hahaha.....this was posted by Scroobal...scroobal said:
i am just the messenger......lol.
Last edited:
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
AIM Saga Summary of Views
- Thread starter scroobal
- Start date
i am just the messenger......lol.
THis type of 'fixing' is the mildest form, trust me.
What will the Workers Party do on 14 January 2013?
Will the WP Parliamentarians be silent, reticent and fearful and not raise this AIM issue in Parliament? And will they continue to rely on their Vellama modus operandi, i.e. remain silent and let ordinary citizens, netizens and bloggers do the work, carry out the heavy lifting and take the risks on their behalf (even as these WP MPs enjoy the privileges, perks and benefits of being a $16,041/month MP)?
With all that have been published by bloggers and netizens, it is to be expected and simply a matter of time before the incorrigible Dauphin and his merry men latched on to something and revert back to what his father, he and his lackeys do best, i.e. threaten to sue or sue. Old habits die hard.
Parliamentary privilege is a legal immunity enjoyed by all MPs, including those from the Workers Party. The purpose of Parliamentary privilege is to allow MPs to speak freely during ordinary Parliamentary proceedings without any fear of legal action. Non-elected politicians, bloggers, netizens and the ordinary man in the street do not enjoy such a privilege. Notwithstanding this lack of privilege, these non-elected politicians, bloggers, netizens and the ordinary man in the street have spoken up on many and varied issues. To their credit, they have done a lot of work. They have carried out the heavy lifting. And they have courageously taken the risks in doing so.
The AIM issue directly affects the WP. The WP has a presence of 6 MPs and 2 NCMPS in Parliament. It is for the WP Parliamentarians to raise and pursue the AIM issue in Parliament.
Voters have also voiced their concern about the AIM issue. Voters have voted the WP into Parliament for a reason. To be their voices. It is the one of the primary duties and responsibilities of being an elected member of a First World Parliament to voice the concerns of your constituents and the electorate in Parliament.
In order to get to the bottom of this AIM issue once and for all, it is incumbent on the WP to raise and pursue this matter in Parliament when Parliament sits on 14 January 2013. If it does not but instead, expects non-elected politicians, bloggers, netizens and the ordinary man in the street to continue to raise and pursue the matter outside of Parliament, it will merely prove, once and yet again, all that have been said by skeptics and critics about the Workers Party and the pusillanimous leadership of the Workers Party.
Last edited:
Can you pls credit one of yr signature statements to me, since I am the one who turn on the light in yr shit covered head.? Otw you are plagiarising.
hahaha...as u wished....sure..already done.
u are still in dreamland..sincerely hope u will wake up one fine day.
Last edited:
Brother GD,PM Lee is First Class Cambridge,he knows well that the timing is different but not to smart enough to know the ending is near,HAhaha,God bless,amen
PAP incapable of reinventing itself: Catherine Lim
made 373 days ago.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QfxkFMKVAz8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
A spiritual shift is occurring. Many people around the world have found themselves on the verge of something vast, and their experiences can't be explained. ...
http://thefederationoflight.ning.com...sg_share_video
A spiritual shift is occurring. Many people around the world have found themselves on the verge of something vast, and their experiences can't be explained. ...
http://thefederationoflight.ning.com...sg_share_video
Tan Kin Lian has released the following statement on AIM.
Defamatory statements
http://tankinlian.blogspot.sg/2013/01/defamatory-statements.html
Alex Au had made a statement somewhat along the following lines, "if the the Attorney General Chambers and the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau are independent bodies, they should mount an investigation into the sale of the town council software to a company owned by a political party". Some people said that this statement could be regarded as defamatory.
I do not understand why this should be the case; I consider it to be a fair statement.
I had met two Swedish public figures and told them about the background to this matter, shortly after they had read the news in the social media about the threat of legal action against Alex Au. Their first reaction was, "This transaction would be considered in our country to be corruption". I did not ask them to explain why this was the case; anyway, they are just expressing their opinion.
I have made several statements in the past that it is the duty of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Criminal Affairs Department to deal with the fraudulent investment schemes, rather than allow these schemes to be continued for years.
