AIM Saga Summary of Views

Alex Au's article


PAP mis-AIMed, faces blowback, part 4
Published 3 January 2013 politics and government34 Comments

Teo Ho Pin’s latest public statement regarding the sale of the town council computer system to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) is far from convincing. If anything, it lends even more weight to suspicions that it was improperly decided and executed.

His statement was posted on Facebook 2 January 2013 (link), and here. It’s been picked apart (I think by Molly Meek) line by line here. I agree with the comments there and there’s no need for me to repeat them. See also the commentary by Harish Pillay.

The statement provides considerably more detail than have been disclosed so far. At least it produces the benefit of focussing the issue down to five key areas:

The decision to sell

Teo’s explanation about the decision to sell is wholly unconvincing. For seven years, the 14 People’s Action Party-run town councils had dealt directly with National Computer Systems Pte Ltd (NCS), including through the most complex phase — developing the software in the early years. All of a sudden, when the software had become mature through use, a decision was made to sell it simply because they needed to negotiate an extension beyond 2011 with NCS. There are many ways a group of users can liaise efficiently with a vendor through a point person or team; selling the software is not the most compelling.

I am not convinced that we have heard the real reason why Teo and the town councils chose this route.

Moreover, when Teo offered “Having each of the 14 individual TCs hold the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the software was cumbersome and inefficient” as a reason, it is almost laughable. Here is software that is becoming obsolete, that the town councils were nearly sure they’d have to replace completely, and they’re concerned about who should hold the rights to the corpse? Offering such a lame excuse only adds to suspicion.

The tender notice

Having made the decision to sell, how was it executed? The tender notice looks rather shoddy. Several questions have been raised by The Online Citizen, such as over the paucity of information about what the contract would be about, the two-week period when it should be three, etc. (See The curious case of the tender notice with no details). It gives the impression that there was no interest in securing wider participation.

Teo’s statement does not address these questions. Was he not aware of them even though The Online Citizen posted the article about 48 hours before Teo released his statement?

Commercial or political value?

Teo has now disclosed who the other four parties were who, besides AIM, purchased tender documents. They were NCS, CSC Technologies Services Pte Ltd, Hutcabb Consulting Pte Ltd, and NEC Asia Pte Ltd. A simple websearch will reveal that all four are reputable IT companies with an impressive list of clients. AIM does not even have a website.

Yet none of the four chose to submit a bid. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that none saw any commercial value in the deal.





Town councils made a small profit from the sale, Teo said

Teo said, “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.”

[Aside: Once again, he doesn't actually say that AIM paid $140,000 for it. Why does he not say it in plain language?]

S$785 per month multiplied by 12 months and multiplied by 14 town councils, means the total lease fees paid back to AIM was S$131,880. This appears to be the basis for his assertion that the town councils “expected to gain a modest amount (about S$8,000) from the disposal of IP in the existing software.”

But seven paragraphs down, Teo said AIM was now charging the town councils a management fee of S$33,150 for the 18-month period November 2011 to April 2013. Several questions follow:

1. Was this part of the June 2010 tender or was this negotiated separately after AIM had been awarded the tender? This is important because if it was part of the tender, the other four parties might have seen commercial value and put in bids. If it was negotiated separately without calling for a new public tender, how does it meet procurement standards?

2. Add the $8,000 gain and the $33,150 fee and one sees that the town councils are paying AIM more than AIM paid for the asset. Teo might argue that AIM is providing services beyond the asset, but the town councils could have continued dealing directly with NCS and also sourced for a new system (as they did in 2003) without having to pay this sum. Teo needs to explain the rationale.

3. Why did Teo not volunteer to mention this S$33,150 fee in his earlier statement of 24 December 2012? Why the half-truth then? Why only disclose it after I had asked what the fee to AIM was after October 2011?



That being the case, either AIM had special insight and could see commercial value where experienced companies could not — hard to believe, since AIM was a dormant company — or AIM could see value that was not commercial in nature. Given the fact that AIM is owned by the PAP, the inescapable conclusion is that it saw political value. The details in Teo’s statement only reinforce this feeling.

