MND report on AIM

[cybercom8]

Which begs the question: Why were there only 1 tender (ie from FMSS only) for WP's TC management contract leh?

just like there was only 1 tender for the obsolete TC software?

food for thought - do you think if you get a group of friends with experience working in town councils and quote 5% cheaper than FMSS, WP will award the contract to you?

anyway, if you have any experience in the real world of business, you will know that there are many factors that come into play in any business.

 

[cybercom8]

"In haste" because FMSS was set up merely 4 days after WP won Aljunied GRC mah..

And hold on.. Do they truly have a choice to continue with the current TC management agent? I thought Sylvia told Khaw that they need to give contract to FMSS because the current one didn't want to work for WP?


Here's what I read from TOC's report:

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

of course lah, for them to set up FMSS earlier would be too presumptious but surely you realised that such set ups were planned earlier?

think if you are really open minded and wish to understand more about this issue, then you should not just rely on one party or 1 report from TOC. there are 2 sides to the coin...you may have fallen prey to sylvia's selective reporting of facts.

WP had already setup FMSS, they informed the incumbent of their plan to switch. incumbent responded with an official termination, WP asked for extension and was given, twice i think. why they never asked for 3rd, 4th etc extensions if they needed it, this you must ask sylvia. like i said earlier, if they had shown that they were unreasonably rejected, then they can take the moral high ground.

could it be fmss/wp kan cheong to take over asap so that can start running their multi-million $$ TC themselves?

do you realised all these issues were being blown up long after the fact? why were they not raised earlier when the critical phase would have been the first few months of taking over?

think there was a TC handover at potong pasir too, do you see them bitching about it one year down the road or did they just roll up their sleeves and get things done?

in any case, these are just some food for thought, i just think it takes 2 hands to clap and its not right for either party to shirk their responsibility and blame all the shortcomings on one party.

 

[sunzoner]

you must be naive to think it was set up in haste without any prior planning or preparations. this issue must have cropped up in discussions even before the election as one of their plans.

they had a choice to continue with the current TC management agent. WP could have gained more political capital if they had shown that they went with the previous agent but was rejected by them. instead, they clearly had a plan to replace the former agent and there were even correspondence to that effect.

You must be naive to think that the estate agent would risk losing business with 14 TC just to do business with 1.

WP is not so navie to think businessmen would want to lose 14 TC for 1...

 

[sunzoner]

its not so simple lah...i am sure some entrepreneurs (non partisan) would be more than happy to land these lucrative contracts. just that usually in the business world, they know its almost like banging their head against the wall as some are more equal than others.

I agreed. If the AIM type contracts are given to me, I would be more than happy to take it up.

Just in case you think I personally profits from such deals, let me tell you I would have made more money if I do something else. hence I would not benefits from this transaction at all...

 

[NTB2DO]

just like there was only 1 tender for the obsolete TC software?

food for thought - do you think if you get a group of friends with experience working in town councils and quote 5% cheaper than FMSS, WP will award the contract to you?

anyway, if you have any experience in the real world of business, you will know that there are many factors that come into play in any business.

Something like that lor..

In PAP TC software's case, only AIM meets the requirement because (according to ST report) the tender specified that all directors of a bidder "must have town council experience..".

Likewise in WP TC's estate management's case, I would also expect WP to specify that bidder must have experience with management of TC lor.. And to meet such (perfectly understandable) requirement, only those who have either worked with WP's HG constinuency (the ones who set up FMSS) and those who had worked with PAP's 14 TC would qualify to bid..

But then hor, do you think the later group of TC management agencies (ie those working with that 14 PAP TC) would be keen to bid for WP's contract to run that 1 AHTC.. and risk losing business with PAP's 14 TC contracts leh?

Which is why I'm not surprised that WP's AHTC management tender had failed to attract any bidder--except FMSS lor.

 

[NTB2DO]

of course lah, for them to set up FMSS earlier would be too presumptious but surely you realised that such set ups were planned earlier?

think if you are really open minded and wish to understand more about this issue, then you should not just rely on one party or 1 report from TOC. there are 2 sides to the coin...you may have fallen prey to sylvia's selective reporting of facts.

WP had already setup FMSS, they informed the incumbent of their plan to switch. incumbent responded with an official termination, WP asked for extension and was given, twice i think. why they never asked for 3rd, 4th etc extensions if they needed it, this you must ask sylvia. like i said earlier, if they had shown that they were unreasonably rejected, then they can take the moral high ground.

could it be fmss/wp kan cheong to take over asap so that can start running their multi-million $$ TC themselves?

do you realised all these issues were being blown up long after the fact? why were they not raised earlier when the critical phase would have been the first few months of taking over?

think there was a TC handover at potong pasir too, do you see them bitching about it one year down the road or did they just roll up their sleeves and get things done?

in any case, these are just some food for thought, i just think it takes 2 hands to clap and its not right for either party to shirk their responsibility and blame all the shortcomings on one party.

