TC’s computer & financial system

[3Boys]

pirate:

3Boys:

[quote=\"limlim\"]Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

I have no problem with privatizing the profits since private citizens are free to buy the shares to participate in the profits. It's the passing the buck that I don't like. Am I supposed to believe that the government (through Temasek etc) being the ultimate controlling shareholders do not exert any influence over the boards of these companies but let them do pretty much as they please? If that is the case, it amounts to gross dereliction of duty. But if they do exert influence (as they should), then the buck should stop at the minister, not the CEO.[/quote]I can't really see that being the case. Being a major share owner does not equal being in the management. Further, Temasek is not a ministry, it has no accountability to the minister of transport. The way the minister of transport exerts influence on companies would be via its regulatory bodies like the PTC and LTA, to set service standards, affordability, safety etc. That would be the job, not a proxy member of SMRT's management.

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

[quote=\"limlim\"]Privatize the profits..


Socialize the cost.. :evil: :evil:

As a private citizen you have every right to participate in the profits where you can find them. :evil:

That's why, the rich get richer bcoz they hv the \"extra\" means to invest and grow the wealth, while the poor are always paced out..

When your income is barely sufficient to feed the family and provide a shelter, you don't park $10000 in the stock market to earn $500 a year.[/quote]1) Remove completely the opportunity for someone with $10K to spare to invest in a private company to make $500 per year, so that no one gets ahead of anyone else

or

2) Tax $100 from the $500 to give to the disadvantaged who can't afford his transport fare so that he can go work and send his kids to school

limlim, you have completely gone OT, and dragged me along with you. I know you have an issue with any private company making any kind of profit, but I ain't got the time to go back and forth with you on this again.

Ciao, Have a Happy New Year!

[pirate]

3Boys:

Haha! Bizzy bizzy these few days.


It's ok, I'm no fan of PAP political tactics even in the best of times. But I do think whatever's been posted on the internet is a little superficial and biased. So I'm sitting this one out....

So far, these are the facts as made public:

(1) The Town Council Management System (TCMS) software was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd for the 14 PAP town councils.
(2) In 2010, PAP town councils called a tender to sell the ownership of TCMS.
(3) Only one company, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), submitted a tender.
(4) AIM is fully owned by the PAP.
(5) All the MPs in the PAP town councils were members of the PAP at the relevant time.
(6) AIM has a paid-up capital of $2.
(7) AIM does not operate from its registered address as it is the address of a firm providing corporate secretarial services.
(8) Financial statements of AIM for the last 5 years are not available for purchase from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore (ACRA) \"as accounts are not filed in XBRL or the company is gazetted.\"
(9) The tender was awarded to AIM on the terms that AIM buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC (ie. $785 x 14 x 12 = $131,885 per annum), for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.
(10) There was also a clause in the agreement that AIM may terminate the contract with a TC if there is a material change in the composition of the town council.

Facts in red are disclosed by Dr Teo Ho Pin, the Co-ordinating Chairman of the 14 PAP town councils.
Facts in blue are publicly available through company searches from ACRA.
Facts in black are not in dispute.

Hahaha. I agree that not all the facts are available for one to form a definite view. But the facts as disclosed are certainly more than enough for any unbiased person to form a preliminary conclusion. There could well be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. For all I know, maybe the PAP paid for the development of TCMS and not a single cent of public money was spent on it, so the PAP can do whatever they want with it. Or perhaps there was full disclosure of any conflict of interest. But the ball is certainly in their court now to explain how this is consistent with good governance or that there was no conflict of interest in the making of the agreement with AIM. And in the best traditions of Singapore jurisprudence, an adverse inference may be drawn from continued silence.

I don't give two hoots about political tactics. I am only concerned with good governance and whether there was any conflict of interest. Like they say, this is an issue of integrity.

[pirate]

3Boys:

I can't really see that being the case. Being a major share owner does not equal being in the management. Further, Temasek is not a ministry, it has no accountability to the minister of transport. The way the minister of transport exerts influence on companies would be via its regulatory bodies like the PTC and LTA, to set service standards, affordability, safety etc. That would be the job, not a proxy member of SMRT's management.

The Singapore government through Temasek is not just a major shareholder. It is the majority or controlling shareholder. No reasonably prudent controlling shareholder will leave management of a company entirely to its board without exerting any influence. That is just not the way business is done.

Fine. Temasek has no accountability to any particular minister. Who then is it accountable to? The buck should then stop with the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet then. Otherwise, we have an institution that is not accountable to anybody. Which is even worse.

[3Boys]

pirate:

3Boys:

Haha! Bizzy bizzy these few days.


It's ok, I'm no fan of PAP political tactics even in the best of times. But I do think whatever's been posted on the internet is a little superficial and biased. So I'm sitting this one out....

