-
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.
PAP in Town Council Scandal
- Thread starter Pioneer
- Start date
Re: On mis-Aiming and Low Blows
i remember during 2011GE, outside bookies also have plate for aljunied GRC, with PAP put 5000 votes. i rem starting if u take WP eat 5K votes, is win full lose less, but near to close plate, WP eat 5k is win 8 only. so u can see, even the illegal bookies also know that high chance aljunied is going to fall to WP
i remember during 2011GE, outside bookies also have plate for aljunied GRC, with PAP put 5000 votes. i rem starting if u take WP eat 5K votes, is win full lose less, but near to close plate, WP eat 5k is win 8 only. so u can see, even the illegal bookies also know that high chance aljunied is going to fall to WP
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Re: On mis-Aiming and Low Blows
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1244331/1/.html.
Computer firm says town council's claim "inaccurate"
By Tan Qiuyi | Posted: 24 December 2012 1636 hrs
SINGAPORE: A disagreement between Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) and a company that used to provide its computer and financial systems continues.
In a letter to the media, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) said AHTC Chairman Sylvia Lim's allegation that a service extension with AIM had to be "fought for" was inaccurate.
AIM said two service extensions were granted - in August and September 2011 - before the contract lapsed.
AIM also said it would have agreed to a further extension if the AHTC had asked for it.
As AHTC did not do so, the contract was allowed to lapse.
Ms Lim had said they did not believe any further extension was forthcoming.
AIM Chairman S Chandra Das said the company's current directors, three former People's Action Party (PAP) MPs, namely himself, Chew Heng Ching, and Lau Ping Sum do not receive directors' fees or any other benefits.
In a separate letter, PAP Town Councils said its Town Councils Management System (TCMS) was sold to AIM through an open tender, and their contract was in accordance with the Town Councils' Financial Regulations.
Ms Lim had earlier asked why PAP Town Councils (TCs) had transferred ownership of its computer software to a third party, and questioned the AIM's contract with the PAP TCs.
Coordinating Chairman of 14 PAP TCs Dr Teo Ho Pin said the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd.
In 2010, PAP TCs called an open tender to sell the ownership of the developed application software.
Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP.
AIM offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC, for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.
Dr Teo said after the 2011 general election, AIM decided to end the contract with AHTC.
AIM only owns the rights to the software, so all computer hardware belong to the respective TCs and these remained with AHTC when its contract with AIM ended.
Dr Teo also said the handover by AIM to AHTC took place from 27 May to 9 September, and during the transition, AIM had promptly handed over all data and information to AHTC in accordance with the TC's preferred format.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1244331/1/.html.
Computer firm says town council's claim "inaccurate"
By Tan Qiuyi | Posted: 24 December 2012 1636 hrs
SINGAPORE: A disagreement between Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) and a company that used to provide its computer and financial systems continues.
In a letter to the media, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) said AHTC Chairman Sylvia Lim's allegation that a service extension with AIM had to be "fought for" was inaccurate.
AIM said two service extensions were granted - in August and September 2011 - before the contract lapsed.
AIM also said it would have agreed to a further extension if the AHTC had asked for it.
As AHTC did not do so, the contract was allowed to lapse.
Ms Lim had said they did not believe any further extension was forthcoming.
AIM Chairman S Chandra Das said the company's current directors, three former People's Action Party (PAP) MPs, namely himself, Chew Heng Ching, and Lau Ping Sum do not receive directors' fees or any other benefits.
In a separate letter, PAP Town Councils said its Town Councils Management System (TCMS) was sold to AIM through an open tender, and their contract was in accordance with the Town Councils' Financial Regulations.
Ms Lim had earlier asked why PAP Town Councils (TCs) had transferred ownership of its computer software to a third party, and questioned the AIM's contract with the PAP TCs.
Coordinating Chairman of 14 PAP TCs Dr Teo Ho Pin said the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd.
In 2010, PAP TCs called an open tender to sell the ownership of the developed application software.
Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP.
AIM offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC, for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.
Dr Teo said after the 2011 general election, AIM decided to end the contract with AHTC.
AIM only owns the rights to the software, so all computer hardware belong to the respective TCs and these remained with AHTC when its contract with AIM ended.
Dr Teo also said the handover by AIM to AHTC took place from 27 May to 9 September, and during the transition, AIM had promptly handed over all data and information to AHTC in accordance with the TC's preferred format.
1) Still unable to provide reason for the sell and lease-back.
