Deputy Secretary (Development) Tay Kim Poh had his hands tied from the very beginning. Although charged with a review of the sale in 2010 of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) software belonging to the PAP Town Councils to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), he knew the parameters of his purview were not free of political agenda. When his boss told him to jump, he could only ask, "How high?"
Public attention was focused on why TCs with millions of dollars in reserves will transact business with a $2 company. With only $2 in equity, how did AIM come up with the money in 2010 to buy $140,000 of software and lease it back? There are lots of interesting details not revealed in the MND Review Report. In the 7 pages of annexes to the 37 page report, not a single page of balance sheet or profit and loss account is included. Without the disclosure of accounting data, it is difficult to verify, as the Report claims, "There was no misuse or loss of public monies in the transaction".
But there was an interesting revelation on page 2:
In 1994, the Housing & Development Board (HDB) informed the TCs that it would cease HDB's IT system support used by all TCs. This was to be effected by 1996 as part of HDB's handover of responsibilities and functions to the TCs. The PAP TCs decided to aggregate their demand and called for an open tender in 1994 for the development, installation and maintenance of a Town Council Management System (TCMS) software. AIM participated in the tender and was awarded the contract to develop this first generation TCMS.
In 2003, the TCs called an open tender to develop and maintain the second generation TCMS. This was awarded to National Computer Systems Pte Ltd (NCS). AIM did not participate in the tender.
So, we are given to believe, way back in 1994, AIM actually had the manpower and resources to develop, install and maintain the first generation TCMS. And if AIM had served TCs well, why did it not participate in the 2003 tender? So many questions, so few answers. BTW why did the MND Review Team members choose to be anonymous?
What a load of crap, this Report !ReplyDelete
If the White Paper on the 6.9 million Population was un-scholarly enough, this review can be categories as a humbug exercise and waste of public funds.
That PM of mine has the audacity to accept it.
Waiting to see if any of the opposition MPs will happily sit through Parliament when the minister in charge present it.
Or do we need NCMPs to raise objections ?
Is this what our NS boys are risking their life & limb defending?
truly a masterpiece .... befitting for daft singaporeansReplyDelete
keep it up ...... papies
a) if TC are political organs, should they be entrusted to "invest" public money or even "oversee" such investments by appointing the fund managers? If appointing a political friend like AIM is appropriate in this example, what is there to stop PAP TCs from appointing political fund managers? When money was lost by Dr Teo and Co ispeculating using taxpayers' money, they were acting as a part of PAP and not like GIC or Temasek as state-owned entities. Should the PAP therefore restitute the losses to the residents?ReplyDelete
a. Even governnent departments use commercial professional software companies like Microsoft, IBM and SAP, why then do TCs have to use their political friends for developing (not AIM is not "managing the accounts, they only provide the software, like Openoffice or MS Word". Why must a political friend be used for providing such software?
Since an annonymous MND team (of how many?) found that everything is in order ... then it must be so.ReplyDelete
On page A8 of ST, it says AIM charged a management fee of $33,150 or about $140 a month for each TC. But if you refer to a letter to AHTC in the Annex at page 33 or 34 of the review report. It stated clearly that the management fee is 10% of the maintenance fee levied by NCS. This comes up to $2700 or 20 times what was quoted by ST. Can someone check it up?ReplyDelete
Parallel Run 1 Aug - 31 Aug:Delete
Handling Fee @10% (AIM) $2,739.42
Lease-Back Fee (AIM) $785.00
Total (payable to AIM) $30,918.63
Extention 1 Sep - 9 Sep:
Lease-Back Payment $382.50
GST 7% $27.48
Total Amount Due $419.98
Looks like Mickey Mouse accounting alright
Did the town council factor in such exorbitant "handling" fee (20 times what it cost to "manage" the IT system) for termination of contract?Delete
Imagine the amount AIM is able to earn just by terminating contracts with all 14 town councils. Yes, yes, AIM is making a "loss" similar to the way HDB is making a "loss".
