MND report on AIM

[NTB2DO]

So in the end it was a case of pot calling kettle black?

According to today's ST report, Sylvia explained that "FMSS was set up because of the 'very real possibility' that the other companies that do town management for HDB estates might not want to work with the WP as they concurrently had contracts with PAP town councils.."

looking at how AIM could simply terminate the contract with AHTC--after WP won Aljunied GRC, I would say her concern is a valid one lor.

 

[Kiwi8]

So in the end it was a case of pot calling kettle black?

Not really.

I refer to what I replied in EDMW regarding a concern which is very similar to yours.

Something noteworthy that WP also faces an issue with the Cow brought up about AHTC that is not so right as well.

Their appointed company that manages their town council, FMSS, apparently did not go thru a tender process to get the job to maintain AHTC, which if there is a waiver of competition for the appointment, then did AHTC put up the necessary justification papers ?

I seriously hope AHTC did and come up with a proper and full rebuttal to the cow.

This one is easy to answer, if one takes into account the benefit of the resident. What do residents want? Just seamless handover and little to no disruption to the usual TC functions.

So let's compare the 2 cases:
1) The AIM incident:
Did they affect the residents? Yes, cos they almost resulted in the residents facing disruption in TC functions.

2) The WP's FMSS:
Did they affect the residents? Maybe yes, maybe no, since the time has not come for them to hand over yet. But they did mention that the arrangement with FMSS is temporarily rite, and that they will call for a tender after operations are stable. That being the case, I see no wrong with WP's handling.

 

[NTB2DO]

Khaw have not answered why does the contract have a term which allow AIM to terminate the contract 1 month after there is a change of management of the TC and how does this term benefit residents?

Khaw say that WP can ask for an extension, which is true but the final decision is still up to AIM and why did the previous TC management give them this power.

Oh he (Khaw) said the 1-month termination clause was inserted "to help 'reduce the vendor's business risk and hopefully fetch a better price (for the town councils)'..."

But hor, exactly how it would help "reduce business risk" or "fetch better price", I also don't know.

 

[Carnage]

I think the key difference here is the directors for FMSS were WP SUPPORTERS and not members of the party while AIM directors were definitely PAP members. That company itself was a PAP one (and the only one at that). So it really depends on whether you think being a supporter is the same as being a member.

Anyway, at least WP had the initiative to call for a special audit for awarding the tender to FMSS. And there was a tender for the contract 3 months after handing over was completed.

I agree with Khaw that the timing of AIM saga looked to be politicised. I remember that when Sylvia Lim was asked on record how was handover post GE, she said it was smooth. Now all of a sudden not smooth?

 

[Kiwi8]

I think the key difference here is the directors for FMSS were WP SUPPORTERS and not members of the party while AIM directors were definitely PAP members. That company itself was a PAP one (and the only one at that). So it really depends on whether you think being a supporter is the same as being a member.

Anyway, at least WP had the initiative to call for a special audit for awarding the tender to FMSS. And there was a tender for the contract 3 months after handing over was completed.

I agree with Khaw that the timing of AIM saga looked to be politicised. I remember that when Sylvia Lim was asked on record how was handover post GE, she said it was smooth. Now all of a sudden not smooth?

The "smooth" part, do u have it in black and white like news snippets?

 

[NTB2DO]

I think the key difference here is the directors for FMSS were WP SUPPORTERS and not members of the party while AIM directors were definitely PAP members. That company itself was a PAP one (and the only one at that). So it really depends on whether you think being a supporter is the same as being a member.

Anyway, at least WP had the initiative to call for a special audit for awarding the tender to FMSS. And there was a tender for the contract 3 months after handing over was completed.

I agree with Khaw that the timing of AIM saga looked to be politicised. I remember that when Sylvia Lim was asked on record how was handover post GE, she said it was smooth. Now all of a sudden not smooth?

The AIM saga had started with an unfavourable review by MND on AHTC (late submission of Corporate Governance report) when Sylvia, in her attempt to defend AHTC, explained the reason behind the delay.. which hence led to the AIM deal being exposed lor.

And I feel that Khaw was trying to distort the fact by accusing WP of trying to politicised AIM saga cos had it not been that unfavourable review by his MND, WP would have no reason to expose the AIM deal since, afterall, citing Khaw's own words, "(why) Ms Lim did not raise the AIM issue as it was happening, but chose to wait 10 months until an unfavourable report by the MND on AHTC". (To think this Khaw actually expected WP to just meekly accept his MND's bad review--without any complaints?!!)