2) Unable to provide the business case done for this
3) Yet to show how this initiative benefits the town councils and the residents
4) Why the 3 ex PAP MPs who do claim that they did not get a penny undertake a "charitable" act
Skirting the issues and talking about termination and extensions is not going make this go away. Who the hell is concerned about the mango skin?
2) Unable to provide the business case done for this
3) Yet to show how this initiative benefits the town councils and the residents
4) Why the 3 ex PAP MPs who do claim that they did not get a penny undertake a "charitable" act
Skirting the issues and talking about termination and extensions is not going make this go away. Who the hell is concerned about the mango skin?
December 24, 2012 at 1:50 pm by Leong
I refer to the report “Computer firm says town council’s claim “inaccurate”” (Channel NewsAsia, Dec 24).
Open tender?
It states that “In 2010, PAP TCs called an open tender to sell the ownership of the developed application software.
But only 1 bid?
Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP.
Fantastic ROI?
AIM offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC, for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.”
$785 a month times 14 town councils means that the annual revenue would be $131,880.
This must arguably be the best business tender deal of the century, with 94 per cent of the investment recouped in just the first year!
Have operating costs?
Since “AIM only owns the rights to the software, so all computer hardware belong to the respective TCs and these remained with AHTC when its contract with AIM ended”, does it mean that AIM will not incur any operating costs?
If so, then this may be the best investment in the world with a return on investment of 371 per cent ($131,880 times 5 years divided by $140,000) after say five years!
Any maintenance?
Is AIM involved in any way in the maintenance of the software? Who will maintain the software?
Make documents public?
How was the open tender called and publicised? Can the tender document and all related minutes of meetings, decisions taken, etc be made public?
Who are the other four parties who collected the tender document, but did not submit a bid?
Why? Why?
The most important question in my view remains unanswered – why was the decision taken to sell the software and terminate Aljunied-Hougang town council’s use of the system?
Residents’ interests?
Were the interests of the residents considered? How can such a move be in the interest of the residents and Singaporeans? If the opposition had won more constituencies, wouldn’t there have been kaos for our citizens if the opposition town councils all had their software terminated, and couldn’t get them up and running in good time without severe interruption to services to the residents?
Who decided?
Who were involved in making this decision? – Were all the town councils’ MPs and town councilors aware of and condoned such a decision?
Can all the documents, meeting minutes, etc, relating to this be made public?
Any more “fully owned” companies?
How many companies fully owned by the PAP are there, and what else do they own?
Isn’t the above and the subject saga a clear conflict of interest?
What were the original contract terms?
As to “Coordinating Chairman of 14 PAP TCs Dr Teo Ho Pin said the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd”, another unanswered question is how much was spent to develop the software? Were town councils’ funds and thus residents’ funds used?
Since “the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd”, what were the original contract terms, maintenance terms, etc? Should’t these be made public now?
What a “stupid” reason?
With regard to “In a letter to the media, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) said AHTC Chairman Sylvia Lim’s allegation that a service extension with AIM had to be “fought for” was inaccurate.
AIM said two service extensions were granted – in August and September 2011 – before the contract lapsed.
AIM also said it would have agreed to a further extension if the AHTC had asked for it.
As AHTC did not do so, the contract was allowed to lapse.
Ms Lim had said they did not believe any further extension was forthcoming”, this must be the “most stupid” reason that I have ever seen – if you terminate a service, and did not tell anyone that it can be extended if only the terminated party had asked again for the third time, then how would anyone know and ask for another extension?
If AIM was prepared to keep extending, then why terminate in the first place?
Where did the $140,000 come from?
In respect of “AIM Chairman S Chandra Das said the company’s current directors, three former People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs, namely himself, Chew Heng Ching, and Lau Ping Sum do not receive directors’ fees or any other benefits”, since as I understand it AIM is a $2 company, who provided the $140,000 to buy the software?
Was the requirement of good governance and due diligence followed by the 14 town councils in deciding to accept the only tenderee under such cirscmstances?
In accordance with regulations?
As to “In a separate letter, PAP Town Councils said its Town Councils Management System (TCMS) was sold to AIM through an open tender, and their contract was in accordance with the Town Councils’ Financial Regulations”, after all the revelations that are coming out in the subject saga and with still so many unanswered questions, is there something wrong which may leave much to be desired with the way town councils award contracts “in accordance with the Town Councils’ Financial Regulations”?
Who’s doing the work?
