Lucky Tan & Ex-ISD Director Weigh in on TC $2-FAP "IT" Company...

[makapaaa]

[h=2]AIM-PAP Saga: The Explanation that explains nothing![/h]

January 5th, 2013 |

Author: Contributions



The main issue with the sale of town council management software to a PAP owned company with a clause that gives the PAP company the right to terminate use of the software if an opposition takes over the town council is that of conflict of interest. It is equivalent to the Democratic Party selling the US Social Security computer software to a company it owns then giving the company the right to stop the Republicans from using it when it recaptures the presidency in elections. The AIM deal gives enormous power to the PAP to stop the opposition from running the town councils effectively when they are chosen by the constituents to be representatives in parliament. Therein lies the conflict of interest. The rights of the people are not protected and they are put at risk.

“Dr Teo has now confirmed that this third party, AIM, is “fully-owned” by the PAP. In other words, the PAP-managed Town Councils saw it fit to sell away their ownership of the systems, developed with public funds, to a political party, which presumably could act in its own interests when exercising its rights to terminate the contracts“. – Sylvia Lim, WP Statement

Professor Teo Ho Pin’s 26 paragraph explanation does not address this conflict of interest issue which was the main point brought up by Sylvia Lim.

I really you suggest you read his statement in full to understand what he is saying [Why the PAP town council entered into transaction with AIM]. I challenge you to find the logic in his statements that can explain that no conflict of interest has occurred.

In skirting the central issue, Teo Ho Pin’s 26 paragraphs detailing PAP’s Town Councils rationale and timeline for the sale really gives us an insight on how a PAP elite thinks and make decisions. I would like to share my thoughts as I run through his 26 paragraphs. As usual, here is a summary:

In 2003, PAP town councils wanted to “harmonise” their computer systems and jointly called an open tender for a computer system based on a common platform.
​

It is strange that these systems are stove-piped and harmonisation is done on hindsight. The head of PAP town councils didn’t have the foresight to achieve cost savings and cost sharing by getting the town councils to work together?

NCS was chosen to provide this system from Aug 1, 2003 to Oct 31, 2010, with an option to extend the contract for one year.
​

Teo does not tell us how much NCS is paid to develop the system. This piece of information is of public interest. We would like to know how much money is spent on such a system when it is sold for $140K

In 2010, PAP town councils jointly appointed Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services (D&T) to advise on the review of the computer system.
After a comprehensive review, D&T identified various deficiencies and gaps in the system which was becoming “obsolete and unmaintainable”.
​

After just 7 years of use, the system is “obsolete and unmaintainable”. Let me ask you a question : How many new services did you receive from your town council in those 7 years? Town councils do the same thing year in-year out like landscaping, clearing rubbish, collecting conservancy etc but the NCS software becomes “unmaintainable”.

After a comprehensive review, D&T identified various deficiencies and gaps in the system. The main issue, however, was that the system was becoming obsolete and unmaintainable. It had been built in 2003, on Microsoft Windows XP and Oracle Financial 11 platforms. By 2010, Windows XP had been superseded by Windows Vista as well as Windows 7, and Oracle would soon phase out and discontinue support to its Financial 11 platform. – Teo H P.
​

Teo Ho Pin further elaborates on this saying D&T main finding is that Windows XP and Oracle Financial 11 platforms would be superseded. I’m quite surprise that they have to pay expensive consultants to find this out – something you can know by spending 10 minutes reading Microsoft’s and Oracle’s roadmap online. The important thing to note is when these products are superseded by new ones e.g. Windows 7, these vendors will keep their products backward compatible so that custom software written for Windows XP and older version of Oracle will still work on new versions. Companies that do not want to waste money simply stick to Windows XP (I’m sure many of you work in companies that still uses Windows XP) and older versions of Oracle so long as they get the job done and have no major issues.

In moving custom software to a new version of operating system and Oracle database, all that is needed for total assurance is some software porting, if necessary, regression testing which can be done by NCS.

