Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 123456781318 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 573

Thread: Significant Singapore News

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default



    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    SINGAPORE: Workers’ Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang sought to explain the challenges the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) faced when it came to appointing a managing agent (MA) in Parliament on Friday (Feb 13). He explained that the Town Council did not manage to find more than one company to bid for the contract.

    But Education Minister Heng Swee Keat said this did not explain other issues, such as the significant difference in MA rates between AHPETC and other town councils.

    AHPETC's managing agent is FM Solutions and Services (FMSS). Key executives of the town council were also owners of FMSS.

    “Yesterday we saw the big differences in the MA rates. As elected MPs running the Town Council, is it not in your instinct to ask how did this happen? Are our residents getting a good deal? Why is this so? How much money are they (FMSS) making? Yes it may be a single bid, but is it not your responsibility to look at what happened? So would you ask FMSS how much profits have they made? And FMSI, out of this contract over the last four years,” said Mr Heng.

    “Minister Shanmugam has said that the estimate is that the Town Council had paid at least S$1.6 million more than you should every year for the last four years. So if you are serving your residents well, should you not jump at that figure and say ‘I must do something about this, that I must get to the bottom of this’? Rather than to say, ‘Well this was an open contract, there was only one bid, and that was that’.”

    Mr Heng added that the Worker’s Party had options.

    “You said that they were experienced, they were professional. Why did you not simply hire them as employees and continue to run the Town Council? You would know the cost with great clarity,” he said.

    “You would know how much – Ms Sylvia Lim mentioned about benchmarking – so you would know exactly how much that you can pay Ms How and her team fairly and competitively, and you would have avoided all these problems,” Mr Heng added.

    Mr Heng also noted that Mr Low had not provided an explanation for a “convoluted structure”, nor had he explained the steps taken to prevent conflicts of interest between the town council and the MA.

    “You are not prepared to ask how much money FMSS have made. You are not prepared to look into how much have the town council overpaid, and is this money lost through the front door,” he said.

    AHPETC PAYS MA BASED ON CONTRACT SUM AGREED UPON VIA PUBLIC TENDER: LOW THIA KIANG

    Mr Low said the town council pays the MA based on a contract sum agreed upon via a public tender.

    “Why we did not decide to manage ourselves (was) because it was a very much larger GRC and at that point in time in Hougang SMC there were only about 20-odd staff, and we knew we needed about 100 staff to manage. And at that point in time we were very concerned about taking over a much larger GRC. And if we managed (it) ourselves, they will probably have a lot of other things that they would have to look into,” Mr Low said.

    “So we thought it would be better that if the town council, the old town council staff – which they have experience and are prepared to work with this company, and are prepared to form a company or to manage the town council. I mean, if they're prepared to do that…” said Mr Low.

    Mr Heng then asked Mr Low if it is “perfectly alright” to overpay their MA.
    “What is there to decide whether they are overpaid? This is a public tender – the tender for the price, for the rate. We have done due diligence to check about the rate,” Mr Low replied.

    “I find this discussion puzzling because Ms Sylvia Lim had just a few moments ago told us that in terms of payment of staff you have done the benchmarking. And I assumed that you did that to ensure that you did not overpay. Now that you have seen all the figures, it is a very clear instance that you have overpaid, and the question is that what are you going to do about it,” said Mr Heng.

    “May I suggest Mdm Speaker that we do not prolong this where you just assert in form that there was a tender, this was an outcome and all that.”

    Mr Heng said the issue is not about form, or technical rules. It is about integrity and trust.

    “It is about how we wholeheartedly do our very best to serve the people who have elected us. To serve Singaporeans who have elected us. We should not just go behind the facade that ‘the technical rules have all been obeyed, this was the outcome,’ and accept that. Having seen the numbers I think the public can conclude about what ought to be done,” he said.


    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/....html?cid=fbsg
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post

    Mr Heng said the issue is not about form, or technical rules. It is about integrity and trust.

    “It is about how we wholeheartedly do our very best to serve the people who have elected us. To serve Singaporeans who have elected us. We should not just go behind the facade that ‘the technical rules have all been obeyed, this was the outcome,’ and accept that. Having seen the numbers I think the public can conclude about what ought to be done,” he said.


    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/....html?cid=fbsg
    Funny when it comes to the AIM episode, the AGO can issue an all-clear and no harm done since all technical rules have been obeyed.

    Oh and since this is a property forum, I certainly did not vote the white to serve me with TDSR or ABSD.

  4. #64
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Actually hor, I am also very surprised that some town council issues are all clear and nobody needs to bear responsibilities, like:

    1) Town Councils act like fund managers, accumulate huge cash and then invest like fund managers, even in risky assets and lost $MILLIONS! So, who has borne responsibilities for this?

    2) AIM-saga: No matter how I look at it, if AHPETC is so big issues, why AIM got an all clear? Both looks similar to me in substance though.

    3) Somebody from PAP said WP lost public money and WP's act was "unlawful" in parliament! If so, he should repeat this outside of parliament, and also sue WP about "unlawful" act and "losing public money"! I am still waiting whether he will ACT on his WORDS or not, or just SAY FOR FUN.................


    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    Funny when it comes to the AIM episode, the AGO can issue an all-clear and no harm done since all technical rules have been obeyed.

    Oh and since this is a property forum, I certainly did not vote the white to serve me with TDSR or ABSD.

  5. #65
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    I am quoting "3%" inflation rate based on CPF Advisory Panel's recommendation.

    So how, you are telling us that CPF Advisory Panel lied to us and inflation rate is actually much more than 4%?
    minority, give you a chance to clarify yourself: YOU LIED or you telling us CPF Advisory Panel LIED?

    Don't be a bloody idiot, with no integrity and moral character and twist my words, I NEVER AGREED $380 is BASIC AMOUNT, I remember you told us is $308 per month is sufficient! (Please check back your post!)

    and $308 per month to $650 per month inflation rate assumed is how much hah? Please tell us..........


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post

    YAWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN CAN U READ? or U CANNOT READ. ? WHY SUDDENLY ur INFLATION RATE IS 3%? ISNT IT 4% the LAST FEW YEARS? SUDDENLY CHANGE IT? even so. ur 3% 380 and 413? is the difference a lot? Can u proof to me inflation is 3% only? cannot n will not reach 4%? WHAT A LOAD OR CRAP.

