PM Lee asks MND to review AIM computer systems deal

[Confuseous]

He said it must satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents' interests were not compromised. -AsiaOne

Tue, Jan 08, 2013
AsiaOne


SINGAPORE - Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) to review the transaction involving Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), the firm appointed to manage town councils' computer systems.

The Town Council Review Team will be led by MND's Deputy Secretary Mr Tay Kim Poh.

Read PM Lee's full statement below:

Last week, Mayor Teo Ho Pin explained the circumstances of the sale of Town Council (TC) management software belonging to PAP TCs in an open tender to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2010. The transaction was not raised as an issue by any of the external auditors who audited the FY2010 accounts of these TCs.

In the interest of transparency and maintaining trust in the system, I have asked the Ministry of National Development (MND) to review this transaction fully, and satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents' interests were not compromised.

With a view to ensuring high overall standards of corporate governance in TCs, MND will take a broad-based approach, including re-examining the fundamental nature of TCs. MND has begun the review, which is expected to take a month or two.

In a separate statement, MND said:

Town Councils are autonomous bodies managed by elected Members of Parliament and governed by the Town Councils Act which MND administers.

The MND Town Council Review Team is led by Mr Tay Kim Poh, MND’s Deputy Secretary. The team will report to Permanent Secretary, MND.

Planning began last week and field activities should start soon. The team looks forward to the cooperation of all TCs.

 

[oppoibchief]

why dont just refer to CPIB?

 

[jubilee1919]

They concluded that despite all their efforts it was an uphill task to convince the public that there was no foul play. No amount of explanation seemed to be acceptable and they have lost a lot of credibility.

This move will be the wayang that will smoothed the public's ruffled feathers and indignation.

 

[laksaboy]

why dont just refer to CPIB?

That would be tantamount to admitting that the deal was corrupt.

Pinky doesn't want to slap himself in the face.

 

[methink]

Loony PM unable to defend and justify Teo's devious actions, is throwing a smokesreen. Public outcries are just too great to ignore.

Now looking for a way out.

 

[Force 136]

AIM deal begs questions: Tan Cheng Bock
By TODAY, Amir Hussain | Posted: 08 January 2013 0803 hrs

SINGAPORE: Former long-time PAP backbencher Tan Cheng Bock has weighed in on the controversy surrounding the sale of computer systems used by town councils, raising several questions in a post on his Facebook page on Monday, including whether it was right and beneficial to give up ownership of software developed using public funds.

Dr Tan, who was chairman of West Coast-Ayer Rajah Town Council from 2001 to 2004, also questioned whether the town councils, as "public institutions" - a description that was disputed by Tampines GRC MP Baey Yam Keng, who said they were "political organisations" - did the right thing selling the system to Action Information Management (AIM), "a company owned by a political party with its own agenda".

The sale of the systems to a company that is wholly-owned by the PAP "begs a few questions", said Dr Tan, "especially when the company may not serve, 'due to material change', an opposition ward".

"This software is developed using public funds by town councils. Is it right for the TCs to give up ownership in this manner?" he asked.

"So did the town councils as public institutions do the right thing, selling (the system) to a company owned by a political party with its own agenda?"

Dr Tan also questioned the need to introduce AIM as a "middle man" between the town councils and the software developers. He asked if this arrangement raised the town councils' costs, which will eventually be borne by constituents.

"As AIM is now the owner, is it going to pay the costs for any upgrade or new software development? How much is AIM then going to charge the town councils, which now is at the mercy of AIM?" he wrote.

"As town councils are public institutions, citizens are certainly uncomfortable with political party-owned companies transacting with the town councils.

"Much more clarity and transparency are needed."

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1246608/1/.html

"This software is developed using public funds by town councils. Is it right for the TCs to give up ownership in this manner?"

Will MND answer the question posed by Tan Cheng Bok? I don't think so.......