D&T suggested the option of having a third party own the computer system, including the software, with the town councils paying a service fee for regular maintenance.
After serious consideration, the PAP town councils decided to call for a tender under which only the intellectual property in the old software would be sold. The ownership of the physical computer systems remained with the PAP town councils.
​

Teo H P says that shared ownership of IP (Intellectual Property) is “cumbersome”. Why? The PAP Town Council has been sharing the IP for 7 years before they tried to sell it off.

This is a strange recommendation by D&T. Post 1990s software is written for re-use. Rarely in the software industry do we see new versions of software written from scratch – it is a massive waste of money. For Town Council management software you can imagine that 80-90% of the original written code can be reused given they do the same thing year after year -day in day out . Selling the IP to a 3rd party to far below cost of development does not make sense because you sign away your right to use the old source codes. Now you pay the price of full development of new software.

According to Teo HP, D&T recommended that the “unmaintainable” software ownership be moved to a third party to own and “provide regular maintenance”. Somehow AIM, a $2 company without a permanent office is able to maintain an “unmaintainable” software. It turned out AIM did this by signing up NCS to do the maintenance. The town councils engage NCS through AIM rather than directly and that is more efficient?

On June 30, 2010, PAP town councils advertised the tender in the Straits Times. Five companies collected the tender documents: CSC Technologies Services, Hutcabb Consulting, NCS, NEC Asia and Action Information Management (AIM).
On July 20, 2010, AIM submitted a bid which was the only one received by the town councils.
After assessing that AIM’s proposal was in the PAP town councils’ best interests, the tender was awarded to AIM.
​

Teo H P explained that the Town Council saved $8000 in the leaseback without the considering the loss of intellectual property with the potential of reuse in a new development. Teo does not tell us the cost of developing the original software. He does not tell us how much it pays consultants for what looks like trivial findings and simple decisions. ….but I’m still glad he took the trouble to write his 26 paragraphs. It tells us the PAP Town Councils are not very good at saving costs for residents and residents have to pay more and more each year for the same services. Reading the 26 paragraphs tells us cost cutting and keeping expenses low for residents does not seem feature in their thought processes.
.
Lucky Tan

* Lucky Tan is an avid online blogger since 2005. He likes to study the thoughts of Singapore leaders and the laws of Singapore. He blogs at http://singaporemind.blogspot.com.

 

[makapaaa]

[h=2]The Continuing AIM Saga[/h]

January 6th, 2013 |

Author: Contributions

The elaborate statement by Dr. Teo Ho Pin, Coordinating Chairman of the PAP Town Councils, in response to Workers” Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim’s questioning of the sale of the computer software rights to Action Information Management (AIM), when she asked if it was in the public interest, cuts no ice with the public, especially the netizens.

His statement has been published on the TR Emeritus website (‘Dr Teo Ho Pin’s latest statement on AIM‘) which elicited no less than 218 responses from netizens criticising or condemning Dr. Teo for his disingenuous statement designed to cover up the questionable sale of the PAP Town Councils’ computer software system to a PAP-owned AIM with a paid up capital of $2 whose three directors are former PAP MPs.

Dr Teo attempted to justify the sale of the computer software by quoting for the first time that a consultancy firm Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services Pte Ltd had been engaged to review the system and had found the system, built in 2003, was becoming obsolete and impossible to maintain. Deloitte and Touche had suggested centralising the software ownership with a third party taking over the software rights. A commentator with computer software expertise has commented that unlike a real machine, a computer software cannot get outdated. It is just a series of instructions to an operating system to perform a task. There are no rotating gears or other moving parts in a software which can suffer from wear and tear. So Singaporeans can draw their conclusion whether the sale of the computer software to a third party which turned out to be none other than the PAP-owned AIM, a $2 shell company, was in the public interest.