I considered that I was making a fair statement; although some "tricky" lawyer would write to me stating that I was alleging that these organisations were corrupt, or were neglecting their duty; and in so stating, I had damaged their reputation.
Fifteen years ago, in the course of my company's business, we received this type of "tricky" letter from a lawyer. It took a matter out of context (I forget the details of the matter) and twisted it to make several absurd interpretations followed by the usual bullying demands. We replied to deny all of these absurdities and followed up with a complaint to the Law Society against the unprofessional conduct of the lawyer. The Law Society did not pursue the matter (for some reason or other); but the lawyer also dropped his demand. We did not really have the time to waste on these trivialities.
Defamatory statements
http://tankinlian.blogspot.sg/2013/01/defamatory-statements.html
Alex Au had made a statement somewhat along the following lines, "if the the Attorney General Chambers and the Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau are independent bodies, they should mount an investigation into the sale of the town council software to a company owned by a political party". Some people said that this statement could be regarded as defamatory.
I do not understand why this should be the case; I consider it to be a fair statement.
I had met two Swedish public figures and told them about the background to this matter, shortly after they had read the news in the social media about the threat of legal action against Alex Au. Their first reaction was, "This transaction would be considered in our country to be corruption". I did not ask them to explain why this was the case; anyway, they are just expressing their opinion.
I have made several statements in the past that it is the duty of the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Criminal Affairs Department to deal with the fraudulent investment schemes, rather than allow these schemes to be continued for years.
I considered that I was making a fair statement; although some "tricky" lawyer would write to me stating that I was alleging that these organisations were corrupt, or were neglecting their duty; and in so stating, I had damaged their reputation.
Fifteen years ago, in the course of my company's business, we received this type of "tricky" letter from a lawyer. It took a matter out of context (I forget the details of the matter) and twisted it to make several absurd interpretations followed by the usual bullying demands. We replied to deny all of these absurdities and followed up with a complaint to the Law Society against the unprofessional conduct of the lawyer. The Law Society did not pursue the matter (for some reason or other); but the lawyer also dropped his demand. We did not really have the time to waste on these trivialities.
Last edited:
Tan Cheng Bock has released the following statement on AIM.
Doing the Right Thing.
https://www.facebook.com/TanChengBock
Many a time we have been reminded by our leaders that we must do what is right. This is because we want fairness for all.
The recent controversy of town councils (TCs) allowing the ruling political party company (AIM) to buy over and manage the IT software programs of TCs, beg a few questions, especially when the company may not serve ‘due to material change’, an opposition ward.
This soft ware is developed using public funds by town councils. Is it right for the TCs to give up ownership in this manner?
For the good of all Singaporeans the administration of public institutions like TCs should be seamless when transiting after each Election.
So did the Town Councils as public institutions do the right thing, selling to a company owned by a political party with its own agenda?
People are also puzzled by why the software programme was sold to a dormant $2 company owned by the ruling political party. This company obviously could not manage and sub the job back to NCS.
Another question asked: the TCs have been successfully using the IT program supported by expertise from NCS, the developer of the system. Why introduce a ‘middle man’? Surely, if the IT software program needs an upgrade or redevelopment it is better the TCs, as ‘user’ should be working directly with the developer eg NCS. The TCs already have the experience getting the first software done.
NEXT, did this arrangement having the middleman raise costs for the TCs, which their constituents will ultimately bear? 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 TCs, which now is at the mercy of AIM?
As TCs are public institutions, citizens are certainly uncomfortable with political party owned companies transacting with the TCs
Much more clarity and transparency are needed.
Doing the Right Thing.
https://www.facebook.com/TanChengBock
Many a time we have been reminded by our leaders that we must do what is right. This is because we want fairness for all.
The recent controversy of town councils (TCs) allowing the ruling political party company (AIM) to buy over and manage the IT software programs of TCs, beg a few questions, especially when the company may not serve ‘due to material change’, an opposition ward.
This soft ware is developed using public funds by town councils. Is it right for the TCs to give up ownership in this manner?