 

[cunnilaubu]

The PM should first release the figure on the number of PAP companies and how many of these are doing business with public bodies.
What are the purposes of these companies? What are the profits generated used for?

Remember AIM's initial objectives at incorporation were to provide pensions and gratuities for its Directors / Shareholders.

I am sure AIM is not the only one.

 

[Confuseous]

26) To grant pensions or gratuities to any past or serving directors, officers, or employees of the Company or to the relations, connections, or dependents of any such persons, … – “On Monday, in a letter addressed to the media, chairman Chandra Das said AIM’s directors “do not receive directors’ fees or any other benefits”.” (“AIM: What is it all about?“, New Paper, Dec 31)

(39) To transact any lawful business in aid of Singapore in the prosecution of any war or hostilities in which Singapore in engaged.

I can’t find any mention of “PAP”. So, how and why is it that it is called a “PAP-owned company”?

What is a “PAP-owned company”? One that has former PAP MPs as directors and shareholders?

However, I understand that there was a former director who was never a MP? (“Interesting history of AIM Pte Ltd“, Dec 25, TR Emeritus)

“The paid-up capital upon incorporation will be $1 million” - The paid-up capital now is still $2?

Lagi sini dah....http://leongszehian.com/?p=2469

 

[cunnilaubu]

26) I can’t find any mention of “PAP”. So, how and why is it that it is called a “PAP-owned company”?

It can only mean that the ex-MPs are holding the shares as proxies on behalf of PAP.
This practice is fairly common when the real shareholder do not want to expose themselves.
Corporate secretaries / lawyers / auditors regularly acts as proxy directors or shareholders for their clients.

 

[crimsondue]

Well, out comes the broom and the old dusty carpet.

Does anyone have any doubt on the outcome?

 

[Confuseous]

MAYBE MND WILL LOOK INTO LSH'S QUESTIONS?

How much are the town councils paying to NCS for maintenance?

So many more questions?


Can all the documents between the town councils and AIM be made public? Was the $33,150 part of the tender? Was it even in the tender specifications in the first place? Why not make public the $214 tender document? Also, questions about why the tender advertisement looks like a purchase rather than a sale with hardly any details and “not to accept the lowest or any tender” (shouldn’t it be the highest for a sale) remain unanswered.

In respect of “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”, how much was paid to D&T and can the documents advising the controversial course of action taken by the town councils, which is now at issue, be made public?

Was a open tender called to select D&T?

Also, can the minutes of meetings, the process of how and who made the decisions at issue now, be made public?

I find it rather strange that instead of a statement by the PAP town councils like in their previous two statements, it now appears to be a personal statement from Teo Ho Pin signing off as Co-ordinating Chairman, 14 PAP Town Councils. What has all the other MPs and committee members of the town councils got to say about this continuing saga?

Did they or did they not know about all the above, and were they and are they now in concurrence with Teo Ho Pin’s statement.

Considering all of the above, the ending sentence of the statement – “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”, may arguably the greatest understatement of the century in the history of Singapore!

Leong Sze Hian

 

[jubilee1919]

26) To grant pensions or gratuities to any past or serving directors, officers, or employees of the Company or to the relations, connections, or dependents of any such persons, … – “On Monday, in a letter addressed to the media, chairman Chandra Das said AIM’s directors “do not receive directors’ fees or any other benefits”.” (“AIM: What is it all about?“, New Paper, Dec 31)

I can’t find any mention of “PAP”. So, how and why is it that it is called a “PAP-owned company”

Call me stupid, Chandra Das and his gang are doing this because they are very free and they also want to volunteer their services being upright citizens and doing their National Service to the nation.

Look!!! My toes are laughing.

 

[watchman8]

Lets see, MND is headed by khaw boon wan, who is also the lead MP for sembawang GRC, that was one of 14 GRCs that made the deal with AIM. So asking one of foxes to investigate if there is anything improper when the foxes collectively raided the chickens... Not guilty is the verdict, for sure.

Now why even bother with any investigation? Are the chickens that daft?