In this controversy, the WP started as an underdog but it has justice on its side. The way Ms Sylvia Lim has stood up to the political onslaught of Dr. Teo Ho Pin and his cohort is a credit to the indomitable character of the WP chairman. Dr Teo, with due respect to him, emerges out of this controversy as not so adept in trying to force through his arguments, probably by sheer display of PAP’s superiority. He has no answer to the public perception of the impropriety of the sale of the computer software system to AIM, a $2 capital shell company with a skeleton staff and no computer software expertise. Ms Sylvia Lim suspected that AIM was exercising the rights of termination of the lease if there was a “material change” in the composition of the Town Council when it terminated the software lease to Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.

It is as clear as daylight that Dr. Teo’s elaborate statement lacks conviction and cogency. He has to try harder to convince Singaporeans of his ingenuousness in wanting to resolve this controversy equitably, especially to the WP. This controversy has been festering for some time now and it could not be beneficial to the PAP with an eye to the possible Punggol East by-election if it is allowed to drag on indefinitely. What seems to be drawing public attention is the reticence of the PAP leadership on this controversy.
.
Yoong Siew Wah
* Mr Yoong Siew Wah was the Director of Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) from 1971 to 1974. Before his stint with ISD, he was the director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). The SPH book “Men in White”, alleged in page 441 that Mr Yoong was asked to quit CPIB in 1971 after he was “suspected” of using his personal influence to assist his friend Mr Francis Seow, then the ex-Solicitor General of Singapore in a case. Mr Yoong rebuked the allegations as baseless on his blog. The Straits Times on 16-10-09 published a correction by the authors of the Men In White who apologised for not getting back to Mr Yoong to verify the report. Mr Yoong is now retired and blogs at http://singaporerecalcitrant.blogspot.com.

 

[Confuseous]

Silence from the side being AIMmed at is deafening.
Which time they squeak, their noses grow longer, and the quick sand opens up.
Or is the water getting hotter gradually...?

 

[zhihau]

how to calculate those cost-benefits ah? :*::*::*:

 

[makapaaa]

http://harishpillay.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/my-conscience-says-i-have-to-post-this/

My Conscience Is Bugging Me







i

[COLOR= ]Very Poor[/COLOR]​

I cannot let the media statement put out by the “Coordinating Chairman of the PAP Town Councils” regarding the sale of the town council management software system to a ex-PAP MP-owned company be left alone without it being shredded apart. The media statement appeared on January 2, 2013 on the PAP website.

I have italicised and indented the paragraphs from the media statement and my response follows each italicised segment.

Statement by Teo Ho Pin on AIM Transaction

On 28 December 2012, I issued a press release in response to Ms Sylvia Lim’s statement on the website of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. Ms Lim had made various assertions in her statement. However, her statement was made without citing the relevant facts. I now make this further statement to set out fully the relevant facts.

I am the co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils (“the TCs”). The PAP TCs meet regularly and work closely with one another. This allows the TCs to derive economies of scale and to share best practices among themselves. This improves the overall efficiency of the TCs, and ensures that all the PAP TCs can serve their residents better.
In 2003, the TCs wanted to harmonise their computer systems. Hence, in 2003, all the TCs jointly called an open tender for a vendor to provide a computer system based on a common platform. NCS was chosen to provide this system. The term of the NCS contract (“NCS contract”) was from 1 August 2003 to 31 October 2010. There was an option to further extend the contract for one year, until 31 October 2011.

In 2010, the NCS contract was going to expire. The TCs got together and jointly appointed Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services Pte Ltd (“D&T”) to advise on the review of the computer system for all the TCs. Several meetings were held with D&T.

After a comprehensive review, D&T identified various deficiencies and gaps in the system. The main issue, however, was that the system was becoming obsolete and unmaintainable. It had been built in 2003, on Microsoft Windows XP and Oracle Financial 11 platforms. By 2010, Windows XP had been superseded by Windows Vista as well as Windows 7, and Oracle would soon phase out and discontinue support to its Financial 11 platform.