    GOOD THAT U AGREE THAT $380 is the basic amount . Just that u cannot count.

  6. #66
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    To unload my queries on AIM-saga:

    No matter how I look at it, if AHPETC is so big issues, why AIM got an all clear? Both looks similar to me in substance though.

    Both got interested party transactions, the amount paid is debatable, like how can a software sold to AIM be worth so little money (is it $1? - can't remember now)? Software obsolete? Come on, software obsolete can be upgraded, Windows O/S software always very backward compatible one, don't need much changes (some don't even need to make any change) also can run on newer Windows O/S!

    It seemed that somebody said for AIM-saga, they declared their interested party transactions. Is this so?
    I supposed AIM declare that PAP is the owner of AIM to the town councils at the point in time? However, more importantly, did they and the town councils declare to all residents of the town councils at the point in time? (I don't remember so).

    The obsession about "declaring" already means "no wrong doing" is like telling us that if a thief declares upfront to his friend that he stole something, then he is no longer guilty when caught by the police? The thief don't need to declare to the public nor police (just like the town council don't need to declare to the public nor their residents that AIM is owned by PAP, just need to declare to town council head will do, whose head also belongs to PAP).

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Actually hor, I am also very surprised that some town council issues are all clear and nobody needs to bear responsibilities, like:

    1) Town Councils act like fund managers, accumulate huge cash and then invest like fund managers, even in risky assets and lost $MILLIONS! So, who has borne responsibilities for this?

    2) AIM-saga: No matter how I look at it, if AHPETC is so big issues, why AIM got an all clear? Both looks similar to me in substance though.

    3) Somebody from PAP said WP lost public money and WP's act was "unlawful" in parliament! If so, he should repeat this outside of parliament, and also sue WP about "unlawful" act and "losing public money"! I am still waiting whether he will ACT on his WORDS or not, or just SAY FOR FUN.................

  7. #67
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    The pictorial view is very good indeed!

    Can you provide us with a similar one regarding the AIM-saga?


    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post



  8. #68

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    The pictorial view is very good indeed!

    Can you provide us with a similar one regarding the AIM-saga?
    CAN YOU ? PLS DO?? DONT LIKE WP EMPTY WORDS ONLY LEH!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    To unload my queries on AIM-saga:

    No matter how I look at it, if AHPETC is so big issues, why AIM got an all clear? Both looks similar to me in substance though.

    Both got interested party transactions, the amount paid is debatable, like how can a software sold to AIM be worth so little money (is it $1? - can't remember now)? Software obsolete? Come on, software obsolete can be upgraded, Windows O/S software always very backward compatible one, don't need much changes (some don't even need to make any change) also can run on newer Windows O/S!

    It seemed that somebody said for AIM-saga, they declared their interested party transactions. Is this so?
    I supposed AIM declare that PAP is the owner of AIM to the town councils at the point in time? However, more importantly, did they and the town councils declare to all residents of the town councils at the point in time? (I don't remember so).

    The obsession about "declaring" already means "no wrong doing" is like telling us that if a thief declares upfront to his friend that he stole something, then he is no longer guilty when caught by the police? The thief don't need to declare to the public nor police (just like the town council don't need to declare to the public nor their residents that AIM is owned by PAP, just need to declare to town council head will do, whose head also belongs to PAP).

    Sure I sell you windoXP now. at $50 50% discount to window 8 now. you go upgrade lor.
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  11. #71
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    You can't right?

    Mmm, I suppose the pictorial will show that both are sama sama, pot calling kettle black?

    And, I am still WAITING for you to tell us from $308 per month to $650 per month, inflation rate assumed is how much hah? Please tell us..........

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    CAN YOU ? PLS DO?? DONT LIKE WP EMPTY WORDS ONLY LEH!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    I am quoting "3%" inflation rate based on CPF Advisory Panel's recommendation.

    So how, you are telling us that CPF Advisory Panel lied to us and inflation rate is actually much more than 4%?
    minority, give you a chance to clarify yourself: YOU LIED or you telling us CPF Advisory Panel LIED?

    Don't be a bloody idiot, with no integrity and moral character and twist my words, I NEVER AGREED $380 is BASIC AMOUNT, I remember you told us is $308 per month is sufficient! (Please check back your post!)

    and $308 per month to $650 per month inflation rate assumed is how much hah? Please tell us..........

  12. #72
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Cutting through the smog to the facts on AHPETC

    minority,
    Below are the texts for you to compare between the PAP's AIM and ATC transactions vs AHPETC and MA transactions, will help you to draw comparing infographics.......................


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    You can't right?

    Mmm, I suppose the pictorial will show that both are sama sama, pot calling kettle black?

    And, I am still WAITING for you to tell us from $308 per month to $650 per month, inflation rate assumed is how much hah? Please tell us..........


    Cutting through the smog to the facts on AHPETC

    FEBRUARY 13, 2015 BY ANDREWLOW IN TOC REPORTS

    The debate in Parliament over the Workers’ Party town council, AHPETC, has been fiery with many accusations thrown at the WP.

    It would thus be good to go beyond the political rhetoric and accusations and look at things factually.

    In this regard, we will be presenting each main issue here, giving the facts so that Singaporeans can better understand them, and not be confused by the mainstream media and the politicians’ rhetoric to score political points.

    On the issue of AHPETC giving out contracts to “related parties” without tender, the facts are explained.

    In 2012, it was revealed that the 14 PAP-run town councils had sold the computer system used by them to a PAP-owned company, Action Information Management (AIM).

    The system was developed at a cost of $24 million, and sold to AIM for $140,000.

    When the tender was held, only AIM submitted a bid, and was successful in it.
    Explaining this in Parliament then, Minister of National Development, Khaw Boon Wan (who is also chairman of the PAP), said:

    On “related parties”:

    “The Act by design does not prohibit transactions between the TC and party-related entities or persons. Latitude has always been given to MPs to manage their TCs according to their best judgement and be accountable to their residents politically. TCs run by MPs from all political parties have at one time or another appointed party supporters or former candidates to provide services to the TCs they run.”