Does PAP ownership qualify or disqualify?

Despite not having any track record — the tender notice had stipulated that it should be an ‘Experienced and reputable company with relevant track record’ – Teo said AIM was considered a reputable enough company simply because it was a PAP-owned company: “we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments.”

This is to see continents as wet and oceans as dry. Teo is saying that PAP ownership super-qualifies a company (super because it even obviates the need to demonstrate track record) when to any thinking citizen, it should disqualify it.

Despite being the sole bidder, the town councils should never have considered AIM’s offer.

Red line

The most troubling thing is that Teo sees no conflict of interest when putting state assets into partisan hands. It does not matter how it is done, whether through a tender or negotiated sale. The result is plain unacceptable. Arguing that there is nothing illegal about it — as either he or Chandra Das of AIM (and ex-PAP member of parliament) did in an earlier statement — only proves how they resist the ethical question.

There is a red line that should not be crossed. Most citizens can see that.

If the PAP thinks that putting a town council computer system in the hands of a PAP-owned company is not crossing that red line, then tomorrow, we may well wake up to discover that a ministry’s computer system, e.g. the national identity card and passport system, has been sold to the PAP. Or that the Central Provident Fund has entrusted a few billion dollars to a PAP-owned company to manage.

* * * * *

On a slightly happier note, Teo’s statement is notable for one thing it does not dwell on: Aljunied-Hougang Town Council’s (AHTC) switchover to a new system. Earlier, Teo and Chandra Das tried to use it as a smokescreen to avoid scrutiny of their own actions in passing the computer system to AIM.

The mainstream media played their dutiful part, reporting the matter as a “dispute” between PAP and the Workers’ Party which runs AHTC. But social media kept the focus on the sale of the software. Now, Teo’s abandonment of his earlier defensive position and his attempts to answer some of the specific questions raised online show the reach and power of new media.

So, one more time: Teo and PAP — why don’t you guys see a red line when others quite clearly do?

Lucky Tan's take.


AIM-PAP Saga : The Explanation that explains nothing!

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 recapture 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 their 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 for yourself to fully understand what he is saying[Why the PAP town council entered into transaction with AIM] and 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 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.

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.

By Harish Pillay

My Conscience Is Bugging Me


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 (his 1990 PhD thesis “Decision support and risk management system for competitive bidding in refurbishment work” notwithstanding).

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:








14 PAP Town Councils

AIM



Contract Award

$140,000 (perhaps each TC got $10K)

($140,000)



Lease (Nov 2010 – Oct 2011)

($785*14*12 => $131,880)

$131,880



Nett

$8,120



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:








14 PAP Town Councils

AIM



Contract Award

$140,000 (perhaps each TC got $10K)

($140,000)



Lease (Nov 2010 – Oct 2011)

($785*14*12 => $131,880)

$131,880



Nett

$8,120




Nov 2011 – Apr 2013

($33,150)

$33,150



Nett

($25,030)





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.

Feed me to the Fishes :


Mr Teo Ho Pin,

The first thing that came to my mind when I read "Statement by Teo Ho Pin on AIM Transaction" was "Lu kong simi?" = Say what?

I simply do not understand what to make of your statement. If you trust honesty, you would not have wasted time to defend the indefensible. If you continue to paint yourself into a corner, you'd only damage your integrity and bring your credibility down the sewers like the PM recently did with his 2013 New Year Message.

I'm no fan of Michael Palmer but his resignation (forced or otherwise) was a huge release for him. Through his resignation (or sack), he may have found freedom. Free from the chains of political masters/vampires who suck away core values and self worth Maybe you should do the same. Resign.

