- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
5. The Poison Pill clause. To me, this is the crux of the matter. The right for aim to walk away when there is a material change of ownership of the town council is political poison by the pap. One sees such clauses only in commercial contracts such as joint ventures, where both partners have the right to walk away if there is a material change, eg if the other party is acquired by a direct competitor. It would seem pap regards other parties as direct competitors and puts the same kind of poison pill clauses in its contracts as companies in a joint venture.
Again, this is perfectly legal but it shows just how political and self-serving PAP is.
In summary, I don’t believe PAP or AIM did anything illegal. However, I see what they did is for their own political interest, and I’m glad this case has exposed the lengths to which PAP will go to cling on to power.
Voters should see PAP for what it really is. They should also realise that AIM stands for “Aljunied Is Mine”.
- http://politicalwritings.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/the-real-pap/
Again, this is perfectly legal but it shows just how political and self-serving PAP is.
In summary, I don’t believe PAP or AIM did anything illegal. However, I see what they did is for their own political interest, and I’m glad this case has exposed the lengths to which PAP will go to cling on to power.
Voters should see PAP for what it really is. They should also realise that AIM stands for “Aljunied Is Mine”.
- http://politicalwritings.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/the-real-pap/
