08-55-04%5D.JPG)
The movie "Lincoln" centers on President Abraham Lincoln's efforts to obtain passage for the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which would formally abolish slavery in the country.
When Confederate envoys sailed to meet with Lincoln to negotiate a peace that leaves slavery intact, he instructs them to be kept out of Washington as the amendment approaches a vote on the House floor. At the critical moment, a rumor circulates that there are Confederate representatives in Washington ready to discuss peace, prompting both Democrats and conservative Republicans to advocate postponing the vote on the amendment.
Lincoln explicitly denied that such envoys are in or will be in the city. His note as read out to the House: "So far as I know, there are no peace commissioners in the city." Technically it was a truthful statement, since he had ordered them to be kept away, and the vote proceeds, narrowly passing by a margin of two votes. What Lincoln did was an impeachable offence.
Maybe it was just typical Hollywood to juice up the truth, but it reminds one of the wayang at play in Chan Sek Keong's infamous ruling of 1997. Specifically, about Goh Chok Tong and his lawless lot not breaching any election law by being inside the Cheng San polling station but not within 200 meters of it. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction.
The latest blockbuster in town is about AIM not bidding for the PAP town council IT tender. Chairman Chandra Das says his $2 company is not participating because "AIM had helped prepared the tender documents." Why would an on-going commercial entity intentionally write a document that will exclude it from a bona fide business opportunity? If Ben Affleck makes a movie out of this escapade, you bet he will win that Best Director award. No artistic licence required, the intrigue is all for real.
Posts
Only a Committee of Inquiry by the Opposition parties will have any lasting credibility ... ?
ReplyDeleteAIM is not particpating because there is another $2 company participating. No they use $3 company this time instead to avoid rousing suspicion.
ReplyDeleteTHis is an impeachable crime worthy of an oscar writing material, post GE 2016.
DeleteHmm is anyone else having problems with the pictures on this blog loading?
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to determine if its a problem on my end or if it's the blog.
Any feed-back would be greatly appreciated.
My page - tips for fat loss
There's nothing to stop them from using another PAP $2 paid-up company to tender. We do not know how many $2 company has been registered.
ReplyDeleteThis time round they will be more professional lah. Maybe a $10 company setup as a Special Investment Vehicle subsidiary under Temasek. If people complain, they will say why complain? The profits go back into the national reserves, the reserves are the peoples money right? Sounds good tio boh? Of course the staff in the SIV and Temasek will get very good salary and bonuses, cannot pay peanuts right?
ReplyDeleteNo, this time they smarter - they use a $3 company owned by the SPOUSES and RELATIVES of PAP MPs. Smart right?
ReplyDeleteNo lah, PAPies learned their lesson liao. They won't be so stupid to again have PAPies or their spouses/relatives as direct owners of the company.
ReplyDeleteAnon 28 Feb 1:17pm is right. The smart thing is to create subsidiaries under Temasek or GIC or GLCs. And then recruit PAPies and their spouses/relatives as staff of those subsidiaries, voted on and approved by Boards of "independent directors". Salaries and bonuses to be approved also by the same.
Everything is all according to the letter of the law, and by all the regulatory books. Nothing to investigate and cannot sue. Courts will all say "you got no case".
All wrong: AIM still owns the "IP", whoever wins must pay it royalty, the same IP which it bougth for .... $140k. It is unlikely that a new system will be developed, so without sweating, they have a money printing machine. And fret not, whoever wins the new contract will just charge the "royalty" payable to AIM, directly to the 13 town councils. So AIM and town councils are no longer within arms-length.
ReplyDeleteQED.
Just to add, most people also won't know if a company is a subsidiary of a bigger company, even if you look it up in ACRA website. You need to dig further and pay for additional info.
ReplyDeleteA famous example of subsidiaries are those toxic investments such as Minibonds, High 5, Pinnacle Notes, etc. Each of them were created as a subsidiary company. When these toxic investments collapsed, investors could not sue the main banks --- S'pore courts said the banks are just middleman salesman. Investors can only sue the actual subsidiary companies --- but for what becoz those subsidiaries already bankrupt.
Another interesting example of subsidiaries are those investment holding companies and private REITs created by many rich elites including foreigners, senior PAPies and ministers. They do this for legalised tax avoidance and estate planning (i.e. protection from creditors, hiding their true wealth and creating "firewalls", etc). For example, the highest tax for these subsidiaries is 17% versus highest personal tax of 20%.
In Singapore, slavery has not yet been abolished.
ReplyDeleteSlavery starts at an early age in Singapore.
Starting with NS; National Slavery.
If they are able to appoint some foreigner as proxy on behalf of TH/GIC/Singapore to buy/hold/sell the shares of foreign companies like in Shin Corp scandal, what other breaches of trust are they capable of committing and yet we don't even know a single thing ?
ReplyDeleteDon't forget they are already a pack of cunning foxes & wolves under sheep's wool to begin with !
I suggest we vote them all out to have a thorough spring cleaning with a new broom. Then all will be exposed.
ReplyDeleteTo vote them all out, you need votes.
DeleteHow many votes can you muster to join you in your vision?
PAP can command 60%.
How many do you command?
Lee Li Lian alone can command 54.5%. What do you think?
Delete//Why would an on-going commercial entity intentionally write a document that will exclude it from a bona fide business opportunity?//
ReplyDeleteErr..lest we forget, because this is a $2-only shell company that does not have human capital, asset or intellectual property to begin with?!! I just want to know which cheap labor are they hiring that cost $2 who will write a spec document for bidding? Or is it a robot that is doing the brainless work?
The 1st question they still haven't provided us with a clear answer is why the FUCK is some ex-PAP MPs like Chandra involved in setting an IT S$2 Company when none of them seems to be IT professionals in the first place ?
DeleteWhen they are now involved in preparing & calliing the tender, it there something not fishy somewhere ? What has PAP stooped so low now in terms of conflict of public interests ?