If you had say, "The reason for AIMgate was to trip any opposition who might have won in 2011 election." I would have shown you some respect, If you had continue with, "Unlike Goh Chok Tong who was crass enough to say no upgrading if you did not vote PAP or Lee Kuan Yew who said Singaporeans must repent if they voted for the opposition, I, Teo Ho Pin, am sorry that I have behaved worse than both of them. Instead of being upfront, I was working behind the scene to trip the opposition without any thought or concern for the well-being of the residents of the opposition GRC . Now I have awakened my sense of righteousness. I will not allow myself to treat Singaporeans with such contempt. In order to sleep well at night and sin no more, I shall, henceforth, resign as co-ordinating chairman of the 14 (now 13?) Town Councils, resign as a Mayor and as MP of Bukit Panjang."

If PM Lee's 2013 New Year Message sucks big time, your defence for AIM Transanctions sucks even worse!

As much as I blame the speechwriters for the crap of the 2103 New Year Message and shocked that PM Lee really read that speech, I think you should consult a better expert to help you get out of your current quagmire.

Honestly, quitting for you may be the better part of valour.

Your epic failure lies in what you wrote here:
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.

Ho Pin, you messed up big time here! If "the existing computer software was already dated" then, just why did you take so long to take action? Hey, man, you belong to the Peoples' Action Party and it took you so long to act? Now I know why my money in Town Council went to Lehman Brothers and never came back!

TOC Editorial: The problem with the AIM case, and what YOU can do
Published by The Online Citizen on January 3, 2013


By TOC Team -



The People’s Action Party’s (PAP) historical dominance of Singapore politics and government has always rested on the twin pillars of efficacy and incorruptibility. Its record of economic progress since independence is undoubtedly impressive, while winning a global reputation for zero tolerance for corruption.

While 2012 has rocked the establishment with a series of sex and corruption scandals, the PAP, both as the Government and as a political organization, has tried to respond robustly to these in an effort to maintain its aura of incorruptibility.

Which makes its weak and opaque comments about the sale of the Town Council Management System to the PAP-owned $2 company Action Information Management Pte Ltd even more striking.

While so far there is nothing to suggest that any individual had corruptly received personal benefits from this entire transaction, it does not follow that the information currently available shows that the transaction was completely unquestionable.

Indeed, there remain many unanswered questions that the PAP seems to be trying to sidestep. This threatens to cause the simmering controversy to boil over and undermine the PAP’s longstanding claims to accountability and incorruptibility.



A seriously flawed tender process?

Most of the questions to date have rightly focused on the propriety of the tender process and the role of AIM. Much has already been written by others, and we will not rehash those unanswered questions here.

But the latest revelations about the tender notice actually published in the Straits Times on 30 June 2010 (see here for TOC’s coverage) make us wonder whether there was a genuine effort to attract a broad range of competitive bids.

At best, the tender notice demonstrated unimaginable incompetence on the part of the PAP Town Councils; at worst, it begs for more investigation and more information to clarify why this tender is different from the Nparks Brompton bicycle fiasco.

The PAP has also admitted that AIM is owned by the party. This begs the question of exactly how the PAP Town Councils, led and controlled by PAP MPs and their appointees, managed and resolved the glaring conflict of interest in awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company when there was only one bid.

The Town Councils presumably did not even seek an independent valuation of the TCMS, since Dr. Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman for the PAP Town Councils, has said one of the aims of the tender exercise was to value the software.

The question of valuation is of fundamental importance, because the TCMS was developed using HDB residents’ funds, which are essentially public monies. The PAP Town Councils, as custodians of public funds and assets, have a duty to their residents to use those funds and assets in the residents’ best interests, and to extract maximum value from the assets if they are being disposed of.

So the disposal of a public asset like the TCMS must be properly handled to ensure that the public is not shortchanged. When the people in charge of the sale (the PAP MPs) are from the same organization that owns the purchaser (AIM), the Town Councils must spare no effort in ensuring that it is done on an arms-length basis and everything stands up to scrutiny.

One glaring question that the PAP has not explained is why it was necessary or desirable, or in the interests of the residents, to sell the TCMS in the first place.

Commercial entities do sale-and-leaseback exercises to convert capital expenditure into operating expenditure; this is a legitimate financial engineering exercise to improve the balance sheet.