    On waiving tender:

    “In fact, the TC Financial Rules also provide latitude to TCs or their Chairmen to waive requirement to call for tender altogether. Ms Sylvia Lim would be familiar with this because she exercised this latitude when her TC waived competition and appointed FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS) as its Managing Agent (MA) in 2011. MND left the appointment to her best judgement and did not object.”

    And he specifically addressed the issue with regards to AIM:

    “So back to the TCMS [Town Council Management System] – when it was first tendered out, yes, it cost the TCs $24 million to develop. But by the time it was hitting obsolescence, how much was it worth? Very little, nothing, probably zero, and the tender proved it. Nobody was interested in it. AIM had to step in, because if they didn’t step in, the TCs would be left in the lurch…”

    This sounds rather similar to what the Workers’ Party is saying with regards to its tender for a Management Agent – no one put in a bid except FMSS.

    So, what we can conclude are two things:

    Giving contracts to “related parties” is not illegal or unusual. Even PAP town councils do this.

    Waiving tender is not illegal or against any rules, as Mr Khaw has explained.
    Now that that is clear, we take a look at the explanation given by WP’s secretary general, Low Thia Khiang, and its chairman, Sylvia Lim, in Parliament on Thursday.

    Low Thia Khiang, on misconception that contract was awarded without tender:

    “I would like to first address the public misconception that the Managing Agent was given the contract without tender.

    “Open public tenders were called in 2012 for the Managing Agent and EMSU contracts. The most recent tender for MA contract was called in November 2014. However, tender was not called for MA contract for the specific transitional period between July 2011 and July 2012; and for EMSU contract, the period between October 2011 to June 2012; due to the urgency to take over the management of the Town and to ensure that major services are not disrupted to affect the lives of residents.

    “The Town Councils Act allows the Chairman of Town Council to waive tender requirement under the circumstances.

    “The fact remains that it has been a challenge for the Workers’ Party, being an opposition party, to attract managing agents. When the public tender was called in 2012, three companies collected the tender document and only one company submitted the tender. In the more recent tender, only one company, the largest MA managing PAP Town Councils, collected the tender document and no one submitted any tender.”

    Sylvia Lim:

    Misimpressions have been created that the TC Secretary and its General Manager, who are the main directors and shareholders of the company, are freely being given contracts without tender and paying themselves handsomely without accountability. Contract values have been highlighted in media headlines, as if these were profit margins. It is necessary to highlight some key facts, as these misimpressions need to be debunked.

    MA has no decision-making power:

    The MA has no decision-making power in relation to the award of tenders. Tenders are awarded by a Tenders & Contracts Committee consisting of Members of Parliament and appointed Councillors with no interest whatsoever in the MA.

    The MA is not involved in evaluating any tender in which it is participating. When the MA and EMSU (essential maintenance services unit) tenders are involved, the MA is excluded from the deliberations.

    Only one instance of non-tender, MND was aware:

    The only time FMSS was appointed to provide services without tender was in 2011, in the aftermath of the General Election. These waivers were only for two contracts for very short periods of time – one for MA services for one year, and the other for EMSU services for nine months. They were transitional arrangements.

    All contracts were tendered for:

    For all subsequent contracts involving FMSS, open tenders were called and advertised in the papers accordingly.

    For the first contract in 2011 for MA services, it was triggered as the incumbent MA, CPG Facilities Management, asked to be released from the contract with the TC for business reasons. There was an urgent need to put in place a computer system due to the termination of the former system in use. FMSS was appointed for a one year period only, to help the TC in the transition phase. Their rates were the rates that CPG FM charged the former Aljunied TC.

    For the first contract in 2011 for EMSU, there was no intention to waive competition. The TC’s preference was to extend the existing contractors until a tender could be called for the whole town. However, the existing contractors were not agreeable. FMSS was appointed to provide these services for 9 months until the tender could be awarded for the town. I shall elaborate more on this shortly.

    In 2012, open tenders were called for MA services as well as EMSU services, for the six wards in Aljunied-Hougang Town. For MA services, 3 companies purchased the tender documents, including EM Services that is the MA for many PAP Town Councils. When the tender closed, only FMSS tendered to be MA for AHPETC.

    Disclosure and declaration of interest

    Prior to submitting their tender, FMSS submitted their declaration of interest in accordance with Town Council Financial Rule 76(3). As the TC was left to evaluate FMSS as the sole tenderer in 2012, the TC decided that it was prudent to have the tender evaluation process for MA services subject to a voluntary audit. It called for quotations from three audit firms, and appointed one firm to do the review. The agreed-upon scope included considering whether the current procedures and practices were adequate to ensure that the procurement was made in the ordinary course of business, and whether there were adequate controls to ensure the award was conducted in an unbiased, objective, fair and transparent manner; it also covered assessing whether the evaluation and award of the tender was conducted in accordance with existing requirements and good corporate governance practices. The auditors examined the records of the evaluations done and also sat in on an evaluation meeting. After this voluntary audit in 2012, the TC was graded “A”.

    Contrary to some misimpressions that the Managing Agent has a free hand to manage the Town Council, the Town Council in fact has in place various structures to overseee the work of the Managing Agent. I would like now to distribute Annex 2 to my speech, showing the various committees and channels that aid monitoring of the MA’s services. As can be seen, there are multiple avenues by which the Town Council holds the Managing Agent accountable for its work and service levels.”

    Ms Lim reminded:

    “The former Aljunied Town Council management [managed by the PAP] also had related parties, and yet there were no related party transaction disclosures in Financial Statements, which had no disclaimers.”

    ————

    The New Paper, 31 December 2012, on the AIM deal:

    Are any laws broken in this whole saga?

    “I don’t see any irregularity,” said lawyer M. Lukshumayeh.

    “There was a tender process. There were interested parties, but, for whatever reason, only one party submitted a bid.

    “I don’t see any irregularity about it. It’s up to the organisation to accept the bid or reject it. In this case, it accepted it.”

  13. #73
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default I started to relate AIM and ATC transactions vs AHPETC and its MA transactions

    When the PAP's AIM-saga broke out, I didn't really look into the details because I thought no big deal.

    However, when similar saga in terms of WP's AHPETC and its MA broke out and the PAP MPs and Ministers and the news media are making a big deal and hoo-ha out of it, I started to take notice and relate it back to the AIM-saga. To me, both looks similar, I just can't tell the difference (as a layman), not sure about you?