With regard to “Dr Teo also said the handover by AIM to AHTC took place from 27 May to 9 September, and during the transition, AIM had promptly handed over all data and information to AHTC in accordance with the TC’s preferred format”, who did all these work to hand over the data and information – staff of AIM?
“Material change” ‘si simi’?
Since the software was sold with a clause that allowed for AIM to terminate the software lease with a month’s notice should there be a “material change” to the town council’s membership, was this the reason for termination? Now, this is the strange part – why would anyone sell a vital software by open tender to anyone and be arguably held to ranson, if and when there is “a “material change” to the town council’s membership” – whatever this “material change” was intended to mean?
More questions galore!
It appears that as we get more answers to Singaporeans’ questions on this continuing saga, the more questions may seem to be raised? Uniquely Singapore!
Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the report “Computer firm says town council’s claim “inaccurate”” (Channel NewsAsia, Dec 24).
Open tender?
It states that “In 2010, PAP TCs called an open tender to sell the ownership of the developed application software.
But only 1 bid?
Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP.
Fantastic ROI?
AIM offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC, for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.”
$785 a month times 14 town councils means that the annual revenue would be $131,880.
This must arguably be the best business tender deal of the century, with 94 per cent of the investment recouped in just the first year!
Have operating costs?
Since “AIM only owns the rights to the software, so all computer hardware belong to the respective TCs and these remained with AHTC when its contract with AIM ended”, does it mean that AIM will not incur any operating costs?
If so, then this may be the best investment in the world with a return on investment of 371 per cent ($131,880 times 5 years divided by $140,000) after say five years!
Any maintenance?
Is AIM involved in any way in the maintenance of the software? Who will maintain the software?
Make documents public?
How was the open tender called and publicised? Can the tender document and all related minutes of meetings, decisions taken, etc be made public?
Who are the other four parties who collected the tender document, but did not submit a bid?
Why? Why?
The most important question in my view remains unanswered – why was the decision taken to sell the software and terminate Aljunied-Hougang town council’s use of the system?
Residents’ interests?
Were the interests of the residents considered? How can such a move be in the interest of the residents and Singaporeans? If the opposition had won more constituencies, wouldn’t there have been kaos for our citizens if the opposition town councils all had their software terminated, and couldn’t get them up and running in good time without severe interruption to services to the residents?
Who decided?
Who were involved in making this decision? – Were all the town councils’ MPs and town councilors aware of and condoned such a decision?
Can all the documents, meeting minutes, etc, relating to this be made public?
Any more “fully owned” companies?
How many companies fully owned by the PAP are there, and what else do they own?
Isn’t the above and the subject saga a clear conflict of interest?
What were the original contract terms?
As to “Coordinating Chairman of 14 PAP TCs Dr Teo Ho Pin said the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd”, another unanswered question is how much was spent to develop the software? Were town councils’ funds and thus residents’ funds used?
Since “the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd”, what were the original contract terms, maintenance terms, etc? Should’t these be made public now?
What a “stupid” reason?
With regard to “In a letter to the media, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) said AHTC Chairman Sylvia Lim’s allegation that a service extension with AIM had to be “fought for” was inaccurate.
AIM said two service extensions were granted – in August and September 2011 – before the contract lapsed.
AIM also said it would have agreed to a further extension if the AHTC had asked for it.
As AHTC did not do so, the contract was allowed to lapse.
Ms Lim had said they did not believe any further extension was forthcoming”, this must be the “most stupid” reason that I have ever seen – if you terminate a service, and did not tell anyone that it can be extended if only the terminated party had asked again for the third time, then how would anyone know and ask for another extension?
If AIM was prepared to keep extending, then why terminate in the first place?
Where did the $140,000 come from?
In respect of “AIM Chairman S Chandra Das said the company’s current directors, three former People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs, namely himself, Chew Heng Ching, and Lau Ping Sum do not receive directors’ fees or any other benefits”, since as I understand it AIM is a $2 company, who provided the $140,000 to buy the software?
Was the requirement of good governance and due diligence followed by the 14 town councils in deciding to accept the only tenderee under such cirscmstances?
In accordance with regulations?
As to “In a separate letter, PAP Town Councils said its Town Councils Management System (TCMS) was sold to AIM through an open tender, and their contract was in accordance with the Town Councils’ Financial Regulations”, after all the revelations that are coming out in the subject saga and with still so many unanswered questions, is there something wrong which may leave much to be desired with the way town councils award contracts “in accordance with the Town Councils’ Financial Regulations”?
Who’s doing the work?
