- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Whilst it is understandable that a Town Council might commission a third party to develop a system, it is indeed strange that a system developed by a Town Council should be sold to a third party only to be leased back to the Town Council. But, perhaps the third party might have had particular skill and expertise that it could bring to bear in relation to the system. If that were the case, what was the specific skill and expertise that AIM brought with it in order to justify this contractual arrangement. Sylvia Lim claims that AIM was a dormant company. (The company’s registration number is 199103607Z. That would mean that it was incorporated in 1991. Perhaps it was operational for some time.)
What was the process by which AIM was awarded this sale and lease back contract? Was it done through a tender process? Considering that the directors of AIM are ex PAP MPs, did the Town Councils invest in extra effort in going through a transparent process in awarding the contract (so as to avoid inviting unwarranted allegations of impropriety)?
On the assumption that AIM derives no profit from the contract, why would a private company want to enter into a contractual arrangement where it is not going to benefit at all? That leads us to come up with a grand conspiracy theory (which was probably what Sylvia Lim was hinting at). Anticipating that PAP might lose control of more constituencies at GE 2011 and therefore some Town Councils, the Computer and Financial System might have been sold off to a third party with a lease back arrangement. The contract provided for termination by giving a month’s notice. In the event that a Town Council management falls into the hands of an opposition party, AIM’s services could be withdrawn by giving 1 month’s notice. There is nothing illegal about it. Just some old-style politics. The kind of politics that we hope to eventually see the back of.
- http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/12/terminating-aljunied-town-councils.html
What was the process by which AIM was awarded this sale and lease back contract? Was it done through a tender process? Considering that the directors of AIM are ex PAP MPs, did the Town Councils invest in extra effort in going through a transparent process in awarding the contract (so as to avoid inviting unwarranted allegations of impropriety)?
On the assumption that AIM derives no profit from the contract, why would a private company want to enter into a contractual arrangement where it is not going to benefit at all? That leads us to come up with a grand conspiracy theory (which was probably what Sylvia Lim was hinting at). Anticipating that PAP might lose control of more constituencies at GE 2011 and therefore some Town Councils, the Computer and Financial System might have been sold off to a third party with a lease back arrangement. The contract provided for termination by giving a month’s notice. In the event that a Town Council management falls into the hands of an opposition party, AIM’s services could be withdrawn by giving 1 month’s notice. There is nothing illegal about it. Just some old-style politics. The kind of politics that we hope to eventually see the back of.
- http://article14.blogspot.sg/2012/12/terminating-aljunied-town-councils.html
