On mis-Aiming and Low Blows
On mis-Aiming and Low Blows
by Wah June Hwang on Monday, 24 December 2012 at 01:59 ·
I'd like to share some of my thoughts on the recent discussions on the sale of accounting software developed by PAP Town Councils to a private company (AIM), and subsequent claims that this caused Aljunid-Hougang Town Council to be unable to submit its financial reports for audit.
What This Is Not
First things first. This is hardly an elaborate PAP scheme to screw up the Opposition. The software was sold to AIM well before GE 11, when PAP lost Aljunid GRC to WP. They could not have anticipated the loss of a GRC to the Opposition. If they were so prescient, they would have moved some of the key people out of Aljunid GRC first!
Another was claim that the company the software was sold to was a dormant $2 company, and the allusion that therefore the deal was somehow shady. This is indeed a sneaky low blow. Anyone who has done business will know that to set up a company, one can go to an accounting firm. The accounting firm has already created a number of $2 companies that can be readily transferred to the entreprenuer, with default corporate structures. This method is fast and efficient. It also explains why the company was dormant when the sale of software was made. A quick check with ACRA will show that the company is not dormant since (having filed its accounts in Dec 11) and had its last AGM on 25 May 12.
Why Sell Software?
Let's come back to the sale/lease-back of Town Council software to AIM from the Town Councils. Why do something like that? Actually, this is a common mechanism in commercial sector. The most obvious reason is for the Town Councils to recover cash tied up in the development of the software. The second, is to separate usage of the software from its original ownership. As such, other PAP constituencies which did not contribute to the original development can also benefit from the software, by paying a licensing fee. Also, if a better software came around, the Town Councils can migrate to the new system.
Contract Clauses
Ms Sylvia Lim pointed to one particular clause in the lease-back contract and asked, "How is it in the public interest to have such a thing?" A contract is a collection of many clauses. I do not know for a fact, but I'd bet there is a recipocral clause in it that allowed the Town Council to terminate as well. Might as well point in isolation to the clause that says the Town Council must pay a fee to the contractor and ask "How is it in public interest to have such a thing?"
If No AIM Contract, Will Everything Be Fine?
Even if the software was not licensed to AIM, has it ever occurred to anyone that the new Aljunid-Hougang Town Council could not still not have continued using the system? Yes, since Hougang SMC has not paid for the development of the software, how is it equitable for it use the system? In this instance, the new Aljunid GRC has benefited from the transfer (at least it got its money back), although I do not think it was the intention of the former Aljunid Town Council.
A Smokescreen?
AHTC's contract with AIM was extended from Aug and Sep. AHTC did not ask for a further extension of the contract because they did not think AIM would agree. It would not cost WP anything to pick up the phone or to send an email to AIM to check, but they did not do so. If the software were so important to the running of the Town Council, how, in Ms Lim's own words, is it in public interest to do such a thing? Or perhaps, they never had the intention to continue using the thing, and this issue only came up as an excuse after the bad Town Council report (which incidentally also included lowest banding for management of arrears and conservancy charges)?
The Main Point
Let us not lose sight of the main issue. It has been 20 months since WP won Aljunid in GE May 11, and a whole 16 months since termination of the lease of AIM contract. Perhaps the AIM system has many bells and whistles, but once AHTC has accepted that it cannot continue using AIM's system in Aug 11, should it not take the effort to put at least a working accounting system in place? To claim this as the cause of their not able to produce accounts for audit in 2012 is disingenious at best. We are talking about an accounting system, not building a nuclear bomb! Surely Hougang SMC had a working system that can be adapted?