For the good of all Singaporeans the administration of public institutions like TCs should be seamless when transiting after each Election.
So did the Town Councils as public institutions do the right thing, selling to a company owned by a political party with its own agenda?
People are also puzzled by why the software programme was sold to a dormant $2 company owned by the ruling political party. This company obviously could not manage and sub the job back to NCS.
Another question asked: the TCs have been successfully using the IT program supported by expertise from NCS, the developer of the system. Why introduce a ‘middle man’? Surely, if the IT software program needs an upgrade or redevelopment it is better the TCs, as ‘user’ should be working directly with the developer eg NCS. The TCs already have the experience getting the first software done.
NEXT, did this arrangement having the middleman raise costs for the TCs, which their constituents will ultimately bear? 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 TCs, which now is at the mercy of AIM?
As TCs are public institutions, citizens are certainly uncomfortable with political party owned companies transacting with the TCs
Much more clarity and transparency are needed.
Last edited:
Almighty $2 indeed.
Details of Company
| Entity Name: | ACTION INFORMATION MANAGEMENT PTE LTD |
|---|---|
| Entity Number: | 199103607Z |
| Date Of Registration (dd/mm/yyyy): | 22/07/1991 |
| Country Of Incorporation: | SINGAPORE |
| Date Of Change Of Name: | - |
| Former Name: | - |
| Type Of Company: | LIMITED EXEMPT PRIVATE COMPANY |
| Registered Office Address: | 36 ROBINSON ROAD |
| #17-01 CITY HOUSE | |
| SINGAPORE 068877 | |
| Date Of Change Of Address: | 16/08/2007 |
| Principal Activity / Activities: | 1) DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER SOFTWARE AND PROGRAMMING |
| ACTIVITIES NEC (62019) | |
| IT CONSULTANCY | |
| 2) HARDWARE CONSULTANCY (INCLUDING SYSTEMS CONSULTANCY) | |
| (62021) | |
| Status: | LIVE COMPANY |
| Status Date: | 22/07/1991 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Capital Structure
| Capital Structure: | No. Of Shares | Currency | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| ISSUED ORDINARY | 2 | SINGAPORE, DOLLARS | 2.00 |
| PAID-UP ORDINARY | - | SINGAPORE, DOLLARS | 2.00 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Auditor(s)
Name Date Of Appointment
Officer(s)
| Name ID | Address Date Of Change Of Address | Nationality | Date Of Appointment/ Position Held |
| LAU PING SUM PEARCE | 19 NIM GREEN | SINGAPORE | 01/01/1998 |
| S0043287C | SELETAR HILLS ESTATE | CITIZEN | DIRECTOR |
| SINGAPORE 807614 | |||
| 15/06/1991 | |||
| CHANDRA DAS S/O RAJAGOPAL | 28 CASSIA DRIVE | SINGAPORE | 01/03/2010 |
| SITARAM | RAFFLES PARK | CITIZEN | DIRECTOR |
| S0047609I | SINGAPORE 289721 | ||
| 23/12/2004 | |||
| YVONNE CHOO | 2 CALDECOTT CLOSE | SINGAPORE | 16/08/2007 |
| S0090447C | CALDECOTT HILL ESTATE | CITIZEN | SECRETARY |
| SINGAPORE 299110 | |||
| 01/12/2009 | |||
| CHEW HENG CHING | 38 SIGLAP PLAIN | SINGAPORE | 01/03/2010 |
| S0126289J | CITIZEN | DIRECTOR | |
| SINGAPORE 456027 | |||
| 21/06/2012 |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Shareholder(s)
| Name ID | Nationality | Address Date Of Change Of Address |
| LAU PING SUM PEARCE | SINGAPORE CITIZEN | 19 NIM GREEN |
| S0043287C | SELETAR HILLS ESTATE | |
| SINGAPORE 807614 | ||
| 15/06/1991 | ||
| Type | No Of Shares | Currency |
| ORDINARY | 1 | SINGAPORE, DOLLARS |
| Name ID | Nationality | Address Date Of Change Of Address |
| CHANDRA DAS S/O RAJAGOPAL | SINGAPORE CITIZEN | 28 CASSIA DRIVE |
| SITARAM | RAFFLES PARK | |
| S0047609I | SINGAPORE 289721 | |
| 23/12/2004 | ||
| Type | No Of Shares | Currency |
| ORDINARY | 1 | SINGAPORE, DOLLARS |
<tbody>
</tbody>
Source: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?enhco9bp1nu101i
In this forum, i consider this the definitive thread.
