TC’s computer & financial system

[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?

[pirate]

Quote from PM Lee's New Year Message:
[quote]Right Values

To realise our aspirations and manage our challenges, Singapore must have good governance. We need capable and committed leaders, who uphold high standards of integrity and set good personal examples, so as to have the moral authority to lead our nation.

We have seen several instances this year of lapses by persons in senior positions. These are unfortunate and disappointing. No system can be perfect but we must do our utmost to run a clean and good government. This means investigating wrongdoings thoroughly, and putting things right decisively and openly. We have upheld this system rigorously since 1959, and have won international respect for our clean and transparent system of governance. We must never slacken our vigilance or lower our standards.

But penalties and laws are not enough by themselves to keep the system straight. It is crucial that all of us know right from wrong and conduct ourselves with honour, integrity and probity, especially those in positions of responsibility. We must not just do the right things; we must do things right. Such an attitude reflects the ethos of our society and the values we uphold.[/quote]Ok, lor. You say one har. :imanangel:

[limlim]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2013/01/toc-editorial-the-problem-with-the-aim-case-and-what-you-can-do/

[php]

Latest media release from PAP :


SINGAPORE: There is no basis to suggest that the transaction to provide computer services to the PAP Town Councils by the company, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), was improper or disadvantageous to the town councils.

Coordinating Chairman of the PAP-run town councils, Dr Teo Ho Pin made this point in his latest rebuttal to comments made by Ms Sylvia Lim, the Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.

Ms Lim had questioned why the computing and financial systems developed by PAP-managed town councils was sold off to a third party.

Dr Teo explained that the 14 PAP Town Councils work closely with one another to derive economies of scale for the benefit of their residents.

In this case, the town councils wanted to consolidate their software rights in a single party which would manage them on their behalf, as recommended by Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services.

This is because having each town council hold Intellectual Property rights to the software was cumbersome and inefficient.

This single entity would then be able to undertake negotiations with the IT vendor, facilitate any software upgrading or maintenance, and cope with any constituency or personnel changes in the town councils.

So when the tender was advertised on 30 June 2010, five companies collected the tender documents.

Only AIM submitted a bid.

Mr Chandra Das, Chairman of Action Information Management Pte Ltd, said: "AIM participated in the tender not knowing other companies would not do so. The sums involved in the transactions are modest. But as a PAP company, we wanted to be helpful to the PAP Town Councils. So we were ready to take on the task and submitted the proposals to help the PAP Town Councils achieve their goals."

Dr Teo said the town councils wanted to sell the Intellectual Property rights in the existing software because it had a limited value and was depreciating quickly.

This was also confirmed by Deloitte and Touche.

AIM was willing to purchase the existing software IP for $140,000 and lease it back at $785 per month from November 2010 to October 2011.

The existing contract ended in October 2010.

This yielded savings of about $8,000 to the town councils from the disposal of the intellectual property in the existing software.

After October 2011, the town councils would be allowed to use the existing software without any additional lease payments to AIM until the new software was developed.

AIM was also willing to undertake the risks of getting an extension of the existing contract with no increase in rates and this was the most important consideration for the town councils as it protected them from an increase in fees.

Also, Dr Teo said AIM backed by the PAP would honour its commitments.

The tender was awarded to AIM and under it, the town councils could terminate the arrangements by giving one month’s notice to AIM.

AIM could also do so likewise by giving one month’s notice in the event of material changes to the membership of a town council or to the scope and duties like changes to its boundaries.

Dr Teo said this is reasonable as the contractor has agreed to provide services on the basis of the existing town council and town boundaries and priced this assumption into the tender.

He said following the expiry of the initial lease arrangement for the software from AIM on 31 October 2011, no further lease payments for the software were made to AIM.

During the period of its contract extension from November 2011 to April 2013, the management fee payable to AIM for the whole suite of services it provided was $33,150, apart from what was payable to NCS for maintenance.

Dr Teo said in the end, each town council paid slightly more than $140 per month for AIM to ensure continuity of the existing system, secure the maintenance of the system at no increased costs and identify options for a new system to which the town councils could migrate.

- CNA/de

[3Boys]

People who think its a big deal, will still consider it a big deal, those who think its trivial, will still consider it trivial. Nothing to do with facts of the case, just political affiliations.