But Town Councils are not commercial enterprises and do not have financial metrics like profitability and return on equity, and so have no need for such exercises. Tellingly, the PAP does not appear to have even attempted to explain why it undertook this exercise in the first place.

For instance, if this exercise was to save money for the Town Councils in the long run (which may well be the only acceptable reason for such an exercise), then it would have been the easiest thing for Dr. Teo to share the cost saving projections used when the Town Councils deliberated on AIM’s proposal. Instead, we get nothing.

Dr. Teo can keep repeating his assertion that the tender process followed the applicable “financial regulations”, but the available facts raise many questions that he and the PAP have so far chosen not to answer.



The PAP’s seriously inadequate response

The PAP’s response to this controversy has been entirely lacking, especially when contrasted with the Government’s robust response to the Brompton bike scandal and the PAP’s quick action when it learnt of Mr. Michael Palmer’s affair. In those cases, the responses were decisive and information was relatively openly shared.

But when it came to this case, all Singaporeans got were statements from Dr. Teo that were long on bare assertions and short on the details that we really want. Instead, Dr. Teo keeps talking about the Workers’ Party (WP) supposed desire to terminate their contract with AIM. This is particularly strange, given that Dr Teo has put it on record that AIM did in fact terminate the contract with the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. So whether or not the WP had wanted to terminate the contract with AIM was moot, because AIM had struck first.

Singaporeans want answers as to how public assets and public funds have been used by the PAP Town Councils; instead, we get irrelevant comments about a non-issue.

The obvious outcome, of course, is that the controversy continues simmering, coming ever closer to boiling over as more and more troubling information surfaces, when a straightforward and open response would be far more effective in reassuring Singaporeans about how the Town Councils administer public funds and public assets.



What Singaporeans can do

Singaporeans are not powerless in all this. Besides keeping the spotlight focused on this case that the mainstream media has conveniently chosen to forget, Singaporeans can do their part in getting us all closer to the truth. It’s important to do this, because it is our money that is involved.

TOC calls on all affected Singaporeans living in HDB estates in PAP constituencies to write to their PAP MPs, to ask for a full and proper accounting about this case. Here is a simple step-by-step guide on what to do:
1.Find out who’s your MP here: http://www.parliament.gov.sg/whos-my-mp. It will take you 2 clicks after you key in your postal code to find the email address, but you will get it.
2.Compose an email to your MP. Please add [email protected] in the “cc” field, so that TOC can track the number of emails sent to MPs.
3.Use “Your resident’s questions about the AIM case” as the subject-heading. You can use a different subject-heading, but using this subject-heading will help us to track numbers better.
4.You can copy-and-paste the text below to get you started, and then amend as you like. For instance, you can replace “Member of Parliament” in the first line with the name of your MP.
5.Sign off with your full name per your NRIC, and your address. You can use a partial address (e.g. “Block 123, Pasir Panjang Street 45”) if you like, but ideally there should be enough information to show that you are in fact the MP’s constituent. You may, but do not have to, include your NRIC number.
6.Send the email to your MP, cc-ed to TOC as described above.
7.If you receive any responses from your MP (or his/her representatives), they are likely to omit TOC. So please make sure to forward all responses (even if it is just an acknowledgment receipt) to TOC.

This is our suggested text for sending to your MP:


“Dear Member of Parliament,

I am your constituent. I write to you to seek more information on the controversy surrounding the sale of the Town Councils Management Software to the PAP-owned $2 company, Action Information Management Pte Ltd.

As a HDB resident in a constituency managed by a PAP town council, I am affected by this transaction, either because my money was used to develop the TCMS or because the sale of the TCMS to AIM could affect me in future. As my duly-elected representative and a member of my town council, you have a duty to account to me on how my money has been spent or how I will be affected in future.