From what is mentioned above, D&T noted deficiencies and gaps in the system, which it seems was only about parts of the application infrastructure becoming obsolete and unmaintainable. It would be good to know what other gaps and deficiencies were reported.

It is now clear that the application that was developed ran on the system from Oracle Corporation, called “Oracle Financials 11”. It also is clear that, possibly both the server and client OS was Microsoft Windows XP. I do wonder how that original application was spec’ed out?

We have here a classic case of all of the component systems needed to run an application reaching end of life or becoming unsupported even as the application could still be used.
That, in itself, is not a big deal. Forced obsolescence is the norm in the IT industry. It is not the best state of affairs, but it is what it is.

The TCs were aware of and concerned about the serious risks of system obsolescence identified by D&T, and wanted to pre-empt the problem. In addition, as the NCS Contract was about to expire, they sought a solution which would provide the best redevelopment option to the TCs, and in the interim would allow them to continue enjoying the prevailing maintenance and other services.

Fair enough.

As Coordinating Chairman of the TCs, I had to oversee the redevelopment of the existing computer system for all TCs. It was clear to me that the existing computer software was already dated. The NCS contract would end by 31 October 2011 (if the one year extension option was exercised). However, assessing new software and actually developing a replacement system that would meet our new requirements would take time, maybe 18-24 months or even longer. We thus needed to ensure that we could get a further extension (beyond October 2011) from NCS, while working on redevelopment options.

Not sure why the preceding was needed, for it is a restatement of the first discussion.

D&T also raised with the TCs the option of having a third party own the computer system, including the software, instead, with the TCs paying a service fee for regular maintenance. This structure was not uncommon.

By stating that D&T saying that it is a common method for “third party own the computer system”, it is not clear how that would help with a rapidly aging computer system. Sounds incredulous for D&T to suggest that.

We decided to seriously consider this option. Having each of the 14 individual TCs hold the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the software was cumbersome and inefficient. The vendor would have to deal with all 14 TCs when reviewing or revising the system. It would be better for the 14 TCs to consolidate their software rights in a single party which would manage them on behalf of all the TCs, and also source vendors to improve the system and address the deficiencies.

This paragraph contains the biggest amount of doublespeak and warped sense of value if there ever was one. What does it mean that each of the TCs holds the “Intellectual Property”?

It was stated that the reason for creating the application was (from above) “(t)his allows the TCs to derive economies of scale and to share best practices among themselves. This improves the overall efficiency of the TCs, and ensures that all the PAP TCs can serve their residents better.” which puts to lie “(t)he vendor would have to deal with all 14 TCs when reviewing or revising the system”.

It would seem that whatever that was built, ended up being 14 versions of the application and not one. How does reviewing and revising the system become any more efficient by “consolidat(ing) their software rights in a single party”? Humbug.

If that indeed was a valid reason, all the TCs could have done was to agree to trust one TC to be the custodian and decision maker. How does each giving up their ownership to an external party be any better?

I suspect the Coordinating Chairman is pulling a fast one here.

The TCs thus decided to call a tender to meet the following requirements:
1. To purchase the software developed in 2003, and lease it back to the TCs for a monthly fee, until the software was changed;
2. To undertake to secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost i.e. take on the obligation to get an extension on the existing rates, until the TCs obtained new or enhanced software. This was put in to protect the financial position of the TCs; and
3. To work with the TCs to understand their enhancement and redevelopment needs and look for a suitable vendor to provide these upgrades.
If you look at the actual tender notice, all it states is that they are selling a “developed application software” and that the tenderer should be “experienced and reputable company with relevant track record”.

The devil is in the details which is only available if you fork out $214.

So, the PAP TCs wanted to sell out to someone else who fits their criteria of an experienced and reputable company with RELEVANT track record. The tender advertisement sounds very thin and vague.