Really, the go-to place: now even cheng bock & kin lian's take on this matter.
Of course any popular place has its fair share of nuisance: some well meaning others misguided, more others are of the most contemptible kind ... IBs playong bleating sheep, trying to show they can politick as well as the common men who may vote PAP for whatever reason but nonetheless can see PAP's ugliness at the same time.
all kinds make this forum premium for me :
from mythical creatues like dragons, golden some more,
all forms of wild life and lowlife like insects, birds ( alas the kku kind)',
royalty like kings and
the threadstarter -
one fucker that i have regard for but never idolize : the Animal Farm character Scroobal trying his level best to resist Napolean thereby doing justice to the original vision of Old Major. Sinkies are like Boxer the horse ....oh man, i digress ...
Really, the go-to place: now even cheng bock & kin lian's take on this matter.
Of course any popular place has its fair share of nuisance: some well meaning others misguided, more others are of the most contemptible kind ... IBs playong bleating sheep, trying to show they can politick as well as the common men who may vote PAP for whatever reason but nonetheless can see PAP's ugliness at the same time.
all kinds make this forum premium for me :
from mythical creatues like dragons, golden some more,
all forms of wild life and lowlife like insects, birds ( alas the kku kind)',
royalty like kings and
the threadstarter -
one fucker that i have regard for but never idolize : the Animal Farm character Scroobal trying his level best to resist Napolean thereby doing justice to the original vision of Old Major. Sinkies are like Boxer the horse ....oh man, i digress ...
I just want to add that many people who are not computer literate let alone being a netizen are also having huge doubts over PAP's integrity in this matter. These are your ah peks and ah umms and even they could see through the biased reportings by the state-controlled mainsteam media. They may be lowly educated but yet could well see a lack of or zero transparency by the PAP. So the PAP would be totally misled if it thinks that only those active in the social media are the noise-makers. This time round, a much much bigger crowd is questioning the PAP including many from the 60%.
Despite being sent a demand letter, Alex has refused to stand down over the AIM issue. He has complied with the demand letter but wrote the following blog posting. As noted by other bros here, the ball is at WP's feet. They need to take this up in Parliament and ask Teo Ho Pin the hard questions. If they fail to do so, then what GMS has been saying about them might be true after all.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-6/
Facebook postings about the sale of town council software to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a PAP-owned company, fell off dramatically soon after news broke that Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyers had sent me a letter. Possibly, people felt very unsure what was safe to talk about anymore.
Therefore, I think it is important for me to clarify that the statements in the article that I had to take down, and that Lee took exception to, were not, strictly speaking, statements about the sale of the software to AIM, but phrases and sentences pertaining to him. They were statements and questions I had asked that Lee felt questioned his integrity, corruptibility and abuse of power should he not launch an investigation. The 21 readers’ comments that the lawyers cited as defamatory were of the same vein.
I have apologised for them, though readers might want to consider the broader ecology of defamation threats and suits in Singapore. I draw your attention to Angela Faye Oon’s Facebook posting of Friday 4 January 2013 (I hope she doesn’t mind me archiving it here because many readers of Yawning Bread may not be ‘friends’ with her, but I’ll take it down if she asks), Cherian George’s comment in Journalism.sg (For whom the libel tolls: government loses even as it wins) and Tan Kin Lian’s article on his blog (Threat of defamation suit).
Obviously, our ministers do not like people to question their integrity. And as in my experience, you might get into trouble if you did. But it is important to bear in mind that all I have said so far about AIM and the town councils were not cited by the lawyers as defamatory, only those statements directed at Lee.
Another reason why social media talk about the AIM saga has fallen off is that there has been no new revelation except the letter of termination released by the Workers’ Party. Even then, it merely confirmed what had earlier been revealed.