    By making a big hoo-ha out of WP's AHPETC-saga, and causing many Singaporeans to take notice and then relate back to PAP's AIM-saga, is this a case of pot calling kettle black? I am not sure, so have to start reading up details about PAP's AIM and ATC transactions and details, which I attach below since many other Singaporeans may be interested as well (like me after AHPETC-saga).


    Did the MND review report on AIM transaction answer questions?

    MAY 5, 2013 BY TERRY XU IN MAIN STORY, TOC REPORTS

    Just on Friday, Ministry of National Development released its long awaited review report on the AIM transaction after a further extension from the previous scheduled release date 4 days ago . The review had been called upon by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 9th Jan 2013 after growing public criticism over the tender for the 14 town councils’ software management contract being awarded to Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd, a company owned by Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) in 2010.

    In the last statement which The Online Citizen released on the AIM transaction in Jan this year, we highlighted a series of problems on the Coordinating Chairman of the PAP’s town councils, Dr Teo Ho Pin’s statement on his clarification for the transaction with the town councils. TOC delivered the same questions from that statement to Dr Teo’s email on 23rd January but we have not heard from him till date.

    So looking at the 37 page review report released by MND, have our questions been answered?

    Conflict of interest, in PAP-controlled Town Councils awarding a key contract to a PAP-owned company.

    On page 6 and 7 of the report, the reports writes,

    TCs were set up for, and fulfil a political purpose, and therefore latitude has always been given to TCs to exercise autonomy, where they see fit, in engaging those who share their political agenda or are affiliated to their parties. The substantive issue is therefore whether a conflict of interest arose in terms of TC members having a pecuniary or direct interest in the transaction, and whether the interests of the TCs’ residents were protected or impaired and whether there was any misuse of public funds.

    MND review team states that it is perfectly fine for the town councils to engage companies that are affiliated to the political parties if there is no conflict of interest in the transaction.

    But is it really fine for town councils to be given a green light that engaging parties which has affliation with the political parties is acceptable by norms? It might seem fine since PAP prides itself being morally upright and incorruptible in running of their town councils but what if someone along the road decides to abuse the system to follow the same form of engagement?

    The ministry also states in the report

    The Review Team has also verified that AIM did not make a profit from the transaction and its Directors were not paid a fee. AIM made a loss during the one-year sale and leaseback arrangement from the 2010 contract. For the subsequent extensions, AIM’s management fees essentially covered the costs of the headcount required to fulfil its role in support of the TCs.

    42. The Review Team found no pecuniary or direct interest on the part of any of the TC members in AIM. There was also no indirect interest on the part of the TC members in the AIM contract; the TC members did not have a financial or commercial interest in the contract that AIM was awarded

    Therefore MND concluded that from their findings that there is no conflict of interest.

    But does it require for monetary profit from the transaction to prove that there is indeed a conflict of interest? Why not define interest in form of political objectives? It seems that AIM made selfless sacrifices on its part to support the town councils but would any sound company do such form of business transaction? Is it not weird that a company would choose to bid and carry out services which would lose money by fulfilling its obligation to the contract?

    Despite not having to come to a clear definition of whether or not, the TCs management software is considered as public property. Is it not a concern that a property that might be classified as public property be transferred as assets under a company owned by a political party?

    The failure by the PAP-controlled Town Councils to ask for a performance bond or banker’s guarantee from a $2 company that was buying and licensing-back a mission-critical piece of software.

    In the report writes that for the evaluation of AIM’s Bid: The PAP TCs’ Town Council IT Committee evaluated the tender based on the following criteria:

    a) Track record of company in similar IT contracts;
    b) Experience of Directors and/or key staff of the company in Town
    Council operations or relevant IT based operations;
    c) No outstanding legal issues against the company; and
    d) Financial capacity to honour the contract.

    Through ACRA, we discovered that Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd is a company that has a mere $2 paid up capital, all three directors are ex-PAP MPs , the mailing address of the company is the same with PAP’s Headquarters at New Upper Changi Road and we wonder how all this would have seem right for the evaluation process by MND.

    The absolute lack of detail in the tender notice, and the reported lack of detail in the tender document which cost $215. Why there is a discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010).

    The report explains the apparent discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010) was due to a extension of the closing date to 21st July 2010 and that a 3 week notice period was given to all the tenderers on 30 June 2010.

    Point 22 on page 16 of the report states,

    No written reasons were given for non-participation by the other companies who collected the tender documents. However, the TCs were informed verbally that the reasons for non-participation included the limited value of the developed software outside of the TC context and that the purchase did not give assurance of the continuity of providing service to the TCs.

    Though an explanation has been given for the lack of bids from the other tenderers but it is unclear if MND had approached the vendors for their account of the story since the reason given seems to have originated from a recount of verbal statements from the town councils rather than the interested tenderers themselves.

    And the report still does not really answer why the tender advertisement looks more like a sales advertisement than a tender for software management contract.

    The finding that the Town Council Management System was obsolete and needed replacement in 2010, when it continues to be used, and hence presumably perfectly functional, in 2013 and the long delay in replacing the supposedly obsolete TCMS, with the PAP-controlled Town Councils not even having selected a vendor 2.5 years after deciding that it was necessary to replace the TCMS.

    MND addressed these two issues on page 14 and 18 of the review report. Stating the delay to replace the obsolete software was due to considerations on how to proceed with the redevelopment of the town council management system. While the review report covered on how the consultant firm derived the need to replace the software in 2010, the process of the extension with AIM and the cost involved with the extension. There still seems to be a missing explanation on why the town councils took 2.5 years to finally decide to call for a tender to redevelop the software while still engaging AIM to manage the software in that duration.

    The payment of the management fee of $33,150 to AIM, the lack of information on how the management fee of $33,150 paid to AIM was used by AIM and how the incurring of this obligation was beneficial to the residents of the PAP-controlled Town Councils.

    Covered in page 18 of the report, the payment of the management of $33,150 was explained to be for the services provided by AIM.

    This was for the whole suite of services they provided during the extension period, which included securing extensions from NCS at the existing rates, advising on redevelopment options and preparing the new tender specifications. The management fee of $33,150 was to cover the cost of AIM’s staff and other expenses such as audit fees.