Under the tender, the TCs sold only the IP in the old software. The ownership of the physical computer systems remained with the individual TCs. We wanted to sell the IP rights in the old software because it had limited value and was depreciating quickly. Had we waited until the new system was in place, the IP to the superseded old software would have become completely valueless.

Ah huh! They wanted to monetize their “IP” as it were. Time was running out. Not sure who else on the planet would want their “IP”, but they must monetize it.
The TCs advertised the tender in the Straits Times on 30 June 2010. Five companies collected the tender documents. These were CSC Technologies Services Pte Ltd, Hutcabb Consulting Pte Ltd, NCS, NEC Asia Pte Ltd and Action Information Management Pte Ltd (“AIM”).
I am sure four of the companies listed above, after wasting the $214, are run by level-headed management who realized that this tender was a huge scam and wanted no part in it and so decided not to respond.

I am aware that NCS considered bidding but in the end, decided not to do so as it was of the view that the IP rights to software developed in 2003 on soon to be replaced platforms were not valuable at all.

Another company withdrew after it checked and confirmed that it was required to ensure renewal of the NCS contract without an increase in rates. The company did not want to take on that obligation. The others may also have decided not to bid for similar reasons.

In the end, only AIM submitted a bid on 20 July 2010.

Does the Coordinating Chairman really think that NCS would have fallen into the scam as well? They would have known that there really is nothing in the application that they could “salvage”, having built it in the first place, let alone helping their customer monetize it.

We evaluated AIM’s bid in detail. First, AIM’s proposal to buy over the software IP would achieve our objective of centralising the ownership of the software, consistent with the model suggested by D&T.

This is circular logic which needs no further response.

AIM was willing to purchase our existing software IP for S$140,000, and lease it back at S$785 per month from November 2010 to October 2011. The lease payments to AIM would end by October 2011, with the expiration of the original NCS contract. Thus after October 2011, the TCs would be allowed to use the existing software without any additional lease payments to AIM, until the new software was developed.

Let’s do the math:

<TBODY>
[TD="width: 330"] 14 PAP Town Councils
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] AIM
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Contract Award
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] $140,000 (perhaps each TC got $10K)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] ($140,000)
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Lease (Nov 2010 – Oct 2011)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] ($785*14*12 => $131,880)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] $131,880
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Nett
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] $8,120
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"][/TD]

</TBODY>

This meant that the TCs expected to gain a modest amount (about S$8,000) from the disposal of IP in the existing software.

So, the so called “Intellectual Property” is really only worth $8,120.

Second, AIM was willing to undertake the risks of getting an extension of the NCS contract with no increase in rates. This was the most important consideration for us, as it protected the TCs from an increase in fees.

And AIM will have the needed clout to negotiate with NCS – because they own the software – but the 14 PAP Town Councils being the original customer of NCS could not garner? Is that really true, Mr Coordinating Chairman? You are saying that you cannot do better than AIM against NCS? Say it ain’t so, Mr Coodinating Chairman.

Third, we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments.

Wow, the PAP link. That’s the magic bullet. Cronyism at its best. “Backed by the PAP” because the three directors are former PAP MPs or because the company is funded by the PAP? Perhaps the other companies who picked up the tender document realized that they are not a PAP-{owned, funded} entity and would therefore not win.

That statement alone reeks of contempt of the free market, the principles of transparency, meritocracy and everything we hold dear in this country.

Are you, Mr Coordinating Chairman, also saying that AIM has deep pockets that they can withstand the possibility of NCS not agreeing? The directors of AIM have been reported not to be taking in director fees. That’s noble of them. It does look like the PAP Town Councils found their shining white knight in AIM.

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.

Of course! AIM has to be trustworthy and reputable given their PAP pedigree. Of course! D’oh!

Under the contract with AIM, the TCs could terminate the arrangements by giving one month’s notice if the TCs were not satisfied with AIM’s performance. Similarly, AIM could terminate by giving one month’s notice in the event of material changes to the membership of a TC, or to the scope and duties of a TC, like changes to its boundaries. This is reasonable as the contractor has agreed to provide services on the basis of the existing TC- and town-boundaries, and priced this assumption into the tender. Should this change materially, the contractor could end up providing services to a TC which comprises a much larger area and more residents, but at the same price.