Have to rely on TOC info for the time being cos proceeding of the 13 May Parliamentary session is still not up on the official website yet..(I believe the TOC writer attended the session in person and was hence able to furnish the details lor.)

As for the "ask for extension" thingy.. I think you got mixed up liao. Extension is for the use of that "obsolete" TC software, not for TC estate management contract lah. Khaw had deliberately brought up the FMSS case to counter-accuse WP of using "kar ki lang" to manage their GRC lor . (His argument was that if WP can use FMSS, why PAP cannot use AIM?)

 

[cybercom8]

But then hor, do you think the later group of TC management agencies (ie those working with that 14 PAP TC) would be keen to bid for WP's contract to run that 1 AHTC.. and risk losing business with PAP's 14 TC contracts leh?

Which is why I'm not surprised that WP's AHTC management tender had failed to attract any bidder--except FMSS lor.

you are unnecessarily limiting yourself on the pool of potential bidders.

playing along with your ob markers, do you seriously believe that if any pap linked coy (however remote) were to submit a lower or better bid for the AHTC, that WP will not choose FMSS?

 

[cybercom8]

You must be naive to think that the estate agent would risk losing business with 14 TC just to do business with 1.

WP is not so navie to think businessmen would want to lose 14 TC for 1...

lol, totally irrelevant as i never said any estate agent other than fmss would even stand a chance of being considered for wp's tc.

so why don't you form a company and bid for WP TC management as opposition supporters, not as party members should be quite lucrative.

 

[NTB2DO]

you are unnecessarily limiting yourself on the pool of potential bidders.

playing along with your ob markers, do you seriously believe that if any pap linked coy (however remote) were to submit a lower or better bid for the AHTC, that WP will not choose FMSS?

Hehe question is, how likely will they even submit a bid in the first place leh?

I believe TC management is yet another political tool by the ruling party to make it harder for opposition parties--particularly those which have never won in election and hence possess no experience with TC management--to defeat the (PAP) incumbents since, I'm sure, ruling party knows jolly well that national issues aside, voters are also--if not more--concerned about how well their MP is able to look after their estate lor. So if PAP "magnanimously" allows its (experienced) TC management agents to work for opposition wards, wouldn't that render such political tool ineffective liao?

Anyway to answer your question, if PAP's management agents were to, and could offer a better deal, I don't see why (the highly politically-savvy) WP would refuse to let the other have it lor.

 

[NTB2DO]

lol, totally irrelevant as i never said any estate agent other than fmss would even stand a chance of being considered for wp's tc.

so why don't you form a company and bid for WP TC management as opposition supporters, not as party members should be quite lucrative.

The key word is "experience", "an established track record" etc on management of town council...

Note that FMSS possesses experience with running TC--ie the HG one..

(PS: "An established track record in TC management" also happened to be the requirement listed in AIM's case. It's apparently the reason why only AIM--and no other software company (including NCS)--is qualified to bid for the deal with PAP TCs lor.)

 

[koxinga]

Teo Ho Pin: WP-FMSS deal raises 'serious questions'

"The public deserves to know because the award of contracts worth $26 million by the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) to long time supporters and close business associates of WP, through FMSS, raises serious questions about public interest and transparency."

hard to imagine he could say this with a straight face.

 

[NTB2DO]

Hehe looks like to this Teo hor, "supporters" or "close associate" cannot, but fully-owned one--like his PAP's AIM--got no problem.. !!!

And his crap about "transparency".. Had WP not exposed his PAP TC's deal with AIM, would the public ever come to know about it?

 

[koxinga]

Town Council Management – What is really at stake : The Workers’ Party of Singapore

AIM

• Wholly-owned by PAP and managed by ex-MP PAP members
• Expertise is outsourced
• $2 paid up capital
• Accepted single bid
• Critical TC asset placed in AIM’s ownership allowing one month termination

FMSS

• WP has no interest; directors and shareholders are not WP members
• Provides professional services
• $500,000 paid up capital
• No TC assets placed in FMSS’ ownership

edit:
I wonder what other surprises are there. After all, TC management had been decentralized for so many years. Stay tuned. Long time since we have such open political pitch battles.

edit again:
From a political standpoint, PM Lee asking MND to do a review and the outcome effectively absolved them of any blame in the AIM saga, giving them a pseudo moral high ground for what is to come next.

However, can WP ask MND to come and do a review? Because that is unlikely to happen, it would put them on the defensive because there is no third party (let's suspend that discussion as to whether MND review constitutes an 'independent review') to express any views. Probably why Sylvia Lim suggested CPIB.

Question, how on earth did PAP learn about WP awarding to FMSS and when did they learn about it? The timing seems so convenient and they waited until Parliament sitting to drop this bombshell.

Two, if there was any impropriety as insinuated by Dr Teo, it shouldn't it go to CPIB or Police? Instead, we have this political theatre going-on.

Anyway, sit with a bag of popcorn and watch what happens next bah. Been awhile since we have such excitement.

 

[cybercom8]

Hehe question is, how likely will they even submit a bid in the first place leh?

I believe TC management is yet another political tool by the ruling party to make it harder for opposition parties--particularly those which have never won in election and hence possess no experience with TC management--to defeat the (PAP) incumbents since, I'm sure, ruling party knows jolly well that national issues aside, voters are also--if not more--concerned about how well their MP is able to look after their estate lor. So if PAP "magnanimously" allows its (experienced) TC management agents to work for opposition wards, wouldn't that render such political tool ineffective liao?

Anyway to answer your question, if PAP's management agents were to, and could offer a better deal, I don't see why (the highly politically-savvy) WP would refuse to let the other have it lor.

so by your assumption, there is no need for tenders then...just award multi-million $ contracts to strong supporters why bother with tenders right?

you seem to like to make a lot of assumptions but yet you are inconsistent on principles. think we should hold both parties to the same moral or ethical standards. its curious why you may deem that something is done wrongly by one party but the same thing is perfectly ok for the other party.

you are either naive or clearly mischievous in saying that the contract will not be given to fmss.

you are clearly doing the opposition voters a disservice by assuming that they care more about estate management than other aspects of their lives. if you are right about them, then there would not have been a potong pasir or hougang in the first place.

 

[cybercom8]

Hehe looks like to this Teo hor, "supporters" or "close associate" cannot, but fully-owned one--like his PAP's AIM--got no problem.. !!!

And his crap about "transparency".. Had WP not exposed his PAP TC's deal with AIM, would the public ever come to know about it?

if you are a fair person, both cases should raise alarms lah, but the way you are seems to think its wrong for one party but right for another.

 

[cybercom8]

The key word is "experience", "an established track record" etc on management of town council...

Note that FMSS possesses experience with running TC--ie the HG one..

(PS: "An established track record in TC management" also happened to be the requirement listed in AIM's case. It's apparently the reason why only AIM--and no other software company (including NCS)--is qualified to bid for the deal with PAP TCs lor.)

do you think its so hard to hire or rope in other management staff as partners from so many town councils to form a new company especially if the multi-million $ contract is assured?

i put it to you that ethically or morally, the AIM case does not seem right (and they seem to be putting it right now with AIM out the picture soon). same goes for FMSS case (no sign of any reform, just blatant justification of why its alright to award to supporters and not party members). Take a step back and think about how silly this statement is. If you are a buyer, can you award the contract without any tender to your supporter or friend but since its not a family member, that makes it right?

Fairplay is only for people who are not biased lah. those with hidden agenda will always try to defend the indefensible

 

[cybercom8]

Teo Ho Pin: WP-FMSS deal raises 'serious questions'



hard to imagine he could say this with a straight face.

both deals also don't seem right lah...to think only 1 party is right and the other wrong is clearly not a non partisan view of fairplay.

 

[◆◇◆V◆◇◆]

Sharing:

Trying the same old tactic again? PAP should try something new & not the same trick used back in GE 2011

Low Thia Khiang hits back at PAP accusations

Workers’ Party leader Low Thia Khiang has hit back at accusations from his opponents in Aljunied GRC, urging voters not to be distracted by “typical” PAP smear tactics.

Responding to allegations by Lim Hwee Hua that he mismanaged the accounts at the Hougang Town Council, which he chaired prior to the general election, Mr Low said in a that he had always been prudent with the Town Council’s funds, and would not have lasted 20 years as MP if he had been incompetent.

Speaking at a rally in nearby Sengkang, Mr Low said: “We have entered a critical phase in this election. The PAP has shown its hands. They have embarked on a personal attack against me to try to discredit me. I believe they will also make use of the media to mock me. Please be careful of what you read in the newspapers and what you see on TV. Please come and attend our rallies in the next 2 nights and help us to spread the message, and keep checking our web site.”


PAP candidate Lim Hwee Hua claims that Mr Low has left the accounts of Hougang Town Council "in a mess"
Responding directly to Mrs Lim’s comments, Mr Low added: “Do you believe that Low Thia Khiang is dishonest? Do you believe that if the account of Hougang Town Council is messy, I can win Hougang for 20 years?”
“If the accounts were messy, why would the Ministry of National Development and the Auditor-General approve it? Minister Lim would have received a copy of Hougang’s report but she has not made any observations until now. What is she trying to do with her irresponsible comments?”

