TC’s computer & financial system

[BlurDad]

One must admit that to strike the balance between public interests (commuters/tax payers) and shareholders interests can be extremely challenging. Judging from what had happened so far with SMRT’s episodes, the answer is obvious. The fact that our Transport Minister was so quick to raise the question of increasing the transport fee immediately after the mismanagement of bus drivers’ illegal strike, it speaks for itself (untimely & insensitive). The question is: Should we (I took MRT everyday to work) be penalized for keeping the shareholders’ return? The case is weak especially for SMRT - one of the most essential services for most Singaporeans. Who should compensate and bear the costs of our lost productivity? In real business world, any "screw-ups" the entire management team will be replaced immediately, the share of that company will come under attack by market forces - to be "sell DOWN" thus shareholders suffer losses. But SMRT is a clear case of imperfect "distorted" competition. This is the product of "Uniquely Singapore", Regulatory=Government=Political Party - it can work "against" us as well as "for" us. Now we have deployed a couple of ex-SAF men to rectify the situation - let’s keep our fingers crossed. This is my two-cent worth of thought.

[BlurDad]

raysusan:

http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/cynthia_zps172162f8-437x479.jpg?9804ec\">


:slapshead:

One reveals his/her true colors when tested. Our political system has been enjoying the \"honeymoon\" for way too long for its own good. This is not of any new revelation but the SURE things to shape our country's future if left unchecked.. full rein at will. I begin to think we ,perhaps, should thank HER opponents for opening ordinary Singaporean's EyE. Collusion is an invisible disease that will certain kill our future / our conscience.

[BlurDad]

wonderm:

3Boys:

I've always had a pretty jaundiced view (i.e. bad opinion) of the PAP's political tactics, so it's never ever been an issue of trust for me about the PAP's politics (because I've never trusted them).

But I sure do lurrve their policy making. Hard-nosed, pragmatic....and successful. This I mostly trust.

It's kinda sad. They don't have to play nasty to win, but they do.

This is how I feel, too.

What scares the shits out of me is that: All of the sudden, we wake up and realize that we are actually up against an extremely clever and deceiving \"Monster\" - created by our world-class governing system - these Guys are hand picked and groomed from our top 1% elite - well paid / well connected / well protected ... well orchestrated. All these years ... GRC election system under the pre-text of racial harmony (for even representation), sweetening promises of real asset enhancement as a carrot or a stick, illegal gathering if beyond 2 souls, speaker's corner with no roof, 2 weeks notice for venting grievances in public or else is deemed \"illegal\", ever changing electoral boundaries......aren't we living in a \"Matrix\" ? Is NOW the time of our own awakening ? A time to decide a \"Red' bill or \"Blue\" bill ... or some other colors? Oh No ... I am going to have a very bad nightmare tonite. God Bless Singapore!

[concern2]

Strparent:

Concern2,


Errr. Maybe because $2 company, considered minor? Or maybe company less than 3yrs old, considered underaged? Therefore entitled to be 'gag ordered' privilege ? :siam:

Gag order.. :rotflmao:

[raysusan]

Teo Ho Pin: Sylvia Lim should come clean on the facts


http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Teohopin.png?9804ec\">

http://therealsingapore.com/content/teo-ho-pin-sylvia-lim-should-come-clean-facts

[Rational_Parent]

raysusan:

http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/cynthia_zps172162f8-437x479.jpg?9804ec\">


:slapshead:

That PAP MP probably did not know exactly what it entails in the handover when she spoke sincerely, which is a bad thing given what she professed about the PAP, a \"standard line\" that has been used on many occasions by all PAP MPs. In a way, this shows how little she knows about the running of a GRC.

The \"material change\" in that contract is vague, but there are a few law bigwigs on the WP's side that now runs the ATC to understand what it means. What the WP did not anticipate probably is the new \"Governance KPI\" to rate a GRC where non-existent of a system, computer-aided or otherwise, would affect the GRC's rating. How much this matters to them is another matter.

Politics is dirty anywhere in the world, and Singapore is no different. This episode is likely to spill over to the Punggol East ward by-election if it is held and you can bet both the ruling party and the opposition are monitoring every nuance from here on to time the by-election and to save as bullets for political attacks in the election.