What a lot of nonsense is this? It is unbelievable that the Coordinating Chairman can include a poison pill clause in the contract if the “boundaries of the Town Councils change”. I believe the boundaries of the West Coast Town Council changed after the May 2011 elections. I don’t see AIM doing anything about terminating the contract (correct me if I am wrong Mr Coordinating Chairman).

How does changes in the “larger area and more residents” materially change the way the software works? Is Mr Coordinating Chairman taking the tax payers and constituents of the PAP Town Councils to be daft? Wait a minute, a former PAP prime minister says we are (search for daft in that link)!

Since winning the tender, AIM has negotiated two extensions of the NCS contract until April 2013, at no increase in rates. The first extension was from November 2011 to October 2012, and the second from November 2012 to April 2013. The TCs received a substantial benefit in terms of getting the extensions from NCS beyond the original contract period, without any increase in prices.

Now, this is confusing. But I shall hold back for more juicy parts following.

What is not known now is the maintenance charges NCS charged as part of their original contract with the PAP Town Councils.

AIM has also been actively working with several vendors to explore new software options and enhancements for the TCs. AIM has identified software from a number of possible vendors, and has invited them to make presentations to the TCs in order for a suitable option to be chosen.

Are any of these open source solutions? Or is this going to be another closed, proprietary system that will face the same issues as the older one? Why are the Town Councils (via AIM) not looking at maximizing the tax dollars that goes into this by using open source solutions?
My offer to help build a fully open source solution remains.

Following the expiry of the initial lease arrangement for the software from AIM on 31 October 2011, no further lease payments for the software were made to AIM. During the period of its contract extension from November 2011 to April 2013, the management fee payable to AIM for the whole suite of services it provided was S$33,150, apart from what was payable to NCS for maintenance. In the end, inclusive of GST, each TC paid slightly more than $140 per month for AIM to ensure continuity of the existing system, secure the maintenance of this system at no increased costs, and identify options for a new system to which the TCs could migrate.

We entered into the transaction with AIM with the objective of benefitting the TCs. Over the last two years, the intended benefits have been realised. There is thus no basis to suggest that the AIM transaction did not serve the public interest, or was disadvantageous to residents in the TCs.

Bingo! The smoking gun perhaps?

So, AIM is not charitable and is asking the TCs to pay from November 2011 till April 2013. This is what the math looks like:

<TBODY>
[TD="width: 330"] 14 PAP Town Councils
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] AIM
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Contract Award
[/TD]
[TD="width: 340"] $140,000 (perhaps each TC got $10K)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] ($140,000)
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Lease (Nov 2010 – Oct 2011)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] ($785*14*12 => $131,880)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] $131,880
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Nett
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] $8,120
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"][/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Nov 2011 – Apr 2013
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] ($33,150)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"] $33,150
[/TD]

[TD="width: 140"] Nett
[/TD]
[TD="width: 330"] ($25,030)
[/TD]
[TD="width: 83"][/TD]

</TBODY>

So, contrary to the rationale of “monetizing the IP” (a load of crap), the 14 PAP Town Councils will incur a loss of $25,030 in this deal.

This amount is on top of the cost of the D&T report and the “apart from what was payable to NCS for maintenance.”

It does seem that the PAP, having been in power for over 50 years, has found many creative means to “misdirect” tax monies.
I am saddened to have done this analysis.

Please, Mr Coordinating Chairman, please, come clean. You made a mistake. You thought you got a good deal. But that was not what it was. You have been drinking from the PAP water fountain for too long that you cannot see what is right and what is wrong. Your “media statement” is so full of holes that we can drive the Airbus A380 through it with room to spare.

Again, my offer to form a team of open source developers to build a solution that can benefit not only the town councils but anyone else remains.