My questions are set out below:
1.How much did my town council pay to National Computer Systems to develop the TCMS originally?
2.Why did my town council decide to sell the TCMS to a third-party in the first place? Did the town council discuss this decision to sell the TCMS? Please provide to me a copy of the minutes of the town council meeting (or at least, a copy of the portion of the minutes dealing with this) where this decision was made.
3.Who were the other 4 companies, other than AIM, who obtained the tender documents?
4.What due diligence did my town council do on AIM, before awarding the contract to AIM?
5.What protections are there in the contract with AIM, to ensure that it could properly deliver on its contractual obligations? For instance, was a performance bond or bankers’ guarantee required from this $2 company?
6.Was the fact that AIM is a PAP-owned company disclosed to my town council? If so, how did my town council address the conflict of interest, when AIM submitted the only bid for this tender?
7.Was National Computer Systems, who originally developed the TCMS, asked to participate in the tender?
8.Did my town council know that AIM would engage NCS as a sub-contractor? If so, why did my town council not decide to cut out the middleman (i.e. AIM) and simply renew its contract with NCS?

Please let me have a response as soon as practicable, and in any event within 30 days of my email. Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

TOC hopes that all Singaporeans can work together, to bring some more clarity to this case. We deserve a full accounting from the PAP on this case.

scroobal said:

Alex Au's article


PAP mis-AIMed, faces blowback, part 4
Published 3 January 2013 politics and government34 Comments

The statement provides considerably more detail than have been disclosed so far. At least it produces the benefit of focussing the issue down to five key areas:

The decision to sell

Teo’s explanation about the decision to sell is wholly unconvincing. For seven years, the 14 People’s Action Party-run town councils had dealt directly with National Computer Systems Pte Ltd (NCS), including through the most complex phase — developing the software in the early years. All of a sudden, when the software had become mature through use, a decision was made to sell it simply because they needed to negotiate an extension beyond 2011 with NCS. There are many ways a group of users can liaise efficiently with a vendor through a point person or team; selling the software is not the most compelling.

I am not convinced that we have heard the real reason why Teo and the town councils chose this route.

Moreover, when Teo offered “Having each of the 14 individual TCs hold the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the software was cumbersome and inefficient” as a reason, it is almost laughable. Here is software that is becoming obsolete, that the town councils were nearly sure they’d have to replace completely, and they’re concerned about who should hold the rights to the corpse? Offering such a lame excuse only adds to suspicion.

Click to expand...

Town Council Software License still got a resale market value of 30 to 70%
of the original price.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...tware-sales-set-to-soar-on-oracle-ruling.html

They quote a price, typically 30 percent to 70 percent of the original cost.
The intermediaries usually take a cut of about 30 percent of the deal.

Possible copyright infringement.

The original licensee must not carry on using the software after the sale, otherwise it will be infringing copyright. It must make its own copy
of the software “unusable”.

http://m.mayerbrown.com/files/Publi...pdate_aug12_software-licence-transferable.pdf

Having made the decision to sell, how was it executed? The tender notice looks rather shoddy. Several questions have been raised by The Online Citizen, such as over the paucity of information about what the contract would be about, the two-week period when it should be three, etc. (See The curious case of the tender notice with no details). It gives the impression that there was no interest in securing wider participation.

Click to expand...

The tender notice is deliberately structured to be shoddy, without details and telling interested parties that "someone already choped" the award, so don't bother.

Singapore Recalcitrant:


Thursday, January 3, 2013


The Continuing AIM Saga



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 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.

By The Heart Truths:

Teo Ho Pin and Aim Case: The Art of Writing a Letter to Sidestep the Truth


Teo Ho Pin had released a statement yesterday on the case of Aim and Aljunied GRC yesterday. He, or the PAP, has used some tactics in his letter to befuddle Singaporeans. Here’s how:

