Recently I made a bet with GMS over WP and AIM. I wagered that SL would raise the AIM issue in Parliament and it would become a campaign issue during the BE. GMS bet that WP would chicken out on AIM. The loser would do a SBF posting on how he was wrong about WP before the end of the BE.
SL withdrew the motion and for a time, it did look like WP had chickened out. I therefore conceded the bet.
After I conceded and started working on my post, WP sabo me by coming out full throttle on AIM. I was amazed by what was said in the last two rallies.
WP's raising of AIM appears to have caught PAP off guard. THP issued a lame statement which got hammered by the TOC article below. The article provides a concise list of sharp questions and is the best article so far on AIM.
The msm is in disarray. They reacted by blacking out AIM. This tactic is however unlikely to contain the issue as Punggol East is a very young constituency with good access to Internet.
The PAP have one rally left tonight to respond. If they address the issue tonight, will our MSM breach the laws of Cooling Off day to run stories for the PAP? Previously they had already run afoul the law by publishing poll results after the writ had been issued. A second breach with no action taken against them would damage credibility. It might even backfire and encourage swing voters to vote WP in response to the biased propaganda coverage.
The AIM issue is not going away. PAP Ministers and MPs planning a holiday to recover from an exhausting BE better make it a short one. PM LHL had promised an MND review in 2 months. Singaporeans are going to hold him to it and the battle will begin anew.
----
STATEMENT BY THE ONLINE CITIZEN, IN RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT BY DR TEO HO PIN ON AIM
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2013/01...nse-to-the-statement-by-dr-teo-ho-pin-on-aim/
Dr Teo Ho Pin issued a statement about the AIM transaction in response to media queries last night. The Online Citizen has already explained the problems with the transaction. To reiterate, these are the problems:
a) The glaring conflict of interest, in PAP-controlled Town Councils awarding a key contract to a PAP-owned company.
b) The failure by the PAP-controlled Town Councils to ask for a performance bond or banker’s guarantee from a $2 company that was buying and licensing-back a mission-critical piece of software.
c) The absolute lack of detail in the tender notice, and the reported lack of detail in the tender document that cost $214 to obtain.
d) The apparent discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010), and whether the proper process for extending the tender period had been followed.
e) The finding that the Town Council Management System was obsolete and needed replacement in 2010, when it continues to be used, and hence presumably perfectly functional, in 2013.
f) The long delay in replacing the supposedly obsolete TCMS, with the PAP-controlled Town Councils not even having selected a vendor 2.5 years after deciding that it was necessary to replace the TCMS.
g) The payment of the management fee of $33,150 to AIM, and how the incurring of this obligation was beneficial to the residents of the PAP-controlled Town Councils.
h) The failure by Dr Teo and Mr Chandra Das to disclose the payment of this management fee to AIM at the earliest possible opportunity, especially when they were highlighting the “savings” of $8,120 from selling the TCMS to AIM and licensing it back.
i) The lack of information on how the management fee of $33,150 paid to AIM was used by AIM.
j) The lack of independence in having the Ministry of National Development review the AIM transaction, as MND is the same body that oversees Town Councils
k) The continued lack of information from the PAP about the companies that it owns, what they do, the persons who benefit from their operations, and their business dealings (if any) with PAP-controlled Town Councils and government agencies, in particular the previous contracts between AIM and PAP-controlled Town Councils that Mr Das has alluded to.
Dr Teo has so far failed to address or even acknowledge these problems. TOC will send a copy of this statement to Dr Teo. We look forward to the statement by Dr Teo Ho Pin in response to new media queries.
SL withdrew the motion and for a time, it did look like WP had chickened out. I therefore conceded the bet.
After I conceded and started working on my post, WP sabo me by coming out full throttle on AIM. I was amazed by what was said in the last two rallies.
WP's raising of AIM appears to have caught PAP off guard. THP issued a lame statement which got hammered by the TOC article below. The article provides a concise list of sharp questions and is the best article so far on AIM.
The msm is in disarray. They reacted by blacking out AIM. This tactic is however unlikely to contain the issue as Punggol East is a very young constituency with good access to Internet.
The PAP have one rally left tonight to respond. If they address the issue tonight, will our MSM breach the laws of Cooling Off day to run stories for the PAP? Previously they had already run afoul the law by publishing poll results after the writ had been issued. A second breach with no action taken against them would damage credibility. It might even backfire and encourage swing voters to vote WP in response to the biased propaganda coverage.
The AIM issue is not going away. PAP Ministers and MPs planning a holiday to recover from an exhausting BE better make it a short one. PM LHL had promised an MND review in 2 months. Singaporeans are going to hold him to it and the battle will begin anew.
----
STATEMENT BY THE ONLINE CITIZEN, IN RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT BY DR TEO HO PIN ON AIM
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2013/01...nse-to-the-statement-by-dr-teo-ho-pin-on-aim/
Dr Teo Ho Pin issued a statement about the AIM transaction in response to media queries last night. The Online Citizen has already explained the problems with the transaction. To reiterate, these are the problems:
a) The glaring conflict of interest, in PAP-controlled Town Councils awarding a key contract to a PAP-owned company.
b) The failure by the PAP-controlled Town Councils to ask for a performance bond or banker’s guarantee from a $2 company that was buying and licensing-back a mission-critical piece of software.
c) The absolute lack of detail in the tender notice, and the reported lack of detail in the tender document that cost $214 to obtain.
d) The apparent discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010), and whether the proper process for extending the tender period had been followed.
e) The finding that the Town Council Management System was obsolete and needed replacement in 2010, when it continues to be used, and hence presumably perfectly functional, in 2013.
f) The long delay in replacing the supposedly obsolete TCMS, with the PAP-controlled Town Councils not even having selected a vendor 2.5 years after deciding that it was necessary to replace the TCMS.
g) The payment of the management fee of $33,150 to AIM, and how the incurring of this obligation was beneficial to the residents of the PAP-controlled Town Councils.
h) The failure by Dr Teo and Mr Chandra Das to disclose the payment of this management fee to AIM at the earliest possible opportunity, especially when they were highlighting the “savings” of $8,120 from selling the TCMS to AIM and licensing it back.
i) The lack of information on how the management fee of $33,150 paid to AIM was used by AIM.
j) The lack of independence in having the Ministry of National Development review the AIM transaction, as MND is the same body that oversees Town Councils
k) The continued lack of information from the PAP about the companies that it owns, what they do, the persons who benefit from their operations, and their business dealings (if any) with PAP-controlled Town Councils and government agencies, in particular the previous contracts between AIM and PAP-controlled Town Councils that Mr Das has alluded to.
Dr Teo has so far failed to address or even acknowledge these problems. TOC will send a copy of this statement to Dr Teo. We look forward to the statement by Dr Teo Ho Pin in response to new media queries.
Last edited:
