TC’s computer & financial system
-
Side step, fine. Ok if you must, I would say all these people who always receive notice of impending sue should learn from people like LTK and SL. Different view doesn’t mean inflammatory and irresponsible comments. If you talk nonsense, then the aggrieved party is expected to respond. I think that’s fair.
-
ngl2010:
Maybe take a look at this
Now got news that it was WP that initiated the termination of contract. Strange... strange... :scratchhead:pirate:
Ok, let's talk about the \"fundamental point\".
If a critical system/asset takes \"18-24 months or even longer\" to replace, would entering into a sale and leaseback agreement of that system containing a clause allowing the other party to terminate the agreement on giving one month's notice be considered 'mismanagement'?
I dunno leh. I am obviously not in the Minister's pay grade.
http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/eat-drink-man-woman-16/grace-fu-said-wp-lied-but-look-4049925.html#post72943357 -
HVR:
Side step, fine. Ok if you must, I would say all these people who always receive notice of impending sue should learn from people like LTK and SL. Different view doesn't mean inflammatory and irresponsible comments. If you talk nonsense, then the aggrieved party is expected to respond. I think that's fair.
Oh, so this is called side-stepping ah, sorry har, I am not trained in debates, I just say what comes to my mind. Here were my exact thoughts, to be precise:
It isn't easy to attract people with high abilities and high morals to join politics to ensure our country is of high standards in its leadership. Yet, many may have different political views and not necessarily want to join the same parties. Instead of conducting a debate on the issues and tackle the attacks, personal some might be, the tactic of suing is adopted. And who has the abilities to sue? Someone who has the gift of the gap, educated in law, and with money power, and certainly having the right connection helps. It is simply POWER over ABILITIES AND WILLINGNESS TO SERVE. So I don't buy the idea of it being hard to attract the right people to join. It is only difficult to find the right rabbit for the incumbent.
Of course, as you might be aware, I am not all opposed to PAP. I like how they have set high standards in our statesmen, and would-be political opponents. They have set the bars high from the beginning, and we, as voters, have also learnt to set our standards high, and certainly, expect the potential 'contestants' to be of higher standards if they want to beat that. It is healthy competition. I am not in favour of suing. To me, it is a quick fix. It doesn't earn the 'suer' any respect from the voters. -
HVR:
If you talk nonsense, then the aggrieved party is expected to respond. I think that's fair.
Is that why they they wouldn't post the entire AA's article on MSM? Let the people decide if it is nonsense. Don't just post the allegations. -
ngl2010:
According to AIM/Teo HP's first media rebuttal, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1244331/1/.html[quote]..Coordinating Chairman of 14 PAP TCs Dr Teo Ho Pin said the TCMS owned and used by them was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd.
Now got news that it was WP that initiated the termination of contract. Strange... strange... :scratchhead:pirate:
Ok, let's talk about the \"fundamental point\".
If a critical system/asset takes \"18-24 months or even longer\" to replace, would entering into a sale and leaseback agreement of that system containing a clause allowing the other party to terminate the agreement on giving one month's notice be considered 'mismanagement'?
I dunno leh. I am obviously not in the Minister's pay grade.
In 2010, PAP TCs called an open tender to sell the ownership of the developed application software.
Dr Teo said although five companies collected the tender agreement, the sole bid was submitted by AIM, a company fully owned by the PAP.
AIM offered to buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC, for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.
Dr Teo said after the 2011 general election, AIM decided to end the contract with AHTC.. [/quote]And here's the (supposed \"termination\") email from WP to AIM requesting for an EXTENSION of the lease of the software (taken from raysusan's link):
[quote]JUNE 10, 2011
From Mr Jeffrey Chua, secretary (interim), to AIM, cc. Ms How Weng Fan, general manager:
\"We would like to inform you that Aljunied-Hougang Town Council is in the process of developing a Town Council Management System to support its operations effectively.
We would like to thank AIM for the assistance rendered to us in preparing the migration of database to the new system.
The new system is targeted to go live on 1 August 2011. While the new system goes live, we are planning to have the AIMS-TCMS (Financial Module) running concurrently till 31 August 2011, so as to ascertain the reliability of the new system.