    With the understanding that AIM operates from PAP HQ and the background of the company, I wonder how many number of staff does AIM employ apart from the directors. Did AIM use the sum of money to pay the staff managing the software and were there other projects which AIM has taken up on during the course of the one and a half year, if there were no other projects during this period for the company – then how did AIM manage to pay for the salary of the staff? Did AIM exist for any particular purposes as it does not seems to be for financial gains from the looks how it runs business.

    Ultimately, has MND questioned if the management of town councils could have been able to manage the management software themselves to save this fee?

    Problems not covered in the MND review report

    One of the problems which the MND review report did not cover is the failure by Dr Teo and Mr Chandra Das to disclose the payment of this management fee to AIM at the earliest possible opportunity, especially when they were highlighting the “savings” of $8,120 from selling the TCMS to AIM and licensing it back.

    Along with the apparent lack of independence in having the Ministry of National Development review the AIM transaction, as MND is the same body that oversees Town Councils. Why was MND asked to review the transaction instead of an independent third party auditor?

    And furthermore PAP has not come out in the open with the public about the companies that it owns, what they do, the persons who benefit from their operations, and their business dealings (if any) with PAP-controlled Town Councils and government agencies, in particular the previous contracts between AIM and PAP-controlled Town Councils that Mr Das has alluded to.

    The Ministry of National Development might have finally produced the review report on the transaction, and the Prime Minister has since announced through the media that there has been nothing wrong found about the transaction from the report. But there are still many questions about the whole saga that remains unanswered and it would take a lot more than just a review report to convince the general public that all is fine and dandy.

  14. #74
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default The burning smell in Tampines really Jialat to max!!!!

    Heard from friend about this, and google internet and found below discussions:

    The burning smell in Tampines really Jialat to max!!!!

    Some people said PSI gone up to 205 in East yesterday early morning (but didn't spread to the rest of the other regions)........

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    You can't right?

    Mmm, I suppose the pictorial will show that both are sama sama, pot calling kettle black?

    And, I am still WAITING for you to tell us from $308 per month to $650 per month, inflation rate assumed is how much hah? Please tell us..........
    u calculated yourself base on your presumed inflation u still want to ask me? WAKE UP!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    When the PAP's AIM-saga broke out, I didn't really look into the details because I thought no big deal.

    However, when similar saga in terms of WP's AHPETC and its MA broke out and the PAP MPs and Ministers and the news media are making a big deal and hoo-ha out of it, I started to take notice and relate it back to the AIM-saga. To me, both looks similar, I just can't tell the difference (as a layman), not sure about you?

    By making a big hoo-ha out of WP's AHPETC-saga, and causing many Singaporeans to take notice and then relate back to PAP's AIM-saga, is this a case of pot calling kettle black? I am not sure, so have to start reading up details about PAP's AIM and ATC transactions and details, which I attach below since many other Singaporeans may be interested as well (like me after AHPETC-saga).


    Did the MND review report on AIM transaction answer questions?

    MAY 5, 2013 BY TERRY XU IN MAIN STORY, TOC REPORTS

    Just on Friday, Ministry of National Development released its long awaited review report on the AIM transaction after a further extension from the previous scheduled release date 4 days ago . The review had been called upon by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 9th Jan 2013 after growing public criticism over the tender for the 14 town councils’ software management contract being awarded to Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd, a company owned by Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) in 2010.

    In the last statement which The Online Citizen released on the AIM transaction in Jan this year, we highlighted a series of problems on the Coordinating Chairman of the PAP’s town councils, Dr Teo Ho Pin’s statement on his clarification for the transaction with the town councils. TOC delivered the same questions from that statement to Dr Teo’s email on 23rd January but we have not heard from him till date.

    So looking at the 37 page review report released by MND, have our questions been answered?

    Conflict of interest, in PAP-controlled Town Councils awarding a key contract to a PAP-owned company.

    On page 6 and 7 of the report, the reports writes,

    TCs were set up for, and fulfil a political purpose, and therefore latitude has always been given to TCs to exercise autonomy, where they see fit, in engaging those who share their political agenda or are affiliated to their parties. The substantive issue is therefore whether a conflict of interest arose in terms of TC members having a pecuniary or direct interest in the transaction, and whether the interests of the TCs’ residents were protected or impaired and whether there was any misuse of public funds.

    MND review team states that it is perfectly fine for the town councils to engage companies that are affiliated to the political parties if there is no conflict of interest in the transaction.

    But is it really fine for town councils to be given a green light that engaging parties which has affliation with the political parties is acceptable by norms? It might seem fine since PAP prides itself being morally upright and incorruptible in running of their town councils but what if someone along the road decides to abuse the system to follow the same form of engagement?

    The ministry also states in the report

    The Review Team has also verified that AIM did not make a profit from the transaction and its Directors were not paid a fee. AIM made a loss during the one-year sale and leaseback arrangement from the 2010 contract. For the subsequent extensions, AIM’s management fees essentially covered the costs of the headcount required to fulfil its role in support of the TCs.

    42. The Review Team found no pecuniary or direct interest on the part of any of the TC members in AIM. There was also no indirect interest on the part of the TC members in the AIM contract; the TC members did not have a financial or commercial interest in the contract that AIM was awarded

    Therefore MND concluded that from their findings that there is no conflict of interest.

    But does it require for monetary profit from the transaction to prove that there is indeed a conflict of interest? Why not define interest in form of political objectives? It seems that AIM made selfless sacrifices on its part to support the town councils but would any sound company do such form of business transaction? Is it not weird that a company would choose to bid and carry out services which would lose money by fulfilling its obligation to the contract?

    Despite not having to come to a clear definition of whether or not, the TCs management software is considered as public property. Is it not a concern that a property that might be classified as public property be transferred as assets under a company owned by a political party?

    The failure by the PAP-controlled Town Councils to ask for a performance bond or banker’s guarantee from a $2 company that was buying and licensing-back a mission-critical piece of software.