1.
Who is Teo Really Hoping the Statement to Address? Do you know who the intended audience for the statement is? In fact, at first glance, the question would be – who is the letter addressed to? Who is Teo trying to address his case to? It doesn’t seem to be addressed to the Worker’s Party or Aljunied GRC. It doesn’t seem to be addressed to the Singaporeans who had made many attempts to query PAP on the discrepancies in information – as such, Teo has chosen not to address the statement to Aljunied GRC and the Singaporeans who have asked, even if they are the rightful addressee for the statement. This statement is actually addressed to Singaporeans who are still on the fence as to whether to believe PAP or Aljunied GRC, and Singaporeans who were aligned to PAP but who are starting to have second thoughts from the Aim Case. At this point, PAP knows it is losing when it comes to competing on information. It simply doesn’t have a case. It knows that at this point, some Singaporeans are beginning to realize the truth and are beginning to doubt what they think about PAP – this statement is aimed at retaining this group of Singaporeans – how can they present the information in a way which ‘looks’ logical, so that the unknowing Singaporeans can still be drawn back to the fold? How can they try not to address the sensitive issues, and refocus the issue, so that the Singaporeans who haven’t thought about the issue but whose anxieties have been risen be calmed by their seemingly ‘logical’ statement?


2.
Preventing Worker’s Party from Responding. Do you notice that Teo has chosen not to address the statement to the Worker’s Party, even though the Worker’s Party should be the rightful addressee to the statement? As mentioned, this is because the statement isn’t about answering the queries that have been put up. It’s aimed at salvaging the situation and retaining those who can still be made to believe what they say. At the same time, PAP knows that they cannot respond directly to the Worker’s Party, because sooner or later, they will be forced to respond directly to the questions asked, and it will only expose the truth. So, they have chosen to delink the Worker’s Party from the fray. By doing so, they hope that the Worker’s Party won’t have a chance to come back with a respond, and they can let the matter rest. Then you might ask, what about the Singaporeans who will then query PAP? The mainstream media does not cover news brought out online which is contrary to the government’s stance, so other than the Worker’s Party, they will omit any other differing opinions in the mainstream media for this case, and this will effectively silence the discourse. But the Worker’s Party is an officially registered party, and like it or not, the mainstream media will be forced to report on any statement the party makes, and thus Teo’s response at this point is a concerted effort to delink the association with the Worker’s Party. What this means is that residents in Aljunied GRC should write to the Worker’s Party to continue to demand for an explanation, so that the Worker’s Party will have a chance to continue putting up official statements, which can be reported in the mainstream media.


3.
Teo has Become a Scapegoat. Why did Teo make it so plain direct that he is the coordinating chairman of the town councils – he had said, “I am the co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils (“the TCs”)”? PAP is setting the stage now – if eventually, they are forced to answer to the queries and expose the truths, they would need a scapegoat – Teo would be this scapegoat. Also, Teo has taken responsibility because they do not want Singaporeans to eventually pinpoint another source where responsibility needs to be taken. Why do I say that?


4.
The Town Councils are a portfolio under MND. Because under the government directory, the town councils are actually listed under the Ministry of National Development (MND). If Teo doesn’t take the chop, a larger head will have to roll – the minister for MND. Very obviously, the town councils cannot possibly be operating on their own, as much as Teo would like to position so. There is a larger body coordinating the town councils, and it’s MND.


5.
What is MND’s Role? Which then brings us to the next question, if the town councils had deemed that the NCS wouldn’t be able to fulfill the new requirements of the tender in 2010, and the town councils were wanting to have another party manage their software – Teo had said that the “TCs (were given the) option of having a third party own the computer system”, logically, shouldn’t the Ministry of National Development, being the overseer of the town councils, play this role? Why was the buck passed on to Aim, or why did they want to pass the buck to Aim? MND has kept quiet during this whole episode. But it might be time they answer. Is MND that incapable that they were not able to manage the town councils? What role did they play and should have?


6.
Is NCS Incapable? Then, of course, the next question is – is NCS so incapable that they are not able to manage the needs of the town councils but are able to manage the overall needs of the other government agencies as well as other international projects? This is the company which has an international portfolio, who is yet incapable to manage a simple software system? Also, Teo had mentioned that NCS had “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.” What a way with words to not mean anything, isn’t it? As of now, NCS has remained silent on this issue.


7.
Releasing a Long Statement to Befuddle. Do you know why Teo had released such a long statement? The purpose of writing out a long statement is an excellent tactic to tire out people who would be reading through the statement – this will tire them out halfway so that by the time they get to the end – where Teo brings out the incoherent information on the finances – the reader would have been confused and lost that they would take whatever was said at face value, accept it, be calmed and then continue to believe in PAP.