The only juicy part was how AIM was so gauche as to use the same address as the PAP headquarters. As a reader said to me, “It’s as terrible as it gets!”
Teo Ho Pin et al may take this respite to mean that the worst is behind them and say no more on the matter. But what would be interesting is if the Workers’ Party tables a question at the next parliamentary sitting.
The thing about parliamentary questions is that they are directed at the government. A minister, or junior minister at least, has to stand up and reply to them. This means that Khaw Boon Wan as National Development Minister will likely be in the hot seat since MND generally oversees town councils, issuing assessments and ratings periodically. So far, none of the ministers have said a thing about the AIM affair, but when faced with a parliamentary question, Khaw or someone else from government will have to reply.
What will he say? Of course, much depends on how the Workers’ Party phrases the question (if they choose to ask one) but basically Khaw will have two uncomfortable choices.
One would be to stoutly defend Teo Ho Pin and the PAP town councils that chose to sell the software to AIM. But Khaw would then also have to defend not just the decision to sell, but the rather convoluted arrangement that was dreamt up, and the very suspicious-looking execution of the tender. He would have to dismiss as irrelevant or malicious all the remaining unanswered questions. Yet, if he stands up to defend it in toto, then the government takes on the responsibility for the mess, and if any wrongdoing is later exposed, the government will have it on their shoulders.
Frankly, even if no later wrongdoing is exposed, the stink is now so serious, once the government starts defending it stoutly, it will stick to them till the next general election.
This scenario also presupposes that Khaw is personally comfortable defending it. What do I mean by that? Suppose his cabinet colleagues think the government should defend it stoutly, but what if Khaw personally has doubts? How will he reconcile his personal conscience with his duty to act in a way the cabinet as a whole wishes?
The other route Khaw can take is to tell parliament that he himself is not completely satisfied that the AIM saga passes the smell test. He could promise an independent investigation. Doing so might draw the sting out of the affair.
The problem with this route is that it would mean hanging Teo Ho Pin out to dry, for anything less than a stout defence may leave Teo feeling damned by faint praise. His position would become untenable; he may choose to resign.
This would then present the party and the prime minister with a new headache: demands for another by-election. And, as I have discussed in a recent article, the party probably already has enough recruitment troubles with Punggol East.
It may not be visible to the layman, but I think the AIM saga is still keeping the PAP awake at night. It has become a ‘heads you win, tails I lose’ situation.
http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/pap-mis-aimed-faces-blowback-part-6/
Facebook postings about the sale of town council software to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), a PAP-owned company, fell off dramatically soon after news broke that Lee Hsien Loong’s lawyers had sent me a letter. Possibly, people felt very unsure what was safe to talk about anymore.
Therefore, I think it is important for me to clarify that the statements in the article that I had to take down, and that Lee took exception to, were not, strictly speaking, statements about the sale of the software to AIM, but phrases and sentences pertaining to him. They were statements and questions I had asked that Lee felt questioned his integrity, corruptibility and abuse of power should he not launch an investigation. The 21 readers’ comments that the lawyers cited as defamatory were of the same vein.
I have apologised for them, though readers might want to consider the broader ecology of defamation threats and suits in Singapore. I draw your attention to Angela Faye Oon’s Facebook posting of Friday 4 January 2013 (I hope she doesn’t mind me archiving it here because many readers of Yawning Bread may not be ‘friends’ with her, but I’ll take it down if she asks), Cherian George’s comment in Journalism.sg (For whom the libel tolls: government loses even as it wins) and Tan Kin Lian’s article on his blog (Threat of defamation suit).
Obviously, our ministers do not like people to question their integrity. And as in my experience, you might get into trouble if you did. But it is important to bear in mind that all I have said so far about AIM and the town councils were not cited by the lawyers as defamatory, only those statements directed at Lee.
Another reason why social media talk about the AIM saga has fallen off is that there has been no new revelation except the letter of termination released by the Workers’ Party. Even then, it merely confirmed what had earlier been revealed.