    In the report writes that for the evaluation of AIM’s Bid: The PAP TCs’ Town Council IT Committee evaluated the tender based on the following criteria:

    a) Track record of company in similar IT contracts;
    b) Experience of Directors and/or key staff of the company in Town
    Council operations or relevant IT based operations;
    c) No outstanding legal issues against the company; and
    d) Financial capacity to honour the contract.

    Through ACRA, we discovered that Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd is a company that has a mere $2 paid up capital, all three directors are ex-PAP MPs , the mailing address of the company is the same with PAP’s Headquarters at New Upper Changi Road and we wonder how all this would have seem right for the evaluation process by MND.

    The absolute lack of detail in the tender notice, and the reported lack of detail in the tender document which cost $215. Why there is a discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010).

    The report explains the apparent discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010) was due to a extension of the closing date to 21st July 2010 and that a 3 week notice period was given to all the tenderers on 30 June 2010.

    Point 22 on page 16 of the report states,

    No written reasons were given for non-participation by the other companies who collected the tender documents. However, the TCs were informed verbally that the reasons for non-participation included the limited value of the developed software outside of the TC context and that the purchase did not give assurance of the continuity of providing service to the TCs.

    Though an explanation has been given for the lack of bids from the other tenderers but it is unclear if MND had approached the vendors for their account of the story since the reason given seems to have originated from a recount of verbal statements from the town councils rather than the interested tenderers themselves.

    And the report still does not really answer why the tender advertisement looks more like a sales advertisement than a tender for software management contract.

    The finding that the Town Council Management System was obsolete and needed replacement in 2010, when it continues to be used, and hence presumably perfectly functional, in 2013 and the long delay in replacing the supposedly obsolete TCMS, with the PAP-controlled Town Councils not even having selected a vendor 2.5 years after deciding that it was necessary to replace the TCMS.

    MND addressed these two issues on page 14 and 18 of the review report. Stating the delay to replace the obsolete software was due to considerations on how to proceed with the redevelopment of the town council management system. While the review report covered on how the consultant firm derived the need to replace the software in 2010, the process of the extension with AIM and the cost involved with the extension. There still seems to be a missing explanation on why the town councils took 2.5 years to finally decide to call for a tender to redevelop the software while still engaging AIM to manage the software in that duration.

    The payment of the management fee of $33,150 to AIM, the lack of information on how the management fee of $33,150 paid to AIM was used by AIM and how the incurring of this obligation was beneficial to the residents of the PAP-controlled Town Councils.

    Covered in page 18 of the report, the payment of the management of $33,150 was explained to be for the services provided by AIM.

    This was for the whole suite of services they provided during the extension period, which included securing extensions from NCS at the existing rates, advising on redevelopment options and preparing the new tender specifications. The management fee of $33,150 was to cover the cost of AIM’s staff and other expenses such as audit fees.

    With the understanding that AIM operates from PAP HQ and the background of the company, I wonder how many number of staff does AIM employ apart from the directors. Did AIM use the sum of money to pay the staff managing the software and were there other projects which AIM has taken up on during the course of the one and a half year, if there were no other projects during this period for the company – then how did AIM manage to pay for the salary of the staff? Did AIM exist for any particular purposes as it does not seems to be for financial gains from the looks how it runs business.

    Ultimately, has MND questioned if the management of town councils could have been able to manage the management software themselves to save this fee?

    Problems not covered in the MND review report

    One of the problems which the MND review report did not cover is the failure by Dr Teo and Mr Chandra Das to disclose the payment of this management fee to AIM at the earliest possible opportunity, especially when they were highlighting the “savings” of $8,120 from selling the TCMS to AIM and licensing it back.

    Along with the apparent lack of independence in having the Ministry of National Development review the AIM transaction, as MND is the same body that oversees Town Councils. Why was MND asked to review the transaction instead of an independent third party auditor?

    And furthermore PAP has not come out in the open with the public about the companies that it owns, what they do, the persons who benefit from their operations, and their business dealings (if any) with PAP-controlled Town Councils and government agencies, in particular the previous contracts between AIM and PAP-controlled Town Councils that Mr Das has alluded to.

    The Ministry of National Development might have finally produced the review report on the transaction, and the Prime Minister has since announced through the media that there has been nothing wrong found about the transaction from the report. But there are still many questions about the whole saga that remains unanswered and it would take a lot more than just a review report to convince the general public that all is fine and dandy.


    Like you say affliated. But are the member issuing and awarding works, certifying the works done and signing off the checks the same people in both entity? ARE THEY? NOPE ! SO? YOUR SAME IS BULLSHIT. ONTHING SAME HERE IS YOUR SAME OLD SHIT OF LIES AND DECEIT!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  17. #77
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,
    According to you, $308 per month NOW is more than enough for a person's basic living in Singapore!

    BUT CPF Advisory Panel is saying that with minimum CPF Life of $80,500 that pay out NOW $650 per month is not enough by 2017 that they recommend GOVT to increase CPF Life by 3% every day from 2017, in line with long-term inflation rate.

    So, minority, YOU LYING or you are telling us that CPF Advisory Panel is LYING?

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    u calculated yourself base on your presumed inflation u still want to ask me? WAKE UP!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    You can't right?

    Mmm, I suppose the pictorial will show that both are sama sama, pot calling kettle black?

    And, I am still WAITING for you to tell us from $308 per month to $650 per month, inflation rate assumed is how much hah? Please tell us..........

  18. #78
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    minority,

    I can only EXPECT BULLSHIT from you lah!

    If educated people like me can't tell the difference and hence believe there is no difference in "substance", you think many Singaporeans can tell the difference and agree with you that both cases have big difference?

    Furthermore, if a person with NO INTEGRITY and NO MORAL CHARACTER and a BULLSHIT like you TELL US strongly that PAP's AIM is totally CORRECT and WP's APHETC is totally WRONG, then it seems more likely that the reverse is TRUE since YOUR WORDS CANNOT BE TRUSTED!

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    Like you say affliated. But are the member issuing and awarding works, certifying the works done and signing off the checks the same people in both entity? ARE THEY? NOPE ! SO? YOUR SAME IS BULLSHIT. ONTHING SAME HERE IS YOUR SAME OLD SHIT OF LIES AND DECEIT!
    Last edited by teddybear; 14-02-15 at 18:32.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    When the PAP's AIM-saga broke out, I didn't really look into the details because I thought no big deal.

