TC’s computer & financial system
-
limlim:
So that is a mighty long list of conditions, and I wonder if the text in bold have yet to be shown.
No.3Boys:
If I appoint my wife as a director of a $2 company I own, without due diligence on her fitness to serve, is that deemed to be a conflict of interest and should I be taken to CPIB for it?
But if you abuse your position or influence of another entity and willfully give to her (or the company) contracts or dealings from that entity, that is against the best interest of the people whom you have a moral obligation to serve, in order to advance your self interest.. then yes. -
[quote="limlim"]I’m wondering if it is a few individuals deriving benefits from their positions or the party itself…[/quote
U underestimated. For this case, there is no benefits; just to frustrate competitor and make residents repent only. Other cases (maybe there are) I don know. -
3Boys:
Of course there is a conflict of interest, but over what? $140,000 over 14 TCs?
Hmmm... yes. But how do we know it ends with the $140,000?
I see from Sembawang-Nee Soon Town Council's annual report for the year ended 31/3/12 that SNSTC paid $463,000 for \"computer services\". The figure for West Coast Town Council was $342,146. And so on and so forth. I am too lazy to dig up all the town councils' annual reports, but you get the idea.
We have just learnt that AIM is in fact not a '$2' company, but was actually incorporated in 1991, appears to have been in business for some time and appears to have significant resources because it paid the $140,000 in cash.
Can we now have a categorical assurance that apart from this $140,000 contract, AIM does not, and did not in the past, receive any income from any other business contract with any PAP controlled town council, government ministry, government agency, statutory board or government linked company?
While we are at it, can we also have a categorical assurance that apart from AIM, no other PAP owned company or entity has ever received any income from any business contract with any PAP controlled town council, government ministry, government agency, statutory board or government linked company?
Thank you for your cooperation.
-
pirate:
Can we have categorical assurance that pirate is not an agent of a foreign entity out to foment disharmony in Singapore society3Boys:
Of course there is a conflict of interest, but over what? $140,000 over 14 TCs?
Hmmm... yes. But how do we know it ends with the $140,000?
I see from Sembawang-Nee Soon Town Council's annual report for the year ended 31/3/12 that SNSTC paid $463,000 for \"computer services\". The figure for West Coast Town Council was $342,146. And so on and so forth. I am too lazy to dig up all the town councils' annual reports, but you get the idea.
We have just learnt that AIM is in fact not a '$2' company, but was actually incorporated in 1991, appears to have been in business for some time and appears to have significant resources because it paid the $140,000 in cash.
Can we now have a categorical assurance that apart from this $140,000 contract, AIM does not, and did not in the past, receive any income from any other business contract with any PAP controlled town council, government ministry, government agency, statutory board or government linked company?
While we are at it, can we also have a categorical assurance that apart from AIM, no other PAP owned company or entity has ever received any income from any business contract with any PAP controlled town council, government ministry, government agency, statutory board or government linked company?
Thank you for your cooperation.
I think the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' applies to all, including the Ps (pirate and PAP).
In any case, I'm pretty sanguine even if a PAP affiliated company had done business with the TCs (refer Temasek Holdings principle).
Was it intended to be detrimental to the opposition parties. Possibly/Likely.
Is there financial malfeasance? Remains to be seen. -
pirate:
So, do you think there is any conflict of interest when the 14 PAP controlled town councils sold the Town Council Management System to a PAP owned company and then leased it back?
me for wan m not convinced by Dr THP's latest mumbo-jumbo.
It just doesn't biz sense for d TCs or AIM to enter into a transaction such as he put it unless it is for political expediency.
Even if d blind can't see d white elephant in d room, they can smell its political bs.
Wat PhD he graduate in? -
3Boys:
m pretty sure d MIWs followed procedures to avoid inviting gossip,
Was it intended to be detrimental to the opposition parties. Possibly/Likely.
Is there financial malfeasance? Remains to be seen.
but d real intent behind d move is now called into question.
In trying to sidestep with his 'factual' answers, THP is stepping into another pile of shit.
d smell will not go away until he comes clean.
Can he afford to? -
3Boys:
certainly.. that remains to be seen.
So that is a mighty long list of conditions, and I wonder if the text in bold have yet to be shown. -
Way2GO:
If it's political tricks, they're not likely to admit it, are they?
m pretty sure d MIWs followed procedures to avoid inviting gossip,3Boys:
Was it intended to be detrimental to the opposition parties. Possibly/Likely.
Is there financial malfeasance? Remains to be seen.
but d real intent behind d move is now called into question.
In trying to sidestep with his 'factual' answers, THP is stepping into another pile of shit.
d smell will not go away until he comes clean.
Can he afford to?
Not sure why everyone's acting so surprised that they would do that, not that I'm excusing it. Even the WP seemed pretty accepting of what the PAP does and are only playing catch-up with public sentiment on this issue. -
3Boys:
Can we have categorical assurance that pirate is not an agent of a foreign entity out to foment disharmony in Singapore society
No, you cannot. That's the point. But, yeah, sure. Shoot the messenger and ignore the message.[quote]Is there financial malfeasance? Remains to be seen.[/quote]I am willing to take their assurance at face value if they are prepared to give it. -
pirate:
No, I'm very happy to hear our pirate messenger, really....3Boys:
Can we have categorical assurance that pirate is not an agent of a foreign entity out to foment disharmony in Singapore society
No, you cannot. That's the point. But, yeah, sure. Shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
Just that I don't think they are obliged to make categorical assurances of anything (and neither are you, we take it at face value).....hence my analogy.pirate:
I am willing to take \"no\" as an answer if they are prepared to say it.[/quote]They've already said they followed procedure and that there was no financial impropriety.[quote]Is there financial malfeasance? Remains to be seen.
Anyhow, I'm not here to defend the PAP. In a perverse way, I'm quite enjoying the spectacle.
But as I am saying for the umpteenth time, it's not the financial part that is troubling to me, its the political aspect.
And I am scratching my head as to why people would even be surprised by what has transpired.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
Online Users
Statistics
Popular Topics
