TC’s computer & financial system

[MR06]

Strparent:

Way2GO:

4 other companies on seeing d who-who in d $2 company turned tail n ran in a sure-win deal, n u so garang want to go head-to-head with it?
fren, u r in d wrong company.

W2G, its not the who-who in d $2 company that others fear....its the WHO that is behind those who-who that scares the other 4 companies ! :imanangel:

Nebbermind:

if I sponsor $5, can I be one of the directors?

NBM, u can be director, but bear in mind - directors in this situation no fees nor remuneration benefits de hor......

on a puzzling note, if the company is indeed only a $2 paid up set-up, who forked out the $140k to pay for the software in the winning tender ? :scratchhead: :scratchhead:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/12/town-councils-software-sold-for-peanuts/, in case 3Boys missed the jizz of the mystery deal.

http://i46.tinypic.com/ioiw5h.jpg\">
http://i50.tinypic.com/10cj9ev.jpg\">
http://i50.tinypic.com/2s6x107.jpg\">

:rotflmao: 3Boys, I happened to have popcorns and some free time hanging around in this thread.... :salute: Strparent for the summary

[limlim]

Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

[3Boys]

Haha! Bizzy bizzy these few days.


It’s ok, I’m no fan of PAP political tactics even in the best of times. But I do think whatever’s been posted on the internet is a little superficial and biased. So I’m sitting this one out…

[3Boys]

limlim:

Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim:

Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

That's why, the rich get richer bcoz they hv the \"extra\" means to invest and grow the wealth, while the poor are always paced out..

When your income is barely sufficient to feed the family and provide a shelter, you don't park $10000 in the stock market to earn $500 a year.

[pirate]

3Boys:

limlim:

Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

I have no problem with privatizing the profits since private citizens are free to buy the shares to participate in the profits. It's the passing the buck that I don't like. Am I supposed to believe that the government (through Temasek etc) being the ultimate controlling shareholders do not exert any influence over the boards of these companies but let them do pretty much as they please? If that is the case, it amounts to gross dereliction of duty. But if they do exert influence (as they should), then the buck should stop at the minister, not the CEO.

[3Boys]

pirate:

3Boys:

[quote=\"limlim\"]Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

I have no problem with privatizing the profits since private citizens are free to buy the shares to participate in the profits. It's the passing the buck that I don't like. Am I supposed to believe that the government (through Temasek etc) being the ultimate controlling shareholders do not exert any influence over the boards of these companies but let them do pretty much as they please? If that is the case, it amounts to gross dereliction of duty. But if they do exert influence (as they should), then the buck should stop at the minister, not the CEO.[/quote]I can't really see that being the case. Being a major share owner does not equal being in the management. Further, Temasek is not a ministry, it has no accountability to the minister of transport. The way the minister of transport exerts influence on companies would be via its regulatory bodies like the PTC and LTA, to set service standards, affordability, safety etc. That would be the job, not a proxy member of SMRT's management.

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

[quote=\"limlim\"]Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

That's why, the rich get richer bcoz they hv the \"extra\" means to invest and grow the wealth, while the poor are always paced out..

When your income is barely sufficient to feed the family and provide a shelter, you don't park $10000 in the stock market to earn $500 a year.[/quote]1) Remove completely the opportunity for someone with $10K to spare to invest in a private company to make $500 per year, so that no one gets ahead of anyone else

or

2) Tax $100 from the $500 to give to the disadvantaged who can't afford his transport fare so that he can go work and send his kids to school

limlim, you have completely gone OT, and dragged me along with you. I know you have an issue with any private company making any kind of profit, but I ain't got the time to go back and forth with you on this again.

Ciao, Have a Happy New Year!

[pirate]

3Boys:

Haha! Bizzy bizzy these few days.


It's ok, I'm no fan of PAP political tactics even in the best of times. But I do think whatever's been posted on the internet is a little superficial and biased. So I'm sitting this one out....

So far, these are the facts as made public:

(1) The Town Council Management System (TCMS) software was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd for the 14 PAP town councils.
(2) In 2010, PAP town councils called a tender to sell the ownership of TCMS.
(3) Only one company, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), submitted a tender.
(4) AIM is fully owned by the PAP.
(5) All the MPs in the PAP town councils were members of the PAP at the relevant time.
(6) AIM has a paid-up capital of $2.
(7) AIM does not operate from its registered address as it is the address of a firm providing corporate secretarial services.
(8) Financial statements of AIM for the last 5 years are not available for purchase from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore (ACRA) \"as accounts are not filed in XBRL or the company is gazetted.\"
(9) The tender was awarded to AIM on the terms that AIM buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC (ie. $785 x 14 x 12 = $131,885 per annum), for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.
(10) There was also a clause in the agreement that AIM may terminate the contract with a TC if there is a material change in the composition of the town council.

Facts in red are disclosed by Dr Teo Ho Pin, the Co-ordinating Chairman of the 14 PAP town councils.
Facts in blue are publicly available through company searches from ACRA.
Facts in black are not in dispute.

Hahaha. I agree that not all the facts are available for one to form a definite view. But the facts as disclosed are certainly more than enough for any unbiased person to form a preliminary conclusion. There could well be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. For all I know, maybe the PAP paid for the development of TCMS and not a single cent of public money was spent on it, so the PAP can do whatever they want with it. Or perhaps there was full disclosure of any conflict of interest. But the ball is certainly in their court now to explain how this is consistent with good governance or that there was no conflict of interest in the making of the agreement with AIM. And in the best traditions of Singapore jurisprudence, an adverse inference may be drawn from continued silence.

I don't give two hoots about political tactics. I am only concerned with good governance and whether there was any conflict of interest. Like they say, this is an issue of integrity.

[pirate]

3Boys:

I can't really see that being the case. Being a major share owner does not equal being in the management. Further, Temasek is not a ministry, it has no accountability to the minister of transport. The way the minister of transport exerts influence on companies would be via its regulatory bodies like the PTC and LTA, to set service standards, affordability, safety etc. That would be the job, not a proxy member of SMRT's management.

The Singapore government through Temasek is not just a major shareholder. It is the majority or controlling shareholder. No reasonably prudent controlling shareholder will leave management of a company entirely to its board without exerting any influence. That is just not the way business is done.

Fine. Temasek has no accountability to any particular minister. Who then is it accountable to? The buck should then stop with the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet then. Otherwise, we have an institution that is not accountable to anybody. Which is even worse.