCs in an open tender to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2010. The transaction was not raised as an issue by any of the external auditors who audited the FY2010 accounts of these TCs.

In the interest of transparency and maintaining trust in the system, I have asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) to review this transaction fully, and satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests were not compromised.

With a view to ensuring high overall standards of corporate governance in TCs, MND will take a broad-based approach, including re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs. MND has begun the review, which is expected to take a month or two.


PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
8 JANUARY 2013
 
Last edited:
PM Lee has finally broken his silence and issued a press statement.

PRESS STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG: MND TO REVIEW AIM TRANSACTION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN TOWN COUNCILS

http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosi..._statement_byprimeministerleehsienloong0.html

Last week, Mayor Teo Ho Pin explained the circumstances of the sale of Town Council (TC) management software belonging to PAP TCs in an open tender to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2010. The transaction was not raised as an issue by any of the external auditors who audited the FY2010 accounts of these TCs.

In the interest of transparency and maintaining trust in the system, I have asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) to review this transaction fully, and satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests were not compromised.

With a view to ensuring high overall standards of corporate governance in TCs, MND will take a broad-based approach, including re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs. MND has begun the review, which is expected to take a month or two.


PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
8 JANUARY 2013

The PAP TCs could hang the auditors out to dry. Just because the auditors did not mention anything, does not mean that everything was fine. The auditors of Enron and Global Crossing are no longer in existence.
 
If the MND and the TCs work together, why would an investigation of the TC by MND shed any light? If the PM is serious about transparency, request the auditor general to investigate at the minimal. The ideal approach is to bring an reputable international forensic auditor. If the report sides with the PAP TC, it will end all criticism.

What do you say, PM?
 
The PAP TCs could hang the auditors out to dry. Just because the auditors did not mention anything, does not mean that everything was fine. The auditors of Enron and Global Crossing are no longer in existence.

Which audit firm they used for the review?
 
So you are suggesting that only the audit firm and those who do the leg work will be chopped... people in high post who agrees with the plan will escape again!
 
PM Lee has finally broken his silence and issued a press statement.

17024651034148627759.jpg


PRESS STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG: MND TO REVIEW AIM TRANSACTION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN TOWN COUNCILS

http://www.pmo.gov.sg/content/pmosi..._statement_byprimeministerleehsienloong0.html

Last week, Mayor Teo Ho Pin explained the circumstances of the sale of Town Council (TC) management software belonging to PAP TCs in an open tender to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2010. The transaction was not raised as an issue by any of the external auditors who audited the FY2010 accounts of these TCs.

In the interest of transparency and maintaining trust in the system, I have asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) to review this transaction fully, and satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests were not compromised.

With a view to ensuring high overall standards of corporate governance in TCs, MND will take a broad-based approach, including re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs. MND has begun the review, which is expected to take a month or two.


PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
8 JANUARY 2013

I think that most people would agree that while the transactions were highly improper, nothing illegal was done. Alex Au was sued for seeming to suggest that it could have been illegal or corrupt. He didn't have to change any of parts 2-6 which were more substantive in its criticism.

The PM is obviously buying himself some time to react. This move will mean one of two things:

1. It's a convenient excuse to do a "rethink" and some reforms in the way town councils are managed will take place ("re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs"), he could try to dismantle the system without losing too much face, without acknowledging that it is the result of public pressure, or
2. It's just a cover up and down the line there will be the same old same old.
 
I think that most people would agree that while the transactions were highly improper, nothing illegal was done. Alex Au was sued for seeming to suggest that it could have been illegal or corrupt. He didn't have to change any of parts 2-6 which were more substantive in its criticism.

The PM is obviously buying himself some time to react. This move will mean one of two things:

1. It's a convenient excuse to do a "rethink" and some reforms in the way town councils are managed will take place ("re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs"), he could try to dismantle the system without losing too much face, without acknowledging that it is the result of public pressure, or
2. It's just a cover up and down the line there will be the same old same old.

If anything, i hope its number 1. Any reforms, even if its a bit of a wayang, is still beneficial to all. Better than being stubborn and send lawyer letters, but change nothing.
 
This is not true. There have been many calls for CPIB to investigate.

I think that most people would agree that while the transactions were highly improper, nothing illegal was done. Alex Au was sued for seeming to suggest that it could have been illegal or corrupt.
 
I think that most people would agree that while the transactions were highly improper, nothing illegal was done. Alex Au was sued for seeming to suggest that it could have been illegal or corrupt. He didn't have to change any of parts 2-6 which were more substantive in its criticism.

The PM is obviously buying himself some time to react. This move will mean one of two things:

1. It's a convenient excuse to do a "rethink" and some reforms in the way town councils are managed will take place ("re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs"), he could try to dismantle the system without losing too much face, without acknowledging that it is the result of public pressure, or
2. It's just a cover up and down the line there will be the same old same old.

If you understand laws and hierarchy, it is illegal and corrupt in all developed countries. In fact, it is already considered collusion and misappropriation of funds.
 
hahaha...when scroobal said the same thing with guarantee....nobody batted an eyelid.
the same thing suggested by a newbie will earn immediate retorts.....lol.
 
Last edited:
I think that most people would agree that while the transactions were highly improper, nothing illegal was done. Alex Au was sued for seeming to suggest that it could have been illegal or corrupt. He didn't have to change any of parts 2-6 which were more substantive in its criticism.

The manipulation of the tendering process to ensure a preferred party wins the tender is itself, a corrupt practice.
Why was the NPark Brompton case referred to CPIB?
 
The manipulation of the tendering process to ensure a preferred party wins the tender is itself, a corrupt practice.
Why was the NPark Brompton case referred to CPIB?

OK, that could have been illegal. I was thinking if there was a law against AIM being in private hands - that would not have gotten past parliament.

So you think that this "let the MND review this" thing is also a way to deflect against the charges of illegality?

Is it possible that WP will keep quiet because this situation is so fucked up that it will damage the PAP immensely without them opening their mouths? Pretty sure though we will be hearing no end of this during 2016.
 
WP definitely isn't keeping quiet, they have already filed a motion for the 14th Jan parliament sitting. Which might just be why LHL had to call for the review, just so that they can delay the debate.
 
Back
Top