    However, when similar saga in terms of WP's AHPETC and its MA broke out and the PAP MPs and Ministers and the news media are making a big deal and hoo-ha out of it, I started to take notice and relate it back to the AIM-saga. To me, both looks similar, I just can't tell the difference (as a layman), not sure about you?

    By making a big hoo-ha out of WP's AHPETC-saga, and causing many Singaporeans to take notice and then relate back to PAP's AIM-saga, is this a case of pot calling kettle black? I am not sure, so have to start reading up details about PAP's AIM and ATC transactions and details, which I attach below since many other Singaporeans may be interested as well (like me after AHPETC-saga).


    Did the MND review report on AIM transaction answer questions?

    MAY 5, 2013 BY TERRY XU IN MAIN STORY, TOC REPORTS

    Just on Friday, Ministry of National Development released its long awaited review report on the AIM transaction after a further extension from the previous scheduled release date 4 days ago . The review had been called upon by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong on 9th Jan 2013 after growing public criticism over the tender for the 14 town councils’ software management contract being awarded to Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd, a company owned by Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) in 2010.

    In the last statement which The Online Citizen released on the AIM transaction in Jan this year, we highlighted a series of problems on the Coordinating Chairman of the PAP’s town councils, Dr Teo Ho Pin’s statement on his clarification for the transaction with the town councils. TOC delivered the same questions from that statement to Dr Teo’s email on 23rd January but we have not heard from him till date.

    So looking at the 37 page review report released by MND, have our questions been answered?

    Conflict of interest, in PAP-controlled Town Councils awarding a key contract to a PAP-owned company.

    On page 6 and 7 of the report, the reports writes,

    TCs were set up for, and fulfil a political purpose, and therefore latitude has always been given to TCs to exercise autonomy, where they see fit, in engaging those who share their political agenda or are affiliated to their parties. The substantive issue is therefore whether a conflict of interest arose in terms of TC members having a pecuniary or direct interest in the transaction, and whether the interests of the TCs’ residents were protected or impaired and whether there was any misuse of public funds.

    MND review team states that it is perfectly fine for the town councils to engage companies that are affiliated to the political parties if there is no conflict of interest in the transaction.

    But is it really fine for town councils to be given a green light that engaging parties which has affliation with the political parties is acceptable by norms? It might seem fine since PAP prides itself being morally upright and incorruptible in running of their town councils but what if someone along the road decides to abuse the system to follow the same form of engagement?

    The ministry also states in the report

    The Review Team has also verified that AIM did not make a profit from the transaction and its Directors were not paid a fee. AIM made a loss during the one-year sale and leaseback arrangement from the 2010 contract. For the subsequent extensions, AIM’s management fees essentially covered the costs of the headcount required to fulfil its role in support of the TCs.

    42. The Review Team found no pecuniary or direct interest on the part of any of the TC members in AIM. There was also no indirect interest on the part of the TC members in the AIM contract; the TC members did not have a financial or commercial interest in the contract that AIM was awarded

    Therefore MND concluded that from their findings that there is no conflict of interest.

    But does it require for monetary profit from the transaction to prove that there is indeed a conflict of interest? Why not define interest in form of political objectives? It seems that AIM made selfless sacrifices on its part to support the town councils but would any sound company do such form of business transaction? Is it not weird that a company would choose to bid and carry out services which would lose money by fulfilling its obligation to the contract?

    Despite not having to come to a clear definition of whether or not, the TCs management software is considered as public property. Is it not a concern that a property that might be classified as public property be transferred as assets under a company owned by a political party?

    The failure by the PAP-controlled Town Councils to ask for a performance bond or banker’s guarantee from a $2 company that was buying and licensing-back a mission-critical piece of software.

    In the report writes that for the evaluation of AIM’s Bid: The PAP TCs’ Town Council IT Committee evaluated the tender based on the following criteria:

    a) Track record of company in similar IT contracts;
    b) Experience of Directors and/or key staff of the company in Town
    Council operations or relevant IT based operations;
    c) No outstanding legal issues against the company; and
    d) Financial capacity to honour the contract.

    Through ACRA, we discovered that Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd is a company that has a mere $2 paid up capital, all three directors are ex-PAP MPs , the mailing address of the company is the same with PAP’s Headquarters at New Upper Changi Road and we wonder how all this would have seem right for the evaluation process by MND.

    The absolute lack of detail in the tender notice, and the reported lack of detail in the tender document which cost $215. Why there is a discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010).

    The report explains the apparent discrepancy between the date on which AIM submitted its bid (20 July 2010) and the stated closing date of the tender period (14 July 2010) was due to a extension of the closing date to 21st July 2010 and that a 3 week notice period was given to all the tenderers on 30 June 2010.

    Point 22 on page 16 of the report states,

    No written reasons were given for non-participation by the other companies who collected the tender documents. However, the TCs were informed verbally that the reasons for non-participation included the limited value of the developed software outside of the TC context and that the purchase did not give assurance of the continuity of providing service to the TCs.

    Though an explanation has been given for the lack of bids from the other tenderers but it is unclear if MND had approached the vendors for their account of the story since the reason given seems to have originated from a recount of verbal statements from the town councils rather than the interested tenderers themselves.

    And the report still does not really answer why the tender advertisement looks more like a sales advertisement than a tender for software management contract.

    The finding that the Town Council Management System was obsolete and needed replacement in 2010, when it continues to be used, and hence presumably perfectly functional, in 2013 and the long delay in replacing the supposedly obsolete TCMS, with the PAP-controlled Town Councils not even having selected a vendor 2.5 years after deciding that it was necessary to replace the TCMS.

    MND addressed these two issues on page 14 and 18 of the review report. Stating the delay to replace the obsolete software was due to considerations on how to proceed with the redevelopment of the town council management system. While the review report covered on how the consultant firm derived the need to replace the software in 2010, the process of the extension with AIM and the cost involved with the extension. There still seems to be a missing explanation on why the town councils took 2.5 years to finally decide to call for a tender to redevelop the software while still engaging AIM to manage the software in that duration.

    The payment of the management fee of $33,150 to AIM, the lack of information on how the management fee of $33,150 paid to AIM was used by AIM and how the incurring of this obligation was beneficial to the residents of the PAP-controlled Town Councils.