Incidentally, MND decided to start publishing a town council management review in 2010.. Shortly after--just before 2011 election--PAP TCs sold town council management software to AIM... (Which makes me wonder, who's the one trying to play politics leh?)

 

[koxinga]

I think the key difference here is the directors for FMSS were WP SUPPORTERS and not members of the party while AIM directors were definitely PAP members. That company itself was a PAP one (and the only one at that). So it really depends on whether you think being a supporter is the same as being a member.

I think you are splitting hairs here. The question is, did any party or anyone associated with the parties benefited from this arrangement?

Clearly, someone (supporters and affiliates) did but we are to believe that the motive is purely altruistic (e.g for smooth handover, for less disruption to the citizens)?

 

[Carnage]

The "smooth" part, do u have it in black and white like news snippets?

Aljunied-Hougang Town Council prepares handover

Aljunied-Hougang Town Council set for August 1 handover

If you want to interpret "on track" as "smooth".

But it also shows that everything was done on time then she came up with reasons why AHTC performance not up to par compared to other TCs. Both sides have their reasons, both are valid considering everything.

 

[Carnage]

The AIM saga had started with an unfavourable review by MND on AHTC (late submission of Corporate Governance report) when Sylvia, in her attempt to defend AHTC, explained the reason behind the delay.. which hence led to the AIM deal being exposed lor.

And I feel that Khaw was trying to distort the fact by accusing WP of trying to politicised AIM saga cos had it not been that unfavourable review by his MND, WP would have no reason to expose the AIM deal since, afterall, citing Khaw's own words, "(why) Ms Lim did not raise the AIM issue as it was happening, but chose to wait 10 months until an unfavourable report by the MND on AHTC". (To think this Khaw actually expected WP to just meekly accept his MND's bad review--without any complaints?!!)

Incidentally, MND decided to start publishing a town council management review in 2010.. Shortly after--just before 2011 election--PAP TCs sold town council management software to AIM... (Which makes me wonder, who's the one trying to play politics leh?)

I don't want to speculate on what could have been or what should have been. Let's concentrate on what actually happened and leave the rest out.

Sylvia Lim's comment that AIM purchase the software right before GE, I'm waiting for Khaw's response to that. Be it opportunistic or just unfortunate timing, we shouldn't judge the incumbent so quickly before the facts are presented.

What I do like is that the PAP are made to review every single policy nowadays because of opposition presence in parliament. And I believe that's good for everyone.

 

[Carnage]

I think you are splitting hairs here. The question is, did any party or anyone associated with the parties benefited from this arrangement?

Clearly, someone (supporters and affiliates) did but we are to believe that the motive is purely altruistic (e.g for smooth handover, for less disruption to the citizens)?

Oh but there is a big difference. I'm surprised you didn't see it.

You mean to say being a PAP supporter so PAP must award me the tender? You mean to say the reverse is true, PAP supporter so cannot tender for offer to avoid conflict of interest?

What about the fact that open tender but only PAP supporter tendered for it? Must PAP reject the company then purely based on political affiliations. Take note that being a supporter is nothing compared to being a party member. I support the opposition but why should I let this stop me from attending PA functions?

 

[NTB2DO]

I don't want to speculate on what could have been or what should have been. Let's concentrate on what actually happened and leave the rest out.

Sylvia Lim's comment that AIM purchase the software right before GE, I'm waiting for Khaw's response to that. Be it opportunistic or just unfortunate timing, we shouldn't judge the incumbent so quickly before the facts are presented.

What I do like is that the PAP are made to review every single policy nowadays because of opposition presence in parliament. And I believe that's good for everyone.

I was responding to your earlier comment which you agreed with Khaw that timing of AIM saga looked to be politicised lah.. Since AIM saga was triggered by Khaw's ministry (MND)'s bad review of WP's AHTC management, who was the one trying to politicise it leh?

As for the timing of AIM purchase, hasn't the PAP side been insisting that that oh, it was "pure coincidence" and "not" politically motivated liao?

So it's all up to you to believe lor..

 

[NTB2DO]

BTW here's a very good write-up by TOC:

Highlights of the Debate on the MND Town Council Review Report – The Online Citizen

And some interesting points (from the linked article):

How many companies have all directors with town council experience?

Ms Sylvia Lim asked, “The tender was advertised and 5 companies picked up the documents. However, a closer look at the Conditions of Contract will reveal that the specifications required each of the directors of the tendering company to have “adequate experience with the operations and functions of a Town Council”.

I wonder how many companies in the software business in Singapore can say that all their directors have TC experience – perhaps only AIM?”

Issue with AHTC’s contracts

Ms Denise Phua said something along the lines that – it never crossed the minds of the PAP MPs and town councillors to trip the opposition – it is a figment of the imagination of some party – our conscience was and is clear. She also took issue with the AHTC’s awarding of some of its contracts – it is not helpful to point finger at any one political party.

Obsolescence advice in 2009

MP Silvia Lim sought clarification from Denise Phua to re-confirm what she said about the consultants D & T advising about the software’s obsolescence in 2009, as the sale contract with AIM was 3 January, 2011.

Denise Phua clarified that discussions had started in 2009 because of D & T’s advice about the software obsolescence.

Comment: Since the software obsolescence was first known and commenced discussions in 2009, why did it take more than a year to sell to AIM in January 2011, and then take more than another 2 years to call for a tender to develop a new system in March 2013 – and how long more before the new system will be ready?

Cannot find “no price increase” clause

Ms Sylvia Lim says, “The PAP TCs told MND that one of the key reasons for selling the software to AIM was that AIM agreed to bear the risk of any price increases by NCS in maintaining the software, even after the original contract with NCS expired (MND report para 25(b)). We have not been able to find this exact clause in our documents. However, even assuming so, on what objective basis did the PAP TCs assess that it was safe to entrust this risk of cost increases to a company with a paid-up capital of $2? Who will pay in the event of a cost increase? What about the risk of AIM being wound up?”

Mr Khaw later replied that even though AIM is a $2 company but it is a $2 company owned by PAP and PAP would fully support AIM in fulfilling its obligations.

1 month termination get better deal

MP Teo Ho Pin clarified that the one month termination clause was to get a better deal so that the risk of the tenderer is lower and that the tenderer could offer a better deal.

The last two points seem somewhat confusing to me: on the one hand Khaw claimed AIM was backed by PAP therefore it can fulfil obligation, on the other hand, they need to include a "1-month" termination clause in order to "lower the risk of tenderer (which is that PAP-backed AIM) and that the tenderer (which is AIM) could offer a better deal"? (I means, since the tender specifically required directors of tendering company to possess experience with TCs, it's very likely that all along, they (PAP side) knew jolly well that only AIM can meet this particular requirement and hence, win the tender lor.)

 

[koxinga]

Oh but there is a big difference. I'm surprised you didn't see it.

You mean to say being a PAP supporter so PAP must award me the tender? You mean to say the reverse is true, PAP supporter so cannot tender for offer to avoid conflict of interest? (Yes)

What about the fact that open tender but only PAP supporter tendered for it? Must PAP reject the company then purely based on political affiliations. (Yes) Take note that being a supporter is nothing compared to being a party member. I support the opposition but why should I let this stop me from attending PA functions?

Nope. I meant to say what I meant to say.

Maybe because last time I did procurement in the civil service. At least the way I was briefed was that there should not be a single hair linking any potential vendor/tenderer to the issuing authority. Unless the change the IM definitions, I thought this is the case. This is to avoid the case of allegations, not really from the public but from another competitor. Even if there is really no intention, well, you wanna avoid the process of proving your innocence,. which is a really bitch when the auditors/AGO are in the picture. (I meant this as my opinion, based on my own experience. Feel free to disagree)

But here is the thing, Khaw is signalling upfront that these do not apply in the case of TCs because they are 'political' entities. Here is where I feel uncomfortable. Until this incident, no one is really aware where does the line lay with respect to the TC.

 

[Carnage]

Nope. I meant to say what I meant to say.

Maybe because last time I did procurement in the civil service. At least the way I was briefed was that there should not be a single hair linking any potential vendor/tenderer to the issuing authority. Unless the change the IM definitions, I thought this is the case. This is to avoid the case of allegations, not really from the public but from another competitor. Even if there is really no intention, well, you wanna avoid the process of proving your innocence,. which is a really bitch when the auditors/AGO are in the picture. (I meant this as my opinion, based on my own experience. Feel free to disagree)

But here is the thing, Khaw is signalling upfront that these do not apply in the case of TCs because they are 'political' entities. Here is where I feel uncomfortable. Until this incident, no one is really aware where does the line lay with respect to the TC.

Going by what you said, then both are wrong in the first place.

But Khaw try to redefine it as it is ok. That's what you're saying. So it's back to what I said, pot calling the kettle black isn't it?

 

[Carnage]

I was responding to your earlier comment which you agreed with Khaw that timing of AIM saga looked to be politicised lah.. Since AIM saga was triggered by Khaw's ministry (MND)'s bad review of WP's AHTC management, who was the one trying to politicise it leh?

As for the timing of AIM purchase, hasn't the PAP side been insisting that that oh, it was "pure coincidence" and "not" politically motivated liao?

So it's all up to you to believe lor..

Let's put it this way la... audit of TC performance has always been done. It's not the first time opposition TC will be branded as the worst. Hey, even Potong Pasir TC also got a black mark iirc. I don't think it was meant to be political in nature.

As for whether the timing was coincidence or not, it's up to WP to prove it was. PAP isn't about to prove that is wasn't since nobody would believe them anyway.

 

[◆◇◆V◆◇◆]

The can of worms finally opened in Parliament yesterday and what a big can.

Bottom line from yesterday is, the rule on conflict of interest does not apply in its entirety as far as TC is concerned. If you read the report, AIM's bid was simply too good to be true and it has been acknowledged that AIM had the backing of PAP to make this offer and WP has been using a company (FM Services) with links to them. If we go strictly by AGO's and IM guidelines, even if there is no material benefits and one is doing a 'social' service, it is still a conflict of interest and the reason for such a strong line against it within the civil service is the probability that it is slippery slope to something more unsavory. Interesting and more interesting.

WP did not use a company that is linked to them. That was just a smoke screen.

Do you know about EM Services? Their shareholder is HDB.
Read here:
http://deluxeforums.hardwarezone.co...story-****ty-times-dont-tell-you-4212662.html

 

[tequila_powered]

WP did not use a company that is linked to them. That was just a smoke screen.

Do you know about EM Services? Their shareholder is HDB.
Read here:
[FMSS Saga] The Real Story which ****ty times dont tell you - www.hardwarezone.com.sg

ehmm I didn't go past your starting post in that thread. I don't see where "HDB is shareholder of EMS"? Can you point out? Thanks.

Also, they alleged that the boss of EMS is linked as strong supporter of WP, not necessarily a WP office bearer. Can you explain their allegations [fact-fully]? Thanks

Trying to understand what is and what's not here [fact-fully].

belated edit - typo - FMSS, not EMS. sorry for post-confusion. This is how it should be read.

Also, they alleged that the boss of FMSS is linked as strong supporter of WP, not necessarily a WP office bearer. Can you explain their allegations [fact-fully]?

 

[NTB2DO]

Let's put it this way la... audit of TC performance has always been done.

http://www.tptc.org.sg/pdf/Town Council Management Report.pdf

The Ministry of National Development (MND) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) are currently preparing the framework for the Town Council Management Report (TCMR). The TCMR is meant to provide residents with information on key areas of how their town is managed. It will comprise a common set of key indicators and the respective results of every Town Council. Results of the first TCMR are expected in 2010.

(Hehe coincidentally, 2010 also happened to be the year PAP TCs' town council management software right was sold to AIM.. And then coincidentally, GE was held a few months later.. Wow looks like we are living in a world full of coincidence leh, aren't we? )

 

[NTB2DO]

As for whether the timing was coincidence or not, it's up to WP to prove it was. PAP isn't about to prove that is wasn't since nobody would believe them anyway.

..in other words, the ruling party politicians are losing their credibility..

And the AIM saga gives us yet another good reason why we can't trust them..

 

[NTB2DO]

ehmm I didn't go past your starting post in that thread. I don't see where "HDB is shareholder of EMS"? Can you point out? Thanks.

Also, they alleged that the boss of EMS is linked as strong supporter of WP, not necessarily a WP office bearer. Can you explain their allegations [fact-fully]? Thanks

Trying to understand what is and what's not here [fact-fully].

E M Services

Chairman of EM Services is a (now ex) PAP MP..