As such, we would like to put up a request to continue to use the AIMS-TCMS till 31 August 2011, for your favourable consideration please.\"[/quote]If the initial lease were to expire only on 31 Oct 2011 (as mentioned by Teo HP), why would AHTC need to specially send in a request to AIM for the use of the sytem till 31 August 2011--a date which was still 2 months ahead of the original lease expiry date? -
HVR:
The word is not 'employing'. It is not about looking for a qualified person and hire him. If only it's that simple. The incumbent had said before it was extremely difficult to attract talents from private sectors to become minister. It involves a lot of sacrifices both financially and privacy/family time. That's the problem here, some people think everything is so easy.
Firstly, if the purpose of high pay was to \"attract\" talents, why did the incumbents award the millions to themselves? Does it mean that if they were not paid such kind of salaries, they would resign from their current post?
Secondly, despite the current, world's highest, ministerial salaries, how many top talents from private sectors have the incumbents managed to attract so far? -
mum_sugoku:
If the initial lease were to expire only on 31 Oct 2011 (as mentioned by Teo HP), why would AHTC need to specially send in a request to AIM for the use of the sytem till 31 August 2011--a date which was still 2 months ahead of the original lease expiry date?[/quote]mum-sugoku,
[quote]JUNE 10, 2011pirate:
If a critical system/asset takes \"18-24 months or even longer\" to replace, would entering into a sale and leaseback agreement of that system containing a clause allowing the other party to terminate the agreement on giving one month's notice be considered 'mismanagement'?
From Mr Jeffrey Chua, secretary (interim), to AIM, cc. Ms How Weng Fan, general manager:
\"We would like to inform you that Aljunied-Hougang Town Council is in the process of developing a Town Council Management System to support its operations effectively.
We would like to thank AIM for the assistance rendered to us in preparing the migration of database to the new system.
The new system is targeted to go live on 1 August 2011. While the new system goes live, we are planning to have the AIMS-TCMS (Financial Module) running concurrently till 31 August 2011, so as to ascertain the reliability of the new system.
As such, we would like to put up a request to continue to use the AIMS-TCMS till 31 August 2011, for your favourable consideration please.\"
maybe soemthing to do with this ? http://www.ahtc.org.sg/ahtc/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Termination-Notice-by-AIM.pdf.
The original 31 Oct 2011 expiry did not apply anymore - since AIM activated THE 1-month termination clause.
notice no name stated for the undersigned, only Director.........and also note the hotmail email address
:imanangel:
:faint: :faint: :lightrod: :lightrod:
![](\"http://i48.tinypic.com/2q062ci.jpg\")
http://i48.tinypic.com/2q062ci.jpg\">
-
Strparent:
Thanks for the info.mum-sugoku,
maybe soemthing to do with this ? http://www.ahtc.org.sg/ahtc/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Termination-Notice-by-AIM.pdf.
The original 31 Oct 2011 expiry did not apply anymore - since AIM activated THE 1-month termination clause.
notice no name stated for the undersigned, only Director.........and also note the hotmail email address :imanangel:
:faint: :faint: :lightrod: :lightrod:
Problem is, right now PAP is insisting that it was AHTC who initiated the termination--since AHTC's first email was sent on 10 Jun 2011 (ie 12 days prior to AIM's 22 Jun 2011 termination letter).
However, since the original lease with AIM would only expire on 31 Oct 2011, if AHTC didn't send in any request for extension, it (the lease) would still be in force as of 31 Aug 2011, so would AHTC need to take the trouble to put up a request (the 10 Jun 2011 email) to AIM for extension to 31 Aug 2011? -
I think I fail reading comprehension because I don’t see any notice of termination in AHTC’s email to AIM of 10 June 2011.
But that would not be surprising, because I am not of the same calibre or in the same pay grade as those who apparently do. -
The Town Council Acts states:
[quote]15.
—(1) A member of a Town Council who is in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a transaction or project of the Town Council shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Town Council.
(2) The disclosure under subsection (1) shall be recorded in the minutes of the Town Council and the member shall not take part in any deliberation of the Town Council with respect to that transaction or project.
(3) For the purpose of determining whether there is a quorum, a member shall be treated as being present at a meeting notwithstanding that under subsection (2) he cannot vote or has withdrawn from the meeting.
56. All members, officers and employees of a Town Council and all employees of its managing agent shall be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code (Cap. 224).[/quote]The Penal Code states:[quote]169. Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly or in shares with others, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated.[/quote]I am not saying anybody did anything illegal har. No doubt, someone will be able to tell us how to interpret and apply those provisions correctly. :imanangel:
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