MisAIMED: of the Tender ad, missing TC annual reports, $2 companies...

[Confuseous]

The above tender notice appeared in the Straits Times on 30 June 2010. (Thanks to a reader who did the sleuthing, who, I believe, would prefer to remain anonymous). You can click on it for a bigger version, but for your convenience, here is the text:

—

The Town Councils for the towns of : Aljunied, East Coast, Hong Kah, Jalan Besar, Jurong, Marine Parade, Sembawang, Tampines, Tanjong Pagar, West Coast, Ang Mo Kio-Yio Chu Kang, Bishan-Toa Payoh, Holland-Bukit Panjang, Pasir Ris-Punggol

TENDER NOTICE

Project: Contract for the purchase of the developed application software

Eligibility and Financial Grade: Experienced and reputable Company with relevant track record

Closing Date: 14 Jul 2010

The Town Councils reserve their rights not to accept the lowest or any tender without assigning any reason thereof.

No contract shall be awarded to a contractor if the contractor or any of its directors and/or employees have been debarred by the Town Councils and/or Statuary Boards and/or Government Bodies from participating in the same or all types of contracts. Any contractors who are currently disbarred shall not be eligible to participate in this tender.

Tender Documents of $214/- per set (inclusive of GST), can be obtained from: East Coast Town Council. Blk 206 Bedok North St 1 #01-353 Singapore 460206.

The payment shall be made by crossed cheque payable to “East Coast Town Council”.

—

I cannot understand how a $2 company that AIM Pte Ltd is, which doesn’t even have a corporate website, meets the tender requirement of an “Experienced and reputable Company with relevant track record”.

Next, I wanted to take a look at the accounts of East Coast Town Council to see if there are any traces of the money flow. Getting to the accounts was an adventure!

When I got to http://www.ectc.org.sg/annualreport.html, I saw this page. Immediately, it struck me that the Financial Report for 2010/2011 (which would be the period I am interested in) was missing!

- http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-3/

 

[Sinkie]

Eligibility and Financial Grade: Experienced and reputable Company with relevant track record

This clause alone would have sounded ALARM BELLS, but it didn't.......because it was RIGGED.

 

[Sinkie]

If AIM was owned by ex-MPs, who are still serving as advisers or directors in various public agencies, then they run foul of the penal code.

http://www.nortonrose.com/knowledge/publications/54322/anti-corruption-regulation-in-singapore

Anti-Corruption Regulation in Singapore
July 2011

• Introduction
• Foreign bribery
• Financial record keeping
• Domestic bribery
• Update and trends

• View all pages

Introduction

International anti-corruption conventions

To which international anti-corruption conventions is your country a signatory?

Singapore has been a member of the Financial Action Task Force since 1992. It was one of the founding members of the Asia-Pacific Group on Money-Laundering in 1997.
Singapore became a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime on 13 December 2000 and ratified that Convention on 28 August 2007.
Singapore is also a member of the <abbr title="Asian Development Bank" style="border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed;">ADB</abbr>/<abbr title="Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" style="border-width: 0px 0px 1px; border-bottom-style: dashed;">OECD</abbr> Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific, which it endorsed on 30 December 2001.
Singapore was admitted as a member of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units in 2002.
Singapore became a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) on 11 November 2005 and ratified the UNCAC on 6 November 2009.

Foreign and domestic bribery laws

Identify and describe your national laws and regulations prohibiting bribery of foreign public officials (foreign bribery laws) and domestic public officials (domestic bribery laws).

The primary Singapore statutes prohibiting bribery are:

• the Prevention of Corruption Act (the PCA) (Cap 241, 1993 Rev Ed); and
• the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed).

The PCA contains provisions (sections 5 and 6) which prohibit bribery in general. The PCA also contains a number of provisions prohibiting bribery in specific situations, some of which are dealt with further below.
The general prohibitions relate to both private commercial activities and acts of a public nature, target both giver and recipient of the bribe and extend to both private individuals and public officials. In addition, there are specific provisions in the PCA (sections 11 and 12) pertaining to domestic public officials. The PCA does not specifically target bribery of foreign public officials, although such bribery could fall under the ambit of the general prohibitions.
The Penal Code also contains provisions (sections 161 to 165) that deal with bribery of public officials. These provisions describe the following scenarios:

• a public servant taking a gratification, other than legal remuneration, in respect of an official act;
• a person taking a gratification in order to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means;
• a person taking a gratification for exercising personal influence over a public servant;
• abetment by a public servant of the above offences; and
• a public servant obtaining anything of value, without consideration or with consideration the public servant knows to be inadequate, from a person concerned in any proceedings or business conducted by such public servant.

‘Gratification’ is defined very broadly (see question “To what extent do your anti-bribery laws restrict providing foreign officials with gifts, travel expenses, meals or entertainment?” below).
The provisions in the Penal Code focus on the bribery of domestic public officials.
This is because the term ‘public servant’ is used, which has been defined in the Penal Code to include mainly domestic public officials. By way of example, section 21 of the Penal Code defines a ‘public servant’ to include an officer in the Singapore Armed Forces, an officer of the Singapore government, an officer acting on behalf of the Singapore government and a member of the Public Service Commission or Legal Service Commission.
It should also be noted that the Singapore Interpretation Act defines the term ‘public officer’ as ‘the holder of any office of emolument in the service of the [Singapore] Government’.

 

[iluvgst]

someone is taking awfully long to reply

 

[Bigfuck]

someone is taking awfully long to reply

Watch how many town councils take off the financial reports and annual reports to cover their trails.

 

[batman1]

Watch how many town councils take off the financial reports and annual reports to cover their trails.

So many financial irregularities at PAP Town Councils like no govt,no respect for the laws of the Republic of Singapore ,just imagine if u open the books of Temasek and GIC, u will find bottomless pit of fraud and creative accounting.:*: