Interesting CSI on AHTC arrears incident

[NTB2DO]

According to Teo,

20. Third, we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments.

Which implies that should the constituency falls into opposition's hand, AIM, being owned and hence is committed to PAP only, would be unlikely to "honour its commitments" to the opposition-held constituency and its residents lor? (After all, AIM did terminate its "commitments to AHTC, didn't it?)

Which means ultimately, it's still party interest before residents' interest lor?

Yet Teo still has the cheek to claim that:

26. We entered into the transaction with AIM with the objective of benefitting the TCs. Over the last two years, the intended benefits have been realised. There is thus no basis to suggest that the AIM transaction did not serve the public interest, or was disadvantageous to residents in the TCs

!!!

 

[NTB2DO]

Also, if the contract was awarded to AIM because AIM was "backed by PAP and will honour its commitment", what if there are other contenders who are not backed by PAP, or worse, backed by opposition party members bidded too? If being "backed by PAP" was one of the considerations, wouldn't it mean that other non-PAP-backed tenderers would stand little or no chance liao?

If that's the case, they still called an open tender for what?

 

[sunzoner]

lol they will not give a straight answer. nevermind. it will cost them.

I will not bet on this.

 

[ponpokku]

According to Teo,

Quote:

20. Third, we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments to PAP.

Which implies that should the constituency falls into opposition's hand, AIM, being owned and hence is committed to PAP only, would be unlikely to "honour its commitments" to the opposition-held constituency and its residents lor? (After all, AIM did terminate its "commitments to AHTC, didn't it?)

Which means ultimately, it's still party interest before residents' interest lor?

Yet Teo still has the cheek to claim that:

Quote:

26. We entered into the transaction with AIM with the objective of benefitting the TCs under our control. Over the last two years, the intended benefits have been realised by transfering money from left to right pockets. There is thus no basis to suggest that the AIM transaction did not serve the public interest, or was disadvantageous to residents in the TCs bcos ur money is my money, my money is not yours

!!!

ok lah maybe it should be this way?

 

[ponpokku]

I will not bet on this.

ok lor i bet 1 big mac meal on it... it will happen.

 

[superman]

After talking so much still did not answer the question of "Why did TC pay to develop the software but will not be guranteed to be able to use it once there is a change of Management".

This sounds exactly like the HDB Upgrading programme, every taxpayer pay for the upgrading but only PAP constituency get the upgrading.

 

[ponpokku]

like what was posted in edmw,

this idiot think we are all dumb issit?
since NCS developed the system, just give them a service and maintenance contract lah.
need to sell to a company with ZERO IT knowledge, ZERO support staff and operates out of a virtual office able to response to anything at all?
knn jiao wei many many
if bypass AIM and go straight to NCS, can save all the stupid middleman fees

they are now arguing that it is not against the law (which btw it is, there is no need for the middleman and there is no value-added by introducing the middle man. totally redundant contract), but skipped the public interests altogether.

 

[sunzoner]

like what was posted in edmw,



they are now arguing that it is not against the law (which btw it is, there is no need for the middleman and there is no value-added by introducing the middle man. totally redundant contract), but skipped the public interests altogether.

Introducing a redundant middleman by itself not against the law.

It is the introduction of a redundant middleman with conflict of interest by a govt/public entity using public money that is not correct.

But as long as the forms are followed, no laws are broken.

 

[ponpokku]

Introducing a redundant middleman by itself not against the law.

It is the introduction of a redundant middleman with conflict of interest by a govt/public entity using public money that is not correct.

But as long as the forms are followed, no laws are broken.

nope, my dad nabbed one in his office 30yrs back. almost the same identical scene. i think it's 4yrs jail + 2 terrace houses confiscated.

the story was purchasing director set up $2 office under his brother's name, then all the company purchase go thru this $2 company and mark up added, instead of going to suppliers directly. taking company money into his own pocket.

CPIB came in and took the fella into custody when pijiah lobang.

 

[sunzoner]

nope, my dad nabbed one in his office 30yrs back. almost the same identical scene. i think it's 4yrs jail + 2 terrace houses confiscated.

the story was purchasing director set up $2 office under his brother's name, then all the company purchase go thru this $2 company and mark up added, instead of going to suppliers directly. taking company money into his own pocket.

CPIB came in and took the fella into custody when pijiah lobang.

I stand corrected then.

 

[Kiwi8]

As I mentioned in EDMW too:

For me their motives are very simple.

If the aim is really to centralise ownership of the so-called software to a single entity, then I would be satisfied if the entity specify in black and white that all the town councils, regardless of PAP or opposition, will be able to use the software, regardless of whether it was previously PAP or opposition.

But obviously this isn't the case, and they can't explain themselves away that the move is simply to create unfair barriers when opposition parties take over a previously-PAP counstituency.

 

[RoLanTo]

y WP haven summarize the points highlighted by u guys and submit a follow-up questions?

 

[sunzoner]

WP seems to be working slow. Maybe they are trying to avoid the pitfall of claiming something and get proven by the incumbent as wrong...

 

[NTB2DO]

As I mentioned in EDMW too:

For me their motives are very simple.

If the aim is really to centralise ownership of the so-called software to a single entity, then I would be satisfied if the entity specify in black and white that all the town councils, regardless of PAP or opposition, will be able to use the software, regardless of whether it was previously PAP or opposition.

But obviously this isn't the case, and they can't explain themselves away that the move is simply to create unfair barriers when opposition parties take over a previously-PAP counstituency.

Since when have they been telling us the bare truth?

Like they claimed they wanted to increase their salaries to world's highest is (not because they are greedy for more money, but) because they don't want our women to become maids and our man to become labours in foreign countries.. Admitting so much foreigners is (not for boosting the GDP--to which their bonus were tied to, but) because foreign workers help to create jobs for locals..

And now, they are telling us that oh, going through all the troubles to sell the IP right to its own company and then lease back the right is (not to "fix" the opposition, but) for the interest of the residents..

Doesn't matter if their "explanations" make sense or not, cos we people are supposed to be daft lor.

 

[NTB2DO]

y WP haven summarize the points highlighted by u guys and submit a follow-up questions?

There's no need to, cos I suppose WP know we are not as dumb as what the ruling party politicians still believe us to be. Once WP supply us the leads, most of us should be able to figure the truth out ultimately lor, hehe.

 

[RoLanTo]

There's no need to, cos I suppose WP know we are not as dumb as what the ruling party politicians still believe us to be. Once WP supply us the leads, most of us should be able to figure the truth out ultimately lor, hehe.

i noe.. but sometimes we need to ask the obvious questions just to squeeze ppl to corner mah

 

[NTB2DO]

i noe.. but sometimes we need to ask the obvious questions just to squeeze ppl to corner mah

Cos WP is gracious enough (to let netizens do the "cornering" job instead) lor, hehe.

 

[Kiwi8]

y WP haven summarize the points highlighted by u guys and submit a follow-up questions?

There are some issues that only citizens can ask and some issues that only political parties can ask, if u get what I mean.

 

[NTB2DO]

Here's more scrutiny/criticisms from other bloggers on Teo's (super unconvincing) "justification" for the sales of PAP TCs-owned software right to a PAP-owned company:

PAP mis-AIMed, faces blowback, part 4 « Yawning Bread on Wordpress

Town Councils AIM

 

[NTB2DO]

There's a Chinese saying, 若要人不知,除非己莫为. And once their (not so aboveboard) deed was exposed, it'll be quite futile for them to try covering it up--nevermind if their brains are supposedly worth millions of dollars. It would only 越描越黑, making them even less credible (than they already were) lor.