- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 15,744
- Points
- 83
Occupy Singapore
Complaint to CPIB & Auditor-General - Sale of Public assets to AIM Pte Ltd
CPIB,
2, Lengkok Bahru,
Singapore 159047.
cc: The Auditor-General's Office,
#08-02/03 Revenue House,
Singapore 307987.
Re: Complaint of possible financial irregularities regarding sale of public assets i.e.
Sale of Town Council owned Computer & Financial System to a private company AIM Pte Ltd. (Updated as 25-Dec-2012)
Dear Sir/Madam,
It had been highlighted in the media recently that a municipal Computer & Financial System, jointly developed by 14 Town Councils (TC) using public monies, was sold to a private company called Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd owned by the PAP.
As such, I wish to highlight a number of issues that necessitate further investigation for this case (updated as 25-Dec-2012):
1. The Computer & Financial System was developed using public monies of the 14 Town Councils. Was it sold to AIM Pte Ltd with a properly executed open public tender exercise with adequate fairness, transparency and sufficient time limit? Could there be a similar issue like the NParks ‘Brompton Bicycle’ case? Why was it that although 5 companies collected the tender documents, only one company submitted a bid? If only one company submitted a bid in the first tender exercise, was the tender exercise extended in an effort to try to get alternative or better bids?
2. The TC’s wholly owned and paid for the Computer & Financial System. Which means subsequent use of the system after initial developmental costs would have been free. As such, what was the TC’s need or cost benefit to sell the Computer & Financial System to a private company, only for the TC’s themselves to rent the system back again using more public monies? Was the decision in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?
3. According to the media, the Computer & Financial System was sold to AIM for $140,000. As such, was this price sufficient to recover the public monies spent on the system’s development costs and also to cover for future operating/lease costs? What was the actual development costs of the system? Was the final selling price a gain or loss for the TC’s? Was the final selling price in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?
4. At the time of the tender, AIM Pte Ltd was nothing more than a 2 dollar ‘shell’ company, with no known physical operating assets or manpower. Why was this company accepted by the TC’s for the bid? On what basis was this company chosen by the TC’s? Isn’t it a clear Conflict of Interest if AIM is also owned by the same entity, a political party(PAP), in which this same political party also runs the TC’s which coordinated the tender exercise and awarded the tender?
5. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by AIM?
6. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by the management and decision-makers in the TC’s?
Thank You and regards,
A Member of the Public. (Click LIKE & SHARE to co-sign)
Complaint to CPIB & Auditor-General - Sale of Public assets to AIM Pte Ltd
CPIB,
2, Lengkok Bahru,
Singapore 159047.
cc: The Auditor-General's Office,
#08-02/03 Revenue House,
Singapore 307987.
Re: Complaint of possible financial irregularities regarding sale of public assets i.e.
Sale of Town Council owned Computer & Financial System to a private company AIM Pte Ltd. (Updated as 25-Dec-2012)
Dear Sir/Madam,
It had been highlighted in the media recently that a municipal Computer & Financial System, jointly developed by 14 Town Councils (TC) using public monies, was sold to a private company called Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd owned by the PAP.
As such, I wish to highlight a number of issues that necessitate further investigation for this case (updated as 25-Dec-2012):
1. The Computer & Financial System was developed using public monies of the 14 Town Councils. Was it sold to AIM Pte Ltd with a properly executed open public tender exercise with adequate fairness, transparency and sufficient time limit? Could there be a similar issue like the NParks ‘Brompton Bicycle’ case? Why was it that although 5 companies collected the tender documents, only one company submitted a bid? If only one company submitted a bid in the first tender exercise, was the tender exercise extended in an effort to try to get alternative or better bids?
2. The TC’s wholly owned and paid for the Computer & Financial System. Which means subsequent use of the system after initial developmental costs would have been free. As such, what was the TC’s need or cost benefit to sell the Computer & Financial System to a private company, only for the TC’s themselves to rent the system back again using more public monies? Was the decision in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?
3. According to the media, the Computer & Financial System was sold to AIM for $140,000. As such, was this price sufficient to recover the public monies spent on the system’s development costs and also to cover for future operating/lease costs? What was the actual development costs of the system? Was the final selling price a gain or loss for the TC’s? Was the final selling price in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?
4. At the time of the tender, AIM Pte Ltd was nothing more than a 2 dollar ‘shell’ company, with no known physical operating assets or manpower. Why was this company accepted by the TC’s for the bid? On what basis was this company chosen by the TC’s? Isn’t it a clear Conflict of Interest if AIM is also owned by the same entity, a political party(PAP), in which this same political party also runs the TC’s which coordinated the tender exercise and awarded the tender?
5. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by AIM?
6. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by the management and decision-makers in the TC’s?
Thank You and regards,
A Member of the Public. (Click LIKE & SHARE to co-sign)
this investigation will involved politics 