About these ads

<IFRAME id=trackFrame height=1 marginHeight=0 src="http://cloud.eclipse.unrulymedia.com/WPFB/fallBackTrack.html?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fharishpillay.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F03%2Fmy-conscience-says-i-have-to-post-this%2F&t=Adsafe_FB" frameBorder=no width=1 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME><IFRAME id=google_ads_frame2 height=250 marginHeight=0 src="http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-3443918307802676&output=html&h=250&slotname=0408592886&w=300&lmt=1357449171&ea=0&flash=11.5.502.135&url=http%3A%2F%2Fharishpillay.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F01%2F03%2Fmy-conscience-says-i-have-to-post-this%2F&dt=1357449172444&shv=r20121206&jsv=r20121214&saldr=1&correlator=1357449171475&frm=20&adk=3795297150&ga_vid=1643414469.1357449171&ga_sid=1357449171&ga_hid=416747987&ga_fc=0&ga_wpids=UA-52447-2&u_tz=480&u_his=0&u_java=1&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=32&u_nplug=0&u_nmime=0&dff=georgia&dfs=15&adx=522&ady=9154&biw=1345&bih=645&oid=3&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.delphiforums.com%2Fn%2Fmb%2Fmessage.asp%3Fwebtag%3D3in1kopitiam%26msg%3D69494.1&docm=7&fu=0&ifi=2&dtd=31" frameBorder=0 width=300 allowTransparency name=google_ads_frame2 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>​

 

[Kinana]

Lucky Tan forgot to weigh in that AIM did not initiate terminate of IT service to AHTC at all but it was AHTC who terminated AIM's IT and screwed up big time in the process.
You see how bias is the article above?

 

[halsey02]

how to calculate those cost-benefits ah? :*::*::*:

They calculate the costs to the residents & the benefits to themselves. that is why they say cost-benefits!...when they make money or gains, they tell you, that provision had to be made for contingencies, but there are losses made by them or "external factor beyond their control", they costs is ours to share!!

these are called cost-benefits..

 

[Narong Wongwan]

They calculate the costs to the residents & the benefits to themselves. that is why they say cost-benefits!...when they make money or gains, they tell you, that provision had to be made for contingencies, but there are losses made by them or "external factor beyond their control", they costs is ours to share!!

these are called cost-benefits..

this one machiam when the gf plays mahjong with friends....losses I pay winning she take

 

[tioliaohuat]

"In spite of the challenges encountered by the new Workers’ Party-run AHTC during the handover from the PAP, we are grateful to all who have helped us and for the efforts put in by our staff and contractors to ensure a smooth taking over of Town Council administration, including to upscale and develop a computing and financial system for AHTC under very challenging circumstances. This ensured that the interests of Aljunied and Hougang residents were protected, including in such important areas as cleanliness, maintenance and lift breakdown rates. AHTC will continue to strive for higher standards in our service to residents." - AHTC Chairman Sylvia Lim