The only juicy part was how AIM was so gauche as to use the same address as the PAP headquarters. As a reader said to me, “It’s as terrible as it gets!”
Teo Ho Pin et al may take this respite to mean that the worst is behind them and say no more on the matter. But what would be interesting is if the Workers’ Party tables a question at the next parliamentary sitting.
The thing about parliamentary questions is that they are directed at the government. A minister, or junior minister at least, has to stand up and reply to them. This means that Khaw Boon Wan as National Development Minister will likely be in the hot seat since MND generally oversees town councils, issuing assessments and ratings periodically. So far, none of the ministers have said a thing about the AIM affair, but when faced with a parliamentary question, Khaw or someone else from government will have to reply.
What will he say? Of course, much depends on how the Workers’ Party phrases the question (if they choose to ask one) but basically Khaw will have two uncomfortable choices.
One would be to stoutly defend Teo Ho Pin and the PAP town councils that chose to sell the software to AIM. But Khaw would then also have to defend not just the decision to sell, but the rather convoluted arrangement that was dreamt up, and the very suspicious-looking execution of the tender. He would have to dismiss as irrelevant or malicious all the remaining unanswered questions. Yet, if he stands up to defend it in toto, then the government takes on the responsibility for the mess, and if any wrongdoing is later exposed, the government will have it on their shoulders.
Frankly, even if no later wrongdoing is exposed, the stink is now so serious, once the government starts defending it stoutly, it will stick to them till the next general election.
This scenario also presupposes that Khaw is personally comfortable defending it. What do I mean by that? Suppose his cabinet colleagues think the government should defend it stoutly, but what if Khaw personally has doubts? How will he reconcile his personal conscience with his duty to act in a way the cabinet as a whole wishes?
The other route Khaw can take is to tell parliament that he himself is not completely satisfied that the AIM saga passes the smell test. He could promise an independent investigation. Doing so might draw the sting out of the affair.
The problem with this route is that it would mean hanging Teo Ho Pin out to dry, for anything less than a stout defence may leave Teo feeling damned by faint praise. His position would become untenable; he may choose to resign.
This would then present the party and the prime minister with a new headache: demands for another by-election. And, as I have discussed in a recent article, the party probably already has enough recruitment troubles with Punggol East.
It may not be visible to the layman, but I think the AIM saga is still keeping the PAP awake at night. It has become a ‘heads you win, tails I lose’ situation.
PAP HQ which is also the return address for AIM - Blk 57B New Upper Changi Road, #01-1402, Singapore 463057
http://www.pap.org.sg/
http://www.pap.org.sg/
Last edited:
Re : Post #71
Thank you Sense for posting the co. profile extract.
Looking through the extract, I noted some things that aroused my curiosity. The company was incorporated on 22 July 1991. LPS only became director on 1 Jan 1998, CD and CHC both on 1 March 2010. I wonder who were the founding directors of this company in 1991. Were LPS and CD the founding shareholders or were the 2 shares only transferred to them after?
My questions have no direct relevance to the current debate involving this company but when a company like this is embroiled in the current debacle that it finds itself in, one can't help but notice things that beggar questioning.
Thank you Sense for posting the co. profile extract.
Looking through the extract, I noted some things that aroused my curiosity. The company was incorporated on 22 July 1991. LPS only became director on 1 Jan 1998, CD and CHC both on 1 March 2010. I wonder who were the founding directors of this company in 1991. Were LPS and CD the founding shareholders or were the 2 shares only transferred to them after?
My questions have no direct relevance to the current debate involving this company but when a company like this is embroiled in the current debacle that it finds itself in, one can't help but notice things that beggar questioning.
Go to either TRS or TOC. One of them ran an article on the director / shareholder history of the company.
Interesting history of AIM Pte Ltd
http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/12/25/mystery-of-aim-pte-ltd/
How does AIM, a $2 company, make money?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/06/how-does-aim-a-2-company-make-money/
What are the risks of doing business with a $2 company?
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/01/01/what-are-the-risks-of-doing-business-with-a-2-company/
Thanks for the lead, CLB.
Thank you.