“May I take this chance to remind her that during the Lehman Brothers crisis, due to our prudent handling of funds, Hougang Town Council was one of (the few) that made no losses.”

Regarding the issue of HUDC privatisation, he said: “On 6 April, HDB told the Town Council that they have obtained the required consent for privatisation, but the expected duration to legally privatise the estate is two and a half years. I have called for a report on this issue, Hougang Town Council has given me the correspondence between the Town Council, HDB and the pro-tem committee chairman. It seems like everyone was in the loop except Mrs Lim Hwee Hua.”

He also added that he perceived Mrs Lim’s comments as an attack on his character, and challenged her to report him to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau if she genuinely felt that he had been involved in any wrongdoing. Failing that, he said, Mrs Lim and the PAP should not “hoodwink the voters at this critical time, when the polls are near”.
Mr Low highlighted that the PAP had used similar distraction tactics in the 2006 election, when the spotlight was placed on former Aljunied candidate James Gomez over an incident regarding a misplaced minority form. The incident dominated headlines throughout the campaign period. He said that he would be spending the next two days focusing on the WP’s message of a First World Parliament, and did not want to be distracted by “nonsense allegations”.

Apart from the allegations made by Mrs Lim through the mainstream media, a highly professional video has also mysteriously surfaced on the internet, accusing Mr Low of lacking transparency in his handling of the HUDC matter. Another video was also posted on YouTube earlier in the campaign, accusing Singapore Democratic Party candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha of having a “hidden gay agenda” – an issue that was taken up by the PAP’s Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
Separately, George Yeo, the PAP’s team leader for Aljunied GRC, has also attacked Mr Low, accusing him of “using” the voters of Aljunied as “chips in a high-stakes game”. He alleged that Mr Low had “abandoned the people who voted for him in Hougang”, and that he was forcing an “emotional dilemma” on the residents of Aljunied in his bid to win a GRC. Earlier in the campaign, Mr Yeo astonishingly said that the WP was acting “against the spirit of democracy” by fielding all its heavyweight candidates in Aljunied.

The battle for Aljunied is expected to be decided on a razor-thin margin, with a realistic prospect that the PAP could lose a GRC for the first time since the system was devised. Former Prime Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Chok Tong have thrown their weight behind Mr Yeo, with Mr Lee saying that the residents of Aljunied would have to “repent for five years” if they voted for the WP.

Meanwhile, Mr Goh has said that Mr Yeo is “too important to lose”, and that the PAP did not have a replacement lined up for him if he were to lose his job as Foreign Minister.

http://www.tremeritus.com/2011/05/04/low-thia-khiang-hits-back-at-pap-accusations/

 

[NTB2DO]

so by your assumption, there is no need for tenders then...just award multi-million $ contracts to strong supporters why bother with tenders right?

you seem to like to make a lot of assumptions but yet you are inconsistent on principles. think we should hold both parties to the same moral or ethical standards. its curious why you may deem that something is done wrongly by one party but the same thing is perfectly ok for the other party.

you are either naive or clearly mischievous in saying that the contract will not be given to fmss.

you are clearly doing the opposition voters a disservice by assuming that they care more about estate management than other aspects of their lives. if you are right about them, then there would not have been a potong pasir or hougang in the first place.

Would you mind telling me how long would it take for a tendering process-- from calling a tender, to evaluation of tender and finally, to award of contract to successful bidders? 1 week? 2 weeks? Or more? Before a new agent management takes over (since the existing one with the ex-PAP's Aljunied TC did not wish to work for the new boss), who is gonna maintain the estate? Or just let the rubbish pile up first (so that ruling party supporter can say: "look, the constituency under WP is fast turning into "slum", is it?)

And WP did call for open tender a year later. Since only FMSS--and NO OTHER bidders responded to the tender(note that it was indeed the case hor), pray tell me, if you were WP, what would you do?

 

[NTB2DO]

do you think its so hard to hire or rope in other management staff as partners from so many town councils to form a new company especially if the multi-million $ contract is assured?

i put it to you that ethically or morally, the AIM case does not seem right (and they seem to be putting it right now with AIM out the picture soon). same goes for FMSS case (no sign of any reform, just blatant justification of why its alright to award to supporters and not party members). Take a step back and think about how silly this statement is. If you are a buyer, can you award the contract without any tender to your supporter or friend but since its not a family member, that makes it right?

Fairplay is only for people who are not biased lah. those with hidden agenda will always try to defend the indefensible

The fact is, WP did call for tender (for subsequent TC management contract), and ONLY FMSS responded.

I'm still waiting for you to suggest what WP should do under such a situation--if you feel it's simply not right for WP to award the tender to FMSS because of FMSS's bosses' close association with WP.