Smoking prohibition in Singapore was first introduced in 1970 and has been progressively extended to cover virtually all indoor places and areas where the public congregate.
The Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act seeks to provide a clean, safe and healthy environment for the public and to safeguard them from the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.
Rather tall tale to tell, no town council members had material interests in AIM.ReplyDelete
The material fact is,, PAP MPs are town council members, holding Chairman and Vice-Chairman positions,and AIM is a company wholly owned by the PAP with present & former PAP MPs involved. MND's Khaw Boon Wan is Chairman of the PAP
This are material facts likely to influence and not some distortion or fabrication.
"......no town council members had material interests in AIM or interfered in the awarding of the contract to AIM in 2010 through an open tender process. "
OUR FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION
"9. Thirdly, we have kept in Singapore, money out of politics.In many countries,whether developing or developed,corruption and vote-buying pervades politics.
Candidates spend large sums on their campaigns,and rely heavily on donors for
financing.And very often,the donors finance both sides to buy insurance.After the
elections,the candidates as well as their donors expect to reap a return on their
investment,on what they have spend to get elected.Singapore,in contrast, has
vigorously eschewed money politics.We have capped election spending by
candidates by law,so that elected leaders are not beholden to anyone and can dothe right thing by voters."
SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER LEE HSIEN LOONG AT CPIB_pdf.pdf
Govt determined to weed out corruption: PM Lee
*2nd Reading Speech by Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng
Date of Parliament Sitting: 22 May 2000*
*Political Donations Bill*
19. Unincorporated organisations are not permissible donors. Political
associations and candidates therefore cannot accept donations from these
organisations. Unincorporated associations include trade unions,
societies, charities, mutual benefit organisations, businesses,
professional firms and so on. Trade unions, societies, charities, mutual
benefit organisations are set up for specific purposes. As it is now,
most if not all of these associations are already prohibited from making
political donations under their respective Acts or constitutions. Sole
proprietors, partnerships and professional firms have no separate legal
identities from their owners. That is to say, the profits and losses of
the business are the profits and losses of the individual owners. Hence,
if they wish to make donations, they should do so as individuals, as
long as they are Singaporeans and are 21 years old and above.
Ministry of Home Affairs - Introduction of the Political Donations Act
I was expecting for their Balance sheet to be appended in the MND's finding but it wasn't there. Many accountants will be wondering a $2 company where they get $140K to own the IT systems and how did they pay staff salary (if any) to service the IT? The report mentioned AIM has all the necessary resources to tender the project, but it doesn't convince the readers (with figures and company reports) that AIM has the quality nor quantity for such a big task.ReplyDelete
End of the day, I took away with more questions than answer from MND's review and Straits Times are not shedding more lights for the readers but instead let reader decide on what they read.
How did LHL approved it so readily? Your guess is as good as mine.
You asked how did the PM approved the Report so easily.Delete
Even if it was a A4 sheet with just a single summary/conclusion, he sound have happily approved it. And thank the Team for a job sell done, no ?
They give us dog & pony show, make sure when time comes, we give them dog & crab show lah..just like our malaysian neighbors did.Delete
Why the surprise at all.
The only way out of this crap is 2016....
Have we not been toasted, fried, smoked and grilled by the MIW over and over?
//BTW why did the MND Review Team members choose to be anonymous?//ReplyDelete
IS led by the ex-ISD director Benny Lim who led the infamous Operation Spectrum...
The Government's integrity is at the edge.ReplyDelete
For some, it has already fallen off and now worse.. it has not hit bottom... its in free fall!
Workers' Party... it is your moment of truth. Use it. 2016 is getter sweeter by the day.
I think this is just half the amount of nails required to close the coffin. A few more between now and 2016 will do nicely.
Workers' Party.. you cannot be "co-driver" anymore while giving slaps even for this!