[h=1]Media Release – 5 January 2013[/h] AHTC COMMITTED TO SAFEGUARDING RESIDENTS’ INTERESTS DESPITE CHALLENGES THROWN AT IT
I refer to the statement issued by Dr Teo Ho Pin on 2 Jan 2013 on the sale of the developed software formerly owned by the PAP-managed Town Councils to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2011 prior to the General Election.
Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) is not able to verify the accuracy of the reasons for the sale cited by Dr Teo, as the documents AHTC has on hand, including the tender documents, do not disclose many of the details mentioned. In any event, the reasons given underscore three fundamental facts: first, that the PAP-managed Town Councils sold off the computer and financial systems developed with public monies to a vehicle of the PAP, just prior to the General Election; second, according to the most recent statement of Mr Chandra Das, AIM’s Chairman, AIM “as a PAP company” wanted to “be helpful to the PAP Town Councils”, and; third, that the PAP sees no issue with an arrangement allowing them to terminate the software agreements with any Town Council with one month’s notice if there is a material change in the Town Council’s membership.
With regards to the one-month termination clause in the AIM contract, Dr Teo considered it “reasonable”. However, he himself indicated that it would take “maybe 18 to 24 months, or even longer” to assess new software and develop a replacement system. In our view, therefore, the question of how the PAP-managed Town Councils acted in the public (and residents’) interest in relinquishing their ownership of the systems to AIM upon such conditions has still not been answered. We leave it to the public to make their own judgment.
To allay any doubts about whether AIM had indeed terminated the software agreement with AHTC, a copy of the termination notice is attached for public scrutiny.
In spite of the challenges encountered by the new Workers’ Party-run AHTC during the handover from the PAP, we are grateful to all who have helped us and for the efforts put in by our staff and contractors to ensure a smooth taking over of Town Council administration, including to upscale and develop a computing and financial system for AHTC under very challenging circumstances. This ensured that the interests of Aljunied and Hougang residents were protected, including in such important areas as cleanliness, maintenance and lift breakdown rates. AHTC will continue to strive for higher standards in our service to residents.


SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG TOWN COUNCIL
5 January 2013
Attached: Copy of Termination Notice by AIM

 

[Kinana]

Why didn't Sylvia tell us that it was she who terminated AIM's IT service and caused the screw up at AHTC?
See howshe is trying to cover up her screw up and go into attacking a straw man?

 

[Debonerman]

Why didn't Sylvia tell us that it was she who terminated AIM's IT service and caused the screw up at AHTC?
See howshe is trying to cover up her screw up and go into attacking a straw man?

tion

Hey PAP dog...it seems not much people are paying you any attention. Guess it's because your mother was and still is a prostitute...so you son of A WHORE BETTER DO BETTER THAN TO SPAM YOUR NONSENSE!....YEAH.....YOU GOT MY ATTENTION ALRIGHT!

 

[Kinana]

tion

Hey PAP dog...it seems not much people are paying you any attention. Guess it's because your mother was and still is a prostitute...so you son of A WHORE BETTER DO BETTER THAN TO SPAM YOUR NONSENSE!....YEAH.....YOU GOT MY ATTENTION ALRIGHT!

you pat attention good enough liao.

So why didn't Sylvia tell us that it was she who terminated AIM's IT service and caused the screw up at AHTC?

 

[Debonerman]

you pat attention good enough liao.

So why didn't Sylvia tell us that it was she who terminated AIM's IT service and caused the screw up at AHTC?

Why don't you lay out the facts in pertinent points instead of single line insidious statement meant to tarnish SL and confuse readers? You son of a whore PAP dog!

 

[Kinana]

Why don't you lay out the facts in pertinent points instead of single line insidious statement meant to tarnish SL and confuse readers? You son of a whore PAP dog!

Its so simple.
Why didn't Sylvia tell us that it was she who terminated AIM's IT service and caused the screw up at AHTC?

 

[Vigilante]

Its so simple.
Why didn't Sylvia tell us that it was she who terminated AIM's IT service and caused the screw up at AHTC?

why you so repetitive?

 

[Debonerman]

why you so repetitive?

Because he can't serve a Davinder Singh LEEGAL letter to sammyboy!

 

[ray_of_hope]

Yoong obviously has plenty to say.

I prefer his previous blog posting dated 28 Dec 2012, "An unwholesome display of opposition disunity".

 

[Kinana]

why you so repetitive?

Because you ppl are repetitive

 

[jw5]

how to calculate those cost-benefits ah? :*::*::*:

costs - porlumpar, sycophantic, subservent, perpetual fake smile and nodding head, obedient, no sense of right and wrong, no sense of justice and fairness, cannot say what you really think, etc......................

benefits - lifelong zao gor..........................

 

[rusty]

Because you ppl are repetitive

So you see, my tool and skill is so good I need not be repetitive.
Once in your throat no repetition required.
Right Honey?