8.
Statement Still Doesn’t Answer Questions Raised. After the whole statement, a reader with a clear mind would then ask – so? PAP still hasn’t explained the purpose of Aim, why three ex-PAP MPs are in charge of the company, and what are the behind-the-scenes workings between the town councils, Aim and PAP? We know there are workings behind – we just do not know what and how, which is why Teo’s statement is meant to try to make the procurement look as legit as possible, so that they wouldn’t need to go into the details.


9.
Has PAP Profited from Singaporeans? The question then is, are the processes that Teo had described legit? After reading the whole statement, we are still none the wiser as to whether PAP had profited from the sale of the software and the subsequent repurchase by the town councils – this information was cleverly omitted from the statement – which means we have to continue to demand transparency for the release of this information.


Here is what it is - PAP’s strategy is to end this one and for all by releasing the statement – which is not directed at the Worker’s Party so that they can refrain from having to respond to any more questions, which will inadvertently reveal the truths. Also, the statement is meant to appease Singaporeans sitting on the fence, so that they can continued to be retained by PAP. The question is, will PAP succeed in eliminating any further discourse on this?

This means that for Singaporeans, we have to continue discussing about this case with unabated breath. It means that the citizens of Aljunied GRC will have to demand for respond from the Worker’s Party, to give them a chance to have their voice heard again.

This will be a long drawn out battle, if we can keep at it. We’ve let slip many opportunities for transparency, honesty and truth to prevail. This Aim case is actually a very good opportunity that we have for truth to be finally exposed, and we cannot let up.

For now, PAP will hope that time will erase the memory of the Aim case from the minds of Singaporeans and that this statement will end it. But we will not let it be. We will continue to keep it in the minds of Singaporeans until we get an answer – and the truth.

By the Void Decker

Statement on AIM (Ho Pin gag’em style)

Posted on January 2, 2013 by voiddecker



“Watch how I wiggle out of the situation”

The most eagerly anticipated PAP statement of the year—okay we are just two days into it—is finally out. Like a true star worthy of a Psy tribute band, Dr Teo Ho Pin has kept us waiting, clamouring, salivating over the festive holiday weekend at what juicy details he has to offer on the AIM transaction.

Without going into a hair-splitting operative, I don’t find anything glaringly dubious in the numbers presented in the statement; perhaps more astute readers will. A missing piece of the puzzle was what AIM gets paid after the initial one year period, and the answer is no more lease payments but just a maintenance fee of $140. This better justifies the sale price of $140,000. Previously, I posed the question on what is the useful life of the software, because some had assumed the lease will last up to five years.

Some questions remain unanswered. For example, why didn’t the TCs advertise the tender offer further when there was only one bid? They could argue that the process then was less strict, having taken place before the Brompton bike controversy. How did the TCs judge that the terms offered by AIM were competitive? They could point to the £8,000 profit they made from the disposal (but could it have been more?). I’m also not entirely convinced why there was a need to engage a third party to negotiate and manage the projects with NCS. With or without AIM, town council employees cannot totally exempt themselves from necessary tasks such as testing any releases or reporting bugs encountered because they are the ultimate end users. Thus, the role of AIM appears dispensable, especially when it can be performed by just two part-time staff. The TCs would have been better off trying to work out a deal directly with NCS, who as a regular government contractor will surely oblige.

My own feel is that there was no fraudulent intent from a financial standpoint, but what happened during the tender process remains opaque and lends itself to accusations of suspicious dealing. Such a business transaction between PAP-run entities involving public monies cannot be considered arm’s length and must be completely avoided, especially when there was only a single bid. Else the government will find themselves having to constantly defend against questions from the public. The fact remains undisputed that this was used as a political play to throw the opposition into disarray.