Pull the hand brake
Stop the car
Let the people open the door
Let the people remove the driver
You take over the driver's seat
You do not need to drive ( yet )
You just make sure the engine is still running
The PAP is afraid. Very, very afraid of losing power. That is why they created AIM and attempts to stifle opposition's rise and stardom.
They create GRCs, they create Vandalism Act The create Press Act
But their efforts are no longer effective in this century.. they are 2 steps behind. Not only that they are panicking.
Onward Singaporeans! Onward!
We will survive without knuckle dusters and hatchets.. our simple vote is enough to cause knees to tremble.
Let 2016 be the year that Singaporeans mature and embrace freedom!
Looking back, it seems we are left with one question to ask the Clown Prince :ReplyDelete
"Honestly, WHAT THE FUCK was that apology for ?"
"Honestly, WHAT THE FUCK was that apology for ?"Delete
- temporary insanity?
- conscience's final dying words?
- a brief instant of honesty?
re let 2016 be the year Sporeans mature and embrace freedom: We don't need to wait till then. We can do it NOW.ReplyDelete
By writing to the press pointing out the missing and needed data in this AIM report for one.
By providing the WP, SDP and NSP with our questions, doubts, research, arguments, based on what we read in this AIM report. Give them the ammunition.
By circulating blogs like this to all our friends./By chatting with people and pointing out our doubts about the missing info and other stuff in the AIM report.
By turning up at the next protest gathering for another, instead of following it online.
We can act together. We are after all a formidable force when we do. It just depends on whether we care enough and want to.
WE DESERVE BETTER!ReplyDelete
VTO in GE 2916.
"When his boss told him to jump, he could only ask, "How high?"ReplyDelete
Reminds me of a joke. "I used to bring my dog to watch football. Whenever my favorite team loses, my dog will jump. How high? It depends on how hard I kick him!"
How many Sinkies are interested in Aimgate?ReplyDelete
The tidak apa attitude of Sinkies is a national problem and a very big one.
Before 30 June 2010, Singaporeans knew nothing about AIM,only the PAP and the PAPReplyDelete
Town Council's Chairman had this knowledge, not even the opposition parties knew that the PAP operates a commercial arm. Dr Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of PAP town councils was fully aware, knew right from the beginning he was awarding the tender to AIM, a company wholly owned by his own political party.
1) "Mr Chandra Das, Chairman of Action Information Management Pte Ltd, said: "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.""
2) Third, we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments.
Given the above considerations, AIM had met the requirements of the tender on
its own merits. We assessed that the proposal by AIM was in the best interests
of the TCs, and thus awarded the tender to AIM.
Annual registers to be published
5. The Registrar shall as soon as may be after 1st April every year prepare and publish in
the Gazette a list of all registered societies.
Inspection and certified copies of documents
—(1) Subject to subsection (3), any person may on payment of the prescribed fees inspect
any document in the possession of the Registrar or an Assistant Registrar received from
any registered society and be supplied with a copy of or extract from any such document.
(2) A copy of or extract from any such document certified to be a true copy or extract under the hand and seal of the Registrar or the Assistant Registrar shall be admissible in evidence in any proceedings.
(3) No person shall be allowed to inspect the accounts of a registered society or be
supplied with a copy of or extract from those accounts unless the Registrar is satisfied that
the person is a member of the society.
Why was AIM allowed to submit their bid 2 weeks after the Tender deadline??ReplyDelete
How can a $2 ompany without full time staff or office be allowed to bid??
Why did the TCs wit till the last moment before they started to look for a replacemnt software??
NCS is a subsidiary of Singtel, which is controlled by Temasek. Thus, would NCS dare say NO if th TCs ask it to extend the lease??
Why do the TCs need AIM to act as a single owner of the software when Teo Ho Pin could have done it himself since he is the Coordinating Chairman for the TCs??
Please tell us how many IT contracts AIM has handled apart from the TCs'. Please disclose the full audited financial statements of AIM for the past 5 yearsReplyDelete