- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]TRE readers roundly condemn Teo Ho Pin’s ‘further statement’[/h]
January 3rd, 2013 |
Author: Editorial
Dr Teo Ho Pin
On Wednesday (2 Jan 2013), Dr Teo Ho Pin, the self-described “co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils”, issued a “further statement to set out fully the relevant facts” regarding the AIM saga.
Dr Teo issued Wednesday’s statement in response to one issued on Friday (28 Dec 2012) by Ms Sylvia Lim, one of five Workers’ Party MPs for Aljunied GRC and Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.
On Friday, Ms Lim had issued a statement asking questions about the circumstances surrounding the deal between PAP Town Councils and AIM, a $2 company. That same evening, Dr Teo said he would go through Ms Lim’s “latest allegations” of conflict of interest and “deal with them openly, in a further statement over the next few days.”
This “further statement” comes in a 26-paragraph, four-page missive outlining why and how the town councils came to have a sale-and-lease-back agreement with the PAP-owned AIM.
Dr Teo is seeking to clarify matters and to convince Singaporeans of the uprightness of the AIM transaction, but he has instead drawn a lot of unfriendly fire from TRE readers, as may be seen below:
A reader nicknamed localSgean makes this comment:
Another TRE reader, Julesvernesg, says:
The Singapore public, as the responses demonstrate, have roundly rejected Dr Teo’s explanation.
We wait with bated breath for Dr Teo to enlighten us further.
On Wednesday (2 Jan 2013), Dr Teo Ho Pin, the self-described “co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils”, issued a “further statement to set out fully the relevant facts” regarding the AIM saga.
Dr Teo issued Wednesday’s statement in response to one issued on Friday (28 Dec 2012) by Ms Sylvia Lim, one of five Workers’ Party MPs for Aljunied GRC and Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.
On Friday, Ms Lim had issued a statement asking questions about the circumstances surrounding the deal between PAP Town Councils and AIM, a $2 company. That same evening, Dr Teo said he would go through Ms Lim’s “latest allegations” of conflict of interest and “deal with them openly, in a further statement over the next few days.”
This “further statement” comes in a 26-paragraph, four-page missive outlining why and how the town councils came to have a sale-and-lease-back agreement with the PAP-owned AIM.
Dr Teo is seeking to clarify matters and to convince Singaporeans of the uprightness of the AIM transaction, but he has instead drawn a lot of unfriendly fire from TRE readers, as may be seen below:
A reader nicknamed localSgean makes this comment:
Whatever he is trying to say, it’s not justifying why AIM, a $2 company, should be awarded the contract. Obviously the party has already thought of some crappy explanation on the issue to make this look reasonable.
The focus is on the worthiness and competency of the company and why it is owned by the party. It could be that they set up the company just prior to the tender to get the deal??
localSgean’s comment has, at point of writing, received 192 “thumbs up” and 0 “thumbs down”.The focus is on the worthiness and competency of the company and why it is owned by the party. It could be that they set up the company just prior to the tender to get the deal??
Another TRE reader, Julesvernesg, says:
I don’t really know how his explanation justify TCs can benefit from savings when you add another layer of ‘fat’ or margins to the transactions, unless he in implying that AIM is ‘losing’ money in these transactions.
Furthermore, as a lot of folks already pointed out, AIM is purely a shell company with no staff nor expertise to manage the support, so where does this so-call benefits arise from? Still too many illogical explanations and spins, I think
A reader with considerable IT expertise, nicknamed Taken for a ride?, puts it so simply and clearly even a child can understand:Furthermore, as a lot of folks already pointed out, AIM is purely a shell company with no staff nor expertise to manage the support, so where does this so-call benefits arise from? Still too many illogical explanations and spins, I think
Dr Teo Ho Ping’s statement has now exposed his ignorance on computer software.
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 could suffer from wear and tear. To say that a piece of software can become obsolete is to assert that a simple mathematical statement like 1+1=2 will also be outdated someday.
In almost all modern software there will be lots of subroutines each dedicated to perform a specific task. Such subroutines also last forever. For example, a very old subroutine written by IBM to solve a quadratic equation in Fortran will remain as valid today as it was 50 years ago. Only the Fortran language or the operating system handling the computer language can get outdated.
When an operating system is updated, it is quite a simple task to migrate all the subroutines from the old operating system. In fact there are dedicated computer softwares that will automatically perform this migration without any human intervention.
In conclusion, a financial management software system and all the subroutines that have been written in any particular programming language would always remain as fresh as ever, and it is quite a simple matter to migrate this software to newer computers using new operating systems. There is no need to waste time and money to completely write off the software.
Reader Anson Be says: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 could suffer from wear and tear. To say that a piece of software can become obsolete is to assert that a simple mathematical statement like 1+1=2 will also be outdated someday.
In almost all modern software there will be lots of subroutines each dedicated to perform a specific task. Such subroutines also last forever. For example, a very old subroutine written by IBM to solve a quadratic equation in Fortran will remain as valid today as it was 50 years ago. Only the Fortran language or the operating system handling the computer language can get outdated.
When an operating system is updated, it is quite a simple task to migrate all the subroutines from the old operating system. In fact there are dedicated computer softwares that will automatically perform this migration without any human intervention.
In conclusion, a financial management software system and all the subroutines that have been written in any particular programming language would always remain as fresh as ever, and it is quite a simple matter to migrate this software to newer computers using new operating systems. There is no need to waste time and money to completely write off the software.
Seriously you could have consolidated the IP rights of the software to the party HQ or one of the TCs instead of finding one company to pay for this and lease back, sounds fishy you know. With the consolidated IP rights, the TC could negotiate with NCS for no fee increase, unless the TCs are unable to do so (then it is time to change the TCs at the next election?)
Worse, now we know that our system is working on an old platform until April 2013. What happens after April 2013? Spend more taxpayer’s money again to have new system?
The explanation fails terribly at having to justify why the need to sell to AIM, where one of the TCs could consolidate on behalf of the rest like you as the coordinating Chairman.
It is sad that all 14 TCs do is to pay money for the services of D&T (what company is D&T? Hopefully not another shell company of some PAP/PA related company!) to advise them to do such.
So you are blaming D&T for this idea of selling the system to AIM? This is pathetic. If a company gives you poor ideas, you accept that! If a citizen tells you something good, we are noise? This is sad.
It is time for a change of TCs, and have one like AHTC which really care for the citizens.
For Dr Teo’s statement and all the comments made by TRE readers in response (154 comments and counting at point of writing), please click “Dr Teo Ho Pin’s latest statement on AIM“.Worse, now we know that our system is working on an old platform until April 2013. What happens after April 2013? Spend more taxpayer’s money again to have new system?
The explanation fails terribly at having to justify why the need to sell to AIM, where one of the TCs could consolidate on behalf of the rest like you as the coordinating Chairman.
It is sad that all 14 TCs do is to pay money for the services of D&T (what company is D&T? Hopefully not another shell company of some PAP/PA related company!) to advise them to do such.
So you are blaming D&T for this idea of selling the system to AIM? This is pathetic. If a company gives you poor ideas, you accept that! If a citizen tells you something good, we are noise? This is sad.
It is time for a change of TCs, and have one like AHTC which really care for the citizens.
The Singapore public, as the responses demonstrate, have roundly rejected Dr Teo’s explanation.
We wait with bated breath for Dr Teo to enlighten us further.