So why did it take Dr Teo so long to provide these straightforward details? Was information was not readily available because staff were away during this festive period? More disturbingly, if everything was indeed above board and done in the public interest, why did the press remain so silent? Surely this was the most newsworthy issue over the past week, whether or not there was any basis behind the allegations. Did Dr Teo or the PAP impose a gag’em style order on the mainstream media, or was there self-censorship for fear of displeasure from their political masters? Netizens and online forums have done well to demand for accountability and this is another example of our nation building media losing its relevance among more politically attuned Singaporeans. The question now is, if the people don’t find this explanation satisfactory, will the CPIB investigate?

Unfortunately, there are many who still believe this government is clean and incorruptible. The people must remain watchful. To give a software maxim as a befitting analogy: You can always prove the existence of bugs, but never the absence. Just because you don’t see any wrongdoing, it doesn’t mean it’s not there. And it’s what you can’t see that should really scare you

Teo must be pressing Deloitte to issue a statement to support his garbage statement. Will Deloitte be dumb enough to do it?

winnipegjets said:

Teo must be pressing Deloitte to issue a statement to support his garbage statement. Will Deloitte be dumb enough to do it?

Click to expand...

Maybe Po'ad can still pull some strings.

This is no longer a Teo Ho Pin or a Town Council issue. The PM has to step in to clear this mess. We have now crossed into the ethical conduct realm where public funds are involved. He cannot bury his head in the sand and wish this will go away.

This is really good stuff. People out there clearly have a firm grasp of the situation and can articulate it very well.

SCM impotent, castrated by comparison.

Thank you,brother Scroobal.
It is time for action.
The problem with the AIM case, and what YOU can do.
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/02/the-problem-with-the-aim-case-and-what-you-can-do/
The people of Singapore get the government they deserve,PAP and the 88 years old half-senile old man is waiting anxiously to see what the people of Singapore deserve?
God bless,amen,
Allahu Akbar,
Namaste
南无阿弥陀佛
南無觀世音菩薩
南無妙法莲华经.

This is really a momentous occasion where the social media has reached maturity in providing reliable content and compelling analysis of an important issue in a timely manner. As I was reading the commentaries, I realised that we do have quality people and more importantly they are very much aligned in their analysis and content. I thus felt that it is only right that such quality stuff needed to be put together for the benefit of everyone.

The SCM is totally incapacitated and marooned in their own world.

We of course on behalf of SBF claim association with Lucky Tan and credit as he started his blog life here.

scroobal said:

This is really a momentous occasion where the social media has reached maturity in providing reliable content and compelling analysis of an important issue in a timely manner. As I was reading the commentaries, I realised that we do have quality people and more importantly they are very much aligned in their analysis and content. I thus felt that it is only right that such quality stuff needed to be put together for the benefit of everyone.

The SCM is totally incapacitated and marooned in their own world.

We of course on behalf of SBF claim association with Lucky Tan and credit as he started his blog life here.

Click to expand...

Hahaha,I still remember the day when I questioned Lucky Tan why he hate Dr Chee,but Lucky Tan was not that successful in that respect,frankly,he finds his niche after he set up his blog.God bless,amen

Time to rekindle the circus around sex scandals of NBG and PL. maybe also charge more of the underage paid sex gang of 81.

Can guarantee that pap will drag this issue out. The average sinkie attention span is one month, and if the sinkies don't even make a whimper about whore jinx, temasick and GIC, you can be sure that the 60% will soon look away and concentrate on CNY shopping sprees soon.

watchman8 said:

Time to rekindle the circus around sex scandals of NBG and PL. maybe also charge more of the underage paid sex gang of 81.

Can guarantee that pap will drag this issue out. The average sinkie attention span is one month, and if the sinkies don't even make a whimper about whore jinx, temasick and GIC, you can be sure that the 60% will soon look away and concentrate on CNY shopping sprees soon.

Click to expand...

Brother Watchman 8,always remember,2013 after 21 Dec 2012 is the year of awakening,let's keep the peace and watch the shows promised.

One more by Brother Leong-Town councils’ software statement: ‘Full of holes’?
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2013/01/...full-of-holes/