With regard to “Dr Teo also said the handover by AIM to AHTC took place from 27 May to 9 September, and during the transition, AIM had promptly handed over all data and information to AHTC in accordance with the TC’s preferred format”, who did all these work to hand over the data and information – staff of AIM?
“Material change” ‘si simi’?
Since the software was sold with a clause that allowed for AIM to terminate the software lease with a month’s notice should there be a “material change” to the town council’s membership, was this the reason for termination? Now, this is the strange part – why would anyone sell a vital software by open tender to anyone and be arguably held to ranson, if and when there is “a “material change” to the town council’s membership” – whatever this “material change” was intended to mean?
More questions galore!
It appears that as we get more answers to Singaporeans’ questions on this continuing saga, the more questions may seem to be raised? Uniquely Singapore!
Leong Sze Hian
1) Does Benefits also include monthly salary?
2) AIM is owned by PAP, so the 2 shareholders must be nominees of PAP. Why the need to operate through nominees?
3) It is to mask the fact that PAP, like UMNO, is involved in businesses? How many more such companies are there?
4) I note that Das was involved with 90+ companies, Chew with 70+ and Lau about 20. Is any of these PAP's business.
5) As a political party, under current legislation, is it allow to be involved in business? Did they declare them?
6) If this is allowed, why the need to operate through nominees? What are they hiding? What are the things they don't want the public to know?
7) How many of these companies were involved with govt contracts? Any conflict of interest or favour involved?
8) Were the income from these investment (if any) used to fund PAP or used as retirement funds for their politicians.
As I said before, the more they try to spin, more questions surfaced!
if the money the TCs paid monthly to AIM yet the shareholders and directors dont receive a cents from the AIM then the money go where huh?
why talk aout directors fees?
they own the company..... they collect $13,000+++ from the town councils monthly, and sub-contract to NCS to managed (NCS is probably being contracted to develop and manage the program fully paid by the TCs.) ,,,,,
the director's fees and the hardware are of NO issue of the whole fiasco
they own the company..... they collect $13,000+++ from the town councils monthly, and sub-contract to NCS to managed (NCS is probably being contracted to develop and manage the program fully paid by the TCs.) ,,,,,
the director's fees and the hardware are of NO issue of the whole fiasco
Last edited:
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
S Chandra Das = Samy C Das ? = Datoh Samy Velu ?
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
can see how greedy these people .
never enough . relationships with more than 90 companies :(
.
never enough . relationships with more than 90 companies :(
.
AIM purchased the financial software from Town Councils = $140,000.00.
AIM collects annual management fee from Town Councils =$785.00 per month per TC X 14 TCs X 12 months=$131,880.00
AIM collects 5 year management fee form Town Councils = $131,880.00 X 5 =$659,400.00
AIM's ROI = $659,400.00 divided by $140,000.00 =471 % !!!Payback period of investment = 1 year and 1 mth. !!!Why only PAP lackeys can get this type of good lobang ??? Somemore guaranteed returns.Why never give chance to other Singaporeans ???
AIM collects annual management fee from Town Councils =$785.00 per month per TC X 14 TCs X 12 months=$131,880.00
AIM collects 5 year management fee form Town Councils = $131,880.00 X 5 =$659,400.00
AIM's ROI = $659,400.00 divided by $140,000.00 =471 % !!!Payback period of investment = 1 year and 1 mth. !!!Why only PAP lackeys can get this type of good lobang ??? Somemore guaranteed returns.Why never give chance to other Singaporeans ???
Last edited:
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
.
very long long story so far .
.
now what to do ???
how prove AIM , Action Information Management Pte Ltd , done wrong ???
if got evidence then waiting for what ??? :(
very long long story so far .
.
now what to do ???
how prove AIM , Action Information Management Pte Ltd , done wrong ???
if got evidence then waiting for what ??? :(
This is broad daylight corruption ,collusion and nepotism.
Somebody say nobody can touch the ex-PAP MPs cos they are PAP.U know PAP equal to what ?
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
PAP is a political party. Do they audit their account annually? How much are they worth now? Assuming it runs into hundred of millions....how did they acquired so much wealth?
Who are the shareholders?
hahaha....son, pse think before you post otherwise you keep embarassing yourself....
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.
This was well before the HG BE....was it a BE issue?????
Don't shoot yourself in the foot all the time.......are u suggesting WP is daft all this while and did not know how to exploit this during HG BE and just awoken from their slumber because you pointed this out to them????.....lol.
Last edited:
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
chey , like that AIM got no case to answer :(
Similar threads