[raysusan]

TOC Breaking: The curious case of the tender notice with no details


http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/12/the-curious-case-of-the-tender-notice-with-no-details/
[quote]So many unanswered questions
There are clearly many questions that remain unanswered. Unfortunately, the PAP, through Dr. Teo’s exchanges with Ms. Sylvia Lim in recent days, seems bent on focusing the public attention on the statements of the Workers’ Party, instead of answering these important questions around the disposal of a public asset developed using public funds. This is misguided, and does not serve the public interest.
In any event, The Online Citizen has asked Dr. Teo for his responses to the following questions:
Why was the project description so vague that it was impossible to ascertain what the subject-matter of the tender was?
This tender was open for two weeks. What is the usual period for a tender of this nature?
Is it normal practice for Town Councils to charge a fee for obtaining tender documents? If so, how is the rate determined?
Apart from AIM, who else obtained a copy of the tender documents?
Is the PAP going to publish a copy of the tender documents, in the interests of transparency and clearing the air? If not, why not?
When only one proposal from AIM was received, did the Town Councils consider the option of calling for a fresh tender with more information in the notice? If the Town Councils did consider this, why did they not call a fresh tender?
As of press time, TOC has not yet received any answers from Dr. Teo.[/quote]

[concern2]

Member of public files complaint with CPIB and AGO

(source: http://theonlinecitizen.com/2012/12/aim-saga-member-of-public-files-complaint-with-cpib-and-ago/)

The Duty Officer,
CPIB,
2, Lengkok Bahru,
Singapore 159047.
cc: The Auditor-General’s Office,
#08-02/03 Revenue House,
Singapore 307987.

Re: Complaint of possible financial irregularities regarding sale of public assets i.e. Sale of Town Council owned Computer & Financial System to a private company AIM Pte Ltd.

Dear Sir/Madam,
It had been highlighted in the media recently that a municipal Computer & Financial System, jointly developed by 14 Town Councils (TC) using public monies, was sold to a private company called Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd owned by the PAP.

As such, I wish to highlight a number of issues that necessitate further investigation for this case (updated as 25-Dec-2012):

1. The Computer & Financial System was developed using public monies of the 14 Town Councils. Was it sold to AIM Pte Ltd with a properly executed open public tender exercise with adequate fairness, transparency and sufficient time limit? Could there be a similar issue like the NParks ‘Brompton Bicycle’ case? Why was it that although 5 companies collected the tender documents, only one company submitted a bid? If only one company submitted a bid in the first tender exercise, was the tender exercise extended in an effort to try to get alternative or better bids?

2. The TC’s wholly owned and paid for the Computer & Financial System. Which means subsequent use of the system after initial developmental costs would have been free. As such, what was the TC’s need or cost benefit to sell the Computer & Financial System to a private company, only for the TC’s themselves to rent the system back again using more public monies? Was the decision in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?

3. According to the media, the Computer & Financial System was sold to AIM for $140,000. As such, was this price sufficient to recover the public monies spent on the system’s development costs and also to cover for future operating/lease costs? What was the actual development costs of the system? Was the final selling price a gain or loss for the TC’s? Was the final selling price in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?

4. At the time of the tender, AIM Pte Ltd was nothing more than a 2 dollar ‘shell’ company, with no known physical operating assets or manpower. Why was this company accepted by the TC’s for the bid? On what basis was this company chosen by the TC’s? Isn’t it a clear Conflict of Interest if AIM is also owned by the same entity, a political party(PAP), in which this same political party also runs the TC’s which coordinated the tender exercise and awarded the tender?

5. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by AIM?

6. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by the management and decision-makers in the TC’s?

Thank You and regards,
A Member of the Public.
__________________

:? Who is A member of the Public?

[pirate]

concern2:

:? Who is A member of the Public?

Another cleaner :siam:

[concern2]

pirate:

concern2:

:? Who is A member of the Public?

Another cleaner :siam:

If it is, Singaporeans are quite pathetic, don't you think?