TC’s computer & financial system
-
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.
Lol. That's very perceptive. It is politics. But there is also that group that is concerned with whether politics has gotten into the way of proper execution of rules and regulations. I suppose I am in that minority. -
php:
Does it mean they actually pay more to AIM then NCS.
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.
- CNA/de
I wonder what is the credentials of the software team as compared to NCS's. -
ChiefKiasu:
Yah. I am still wondering how it is even possible under the current legal structure of town councils for a political party to enter into any commercial agreement with a town council it controls without running smack into conflict of interest. That would extend to both PAP and WP. Unfortunately, it was the PAP who was actually caught doing it.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.
Lol. That's very perceptive. It is politics. But there is also that group that is concerned with whether politics has gotten into the way of proper execution of rules and regulations. I suppose I am in that minority.
There are certain things that simply CANNOT be done by public officers. This is one of them. Where does one draw the line? Is it ok then for the Cabinet to award a tender to a PAP owned company to construct HDB flats? How about a contract to operate an MRT line? A 4G licence? Heck, might just as well grant it a casino concession. No amount of commercial justification can overcome the unresolved conflict of interest.
And if it is ok for an MP to award a contract to his political party, how about his religious order? Or clan association? Alumni society? Mahjong club? The IT company his lover works for?
Unless the golden rule on conflict of interest has somehow been re-written, AIM or PAP simply had no business submitting a tender. End of story.
I quote again our dear PM:
[quote]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]I am still waiting for Dr Teo Ho Pin to address the \"alleged conflict of interest\" as he promised to. Or am I supposed to understand that he is saying there was in fact no conflict of interest? -
Is there a perceived conflict of interest? Certainly. Is there a conflict of interest for Madam Ho Ching to be where she is?
If we are so focused on conflicts of interest, you will find them everywhere in this little society of ours, dominated by a single political party for over 4 decades.
It’s an ugly part of Singapore that will hopefully now diminish with time.
The more pertinent question to me, is whether the transaction was improper.
$140,000 for a software that serves 14 town councils? Meh… -
3Boys:
Is there a perceived conflict of interest? Certainly. Is there a conflict of interest for Madam Ho Ching to be where she is?
You say one har. Not me.
It was possible for the PM to recuse himself from the decision to appoint Madam Ho Ching to where she is. That conflict of interest is resolvable.
It is not possible for all the PAP MPs (and their appointees) to recuse themselves from the decision to award the tender to AIM ie. the PAP. If they did, there would be nobody left to make that decision. This conflict of interest is not resolvable.
Or we can all close both eyes and pretend there is no conflict of interest. But PM Lee just told us not three days ago that such an attitude does not reflect the ethos of our society and the values we uphold leh.
Heck. They haven't even acknowledged that there was a conflict of interest. The least they could have done was to say, \"Yes, we realize now there was a conflict of interest. We are sorry for the oversight. We will put this right. We will do this, that and the other.\" -
Even the WP passed on scoring political points a year ago on this issue. It's part of the deal for politics here, they see it for what it is. Which is why I have from the very beginning stated that its the 'political tricks' part of the PAP that I don't like. That needs to change, or they are in big trouble.
Of course there is a conflict of interest, but over what? $140,000 over 14 TCs?
Don't agree with your assessment of PM's role in Madam HC's situation. Were not at least some members of the selection committee part of his cabinet, past and present (i.e. appointees)? That is such a much bigger fish to fry, and to ignore that and focus on an accounting software programme.......
......smacks of politicking.
edit --> If one reads Sylvia Lim's riposte a week ago <http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20121228-392168/2.html>, the main bugbear of the WP is how the arrangement can be used as a political tool to impair and hinder opposition parties. I feel that this is indeed a justified complaint, and likely a part of the reason for the AIM transaction to have occurred.
Dr Teo has now confirmed that this third party, AIM, is \"fully-owned\" by the PAP. In other words, the PAP-managed Town Councils saw it fit to sell away their ownership of the systems, developed with public funds, to a political party, which presumably could act in its own interests when exercising its rights to terminate the contracts. Was that the very reason why there was such a termination clause in the first place? And what arrangement, if any, is now in place at the PAP-managed Town Councils to cater for any subsequent \"material change\"? -
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?
-
ChiefKiasu:
I am actually with you on this. Politics has indeed gotten in the way, and the political flavour of the PAP is particularly unpalatable. In a way it's just desserts for them, but it doesn't change the fact that I think this is a storm in a teacup.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.
Lol. That's very perceptive. It is politics. But there is also that group that is concerned with whether politics has gotten into the way of proper execution of rules and regulations. I suppose I am in that minority. -
I clicked 4th from top. I will add a nuance, conflicts of interest are indeed important in real life, but must be viewed as something dynamic and evolving, and not at a static point in time. Context and scale are also important. 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?
Further, my take is that it was a conflict of interest with a political agenda, not a financial one.
Not that is should be allowed, but it is a vestige of the power structure that is being dissolved.
Sorry for a long discourse on a multiple-choice answer. -
Pirate, I like
I don't care because the PAP can do no wrong.
I don't care because the PAP can do no right.
I simply don't care.
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