So far, these are the facts as made public:

(1) The Town Council Management System (TCMS) software was developed by National Computer Services Pte Ltd for the 14 PAP town councils.
(2) In 2010, PAP town councils called a tender to sell the ownership of TCMS.
(3) Only one company, Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM), submitted a tender.
(4) AIM is fully owned by the PAP.
(5) All the MPs in the PAP town councils were members of the PAP at the relevant time.
(6) AIM has a paid-up capital of $2.
(7) AIM does not operate from its registered address as it is the address of a firm providing corporate secretarial services.
(8) Financial statements of AIM for the last 5 years are not available for purchase from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority of Singapore (ACRA) \"as accounts are not filed in XBRL or the company is gazetted.\"
(9) The tender was awarded to AIM on the terms that AIM buy the software for S$140,000 and manage the system for a monthly fee of S$785 per TC (ie. $785 x 14 x 12 = $131,885 per annum), for an initial term ending 31 October 2011.
(10) There was also a clause in the agreement that AIM may terminate the contract with a TC if there is a material change in the composition of the town council.

Facts in red are disclosed by Dr Teo Ho Pin, the Co-ordinating Chairman of the 14 PAP town councils.
Facts in blue are publicly available through company searches from ACRA.
Facts in black are not in dispute.

Hahaha. I agree that not all the facts are available for one to form a definite view. But the facts as disclosed are certainly more than enough for any unbiased person to form a preliminary conclusion. There could well be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. For all I know, maybe the PAP paid for the development of TCMS and not a single cent of public money was spent on it, so the PAP can do whatever they want with it. Or perhaps there was full disclosure of any conflict of interest. But the ball is certainly in their court now to explain how this is consistent with good governance or that there was no conflict of interest in the making of the agreement with AIM. And in the best traditions of Singapore jurisprudence, an adverse inference may be drawn from continued silence.

I don't give two hoots about political tactics. I am only concerned with good governance and whether there was any conflict of interest. Like they say, this is an issue of integrity.

If it's a slam dunk and the public are baying for blood, then it hardly matters if 3Boys is convinced or not, is it?

A Happy New Year to you too my brigand friend, may 2013 bring new booty!

[3Boys]

pirate:

3Boys:

I can't really see that being the case. Being a major share owner does not equal being in the management. Further, Temasek is not a ministry, it has no accountability to the minister of transport. The way the minister of transport exerts influence on companies would be via its regulatory bodies like the PTC and LTA, to set service standards, affordability, safety etc. That would be the job, not a proxy member of SMRT's management.

The Singapore government through Temasek is not just a major shareholder. It is the majority or controlling shareholder. No reasonably prudent controlling shareholder will leave management of a company entirely to its board without exerting any influence. That is just not the way business is done.

Fine. Temasek has no accountability to any particular minister. Who then is it accountable to? The buck should then stop with the Prime Minister and the entire cabinet then. Otherwise, we have an institution that is not accountable to anybody. Which is even worse.

Whether or not a majority/controlling shareowner exerts influence is a matter of prudence. It does not imply accountability, the office holders of the company hold that responsibility. I think company law is pretty clear on that. I do not have any recollection of shareholders taken to court for their company's board's or management's misconduct. In fact, quite often shareholders have sued their boards or management for malfeasance. I cannot see how Temasek can have any kind of public accountability for the performance of SMRT.

Temasek is accountable to the ministry of finance. It's remit is to generate returns for the government coffers, it's not meant to be a proxy manager of SMRT's operations.

[pirate]

3Boys:

Temasek is accountable to the ministry of finance. It's remit is to generate returns for the government coffers, it's not meant to be a proxy manager of SMRT's operations.

Well... that's exactly the theory I have an issue with. But what does it matter? Every person is entitled to his or her view.

A Happy New Year to you too.

[limlim]

3Boys:

limlim, you have completely gone OT, and dragged me along with you. I know you have an issue with any private company making any kind of profit, but I ain't got the time to go back and forth with you on this again.

Ciao, Have a Happy New Year!

I didn't dragged you into this.. you quote my post, so I reply mah.

Initially I mentioned you is with regards to another post.

That is, A Public entity is under the control of the govt. And in a democratic system the pple have the power to choose the govt and indirectly the person in control of the key public assets.

However, with a private entity, a few selected group of people will have the power to decide whoever they want to control the key assets, and the pple have no direct influence over these entities unlike the case when these entities are under the control of the govt directly.

Hence, privatization also in some way or another leads to non-democratic transfer of control of key assets. Unless the new govt is powerful enough to reverse the privatization and return control of key assets to the govt and the public.

I'm not interested to debate on the profits part.. it is the control of key assets that I'm talking about in the initial posts.

[limlim]

If a new party elected by the pple were to come into power.. will they be in some way or the other at the mercy of the privatized corporations?


Will the pple be at the mercy of the corporations?

[3Boys]

limlim:

Hence, privatization also in some way or another leads to non-democratic transfer of control of key assets. Unless the new govt is powerful enough to reverse the privatization and return control of key assets to the govt and the public.

I'm not interested to debate on the profits part.. it is the control of key assets that I'm talking about in the initial posts.

And why do you assume key assets are perform better under the control of public sector than private sector? Aren't you constantly griping about how badly our public services perform, even those under the ministries?

If that is the case lets shut down all the hawker centres and high end restaurants and make sure the only provider of food and meals is the government. Lets close Mt Elizabeth and Gleneagles Medical centres, lets shut down Starhub and Singtel.

The notion that key services needs to be entirely the province of the 'public' via the government is unsubstantiated knee-jerk rubbish.