    Covered in page 18 of the report, the payment of the management of $33,150 was explained to be for the services provided by AIM.

    This was for the whole suite of services they provided during the extension period, which included securing extensions from NCS at the existing rates, advising on redevelopment options and preparing the new tender specifications. The management fee of $33,150 was to cover the cost of AIM’s staff and other expenses such as audit fees.

    With the understanding that AIM operates from PAP HQ and the background of the company, I wonder how many number of staff does AIM employ apart from the directors. Did AIM use the sum of money to pay the staff managing the software and were there other projects which AIM has taken up on during the course of the one and a half year, if there were no other projects during this period for the company – then how did AIM manage to pay for the salary of the staff? Did AIM exist for any particular purposes as it does not seems to be for financial gains from the looks how it runs business.

    Ultimately, has MND questioned if the management of town councils could have been able to manage the management software themselves to save this fee?

    Problems not covered in the MND review report

    One of the problems which the MND review report did not cover is the failure by Dr Teo and Mr Chandra Das to disclose the payment of this management fee to AIM at the earliest possible opportunity, especially when they were highlighting the “savings” of $8,120 from selling the TCMS to AIM and licensing it back.

    Along with the apparent lack of independence in having the Ministry of National Development review the AIM transaction, as MND is the same body that oversees Town Councils. Why was MND asked to review the transaction instead of an independent third party auditor?

    And furthermore PAP has not come out in the open with the public about the companies that it owns, what they do, the persons who benefit from their operations, and their business dealings (if any) with PAP-controlled Town Councils and government agencies, in particular the previous contracts between AIM and PAP-controlled Town Councils that Mr Das has alluded to.

    The Ministry of National Development might have finally produced the review report on the transaction, and the Prime Minister has since announced through the media that there has been nothing wrong found about the transaction from the report. But there are still many questions about the whole saga that remains unanswered and it would take a lot more than just a review report to convince the general public that all is fine and dandy.
    I agree that both case have similarity in conflict of interest issue.

  20. #80
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Shanmugam’s chart raises questions about PAP TCs’ MA rates

    Would be awaiting clarification on PAP TCs' MA rates presented by Shanmugam in Parliament on why the commercial rates for all PAP TCs are the same as residential rates? Did he make a mistake? He said he will check with MND..........

    For details, you can read at this website...


    Shanmugam’s chart raises questions about PAP TCs’ MA rates

    FEBRUARY 13, 2015 BY TERRY XU IN TOC REPORTS · 66 COMMENTS


    In Parliament yesterday, the Workers’ Party faced a barrage of accusations against its Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).Law Minister, K Shanmugam, was one of those who had strong words for the WP-run town council.

    He said “that WP took money from the man in the street and gave it to FMSS, to their friends” and described the town council’s finances as a “sorry state of affairs”.

    He also took particular issue with the fees which FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) charges AHPETC.

    They are higher than in other town councils, Mr Shanmugam claimed.

    From July 2013 to July 2014, FMSS charged $7.43 for each residential unit and $14.92 for each commercial unit, compared to $4.80 to $6.65 for units of each type, charged by the managing agents of the PAP town councils, Mr Shanmugam said

    In other words, he claimed that FMSS charges the highest rate among all the managing agents.He handed out charts showing a table of the MA rates for the different town councils to the Members of Parliament to illustrate his point.

    Chart by K Shanmugam

    However, upon closer inspection, the MA rates presented by the Law Minister appear to be lower than what Ms Lim would have expected.

    An apparent anomaly were the residential and commercial unit rates which Mr Shanmugam’s chart indicated were the same.


    AHPETC’s chairman, SylviaLim noticed this and highlighted this to Mr Shanmugam.

    “From what I know, MA rates are usually different from residential units and commercial units,” Ms Lim said. “But in your chart, they are all the same. So I would like minister to clarify that there has been no mistake in this chart and it is really the fact that all this MA are charging the same rates for commercial and residential units because from the data that I have, even the MA for PAP town councils, such as CPG, from the Aljunied town council records that we have, the MA rate for commercial units was 12 dollars and something. So I think minister may want to check his chart.”

    Mr Shanmugam got up and replied to Ms Lim immediately, “I can answer your answer straight away. You should look at annex 3 and you will see in the first page that the MA rates once they are done on a weighted average basis, these figures are accurate, [I’m] told by MND.”

    However Ms Lim was unconvinced.

    She said, “Minister, I would still request it to be checked because I don’t think it is correct.”

    WP’s secretary-general Low Thia Khiang also told Mr Shanmugam that the rates cannot be the same.

    Mr Shanmugam replied that he would check the rates for accuracy.

    Indeed, looking at the figures, one would come to wonder if the figures are correct.

    Did FMSS overcharge the residents and business owners under AHPETC?

    MA rates are based on what the Managing Agent charge the town council to manage the estate based on the number of residential units and commercial units.

    Although AHPETC never did say what their total units were for the town council, based on the audit by the Auditor General and given that 7.42% of all households in arrears for March 2013 is 4,379 units, this gives us an estimate about 59,016 households under the charge of AHPETC.

    It is to be noted that Punggol East SMC is not included in the annual report for 2012/13.

    Using the rate given in the chart, the total amount that is to be paid by AHPETC to FMSS for the residential units is thus $5.26 million.

    managing agent fee
    MA fees charged to AHPETC in FY 2012/2013
    While it is unknown how many commercial units there are, working the sum backwards using the total sum of $9.13 million paid to FMSS, we get about 26,000 commercial units.

    change in household
    Screencap of Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council’s write up
    To use another town council as an example, say Pasir Ris Punggol, according to the chart from Mr Shanmugam, the managing agent charges $5.50 for both residential and commercial units.

    The total amount payable to Pasir Ris Punggol town council’s managing agent is claimed to be $14.22 million.

    PP managing fee
    MA fees charged to Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council in FY 2012/2013
    For its 98,000 residential units, the town council is expected to pay $6.46 million for FY2012/13.

    So does it mean that the remainder of the $14.22 million paid to its MA is from the commercial units? If this were so, it would mean the Pasir Ris Punggol GRC has about 117,575 commercial units, more than 90,000 than what AHPETC has.

    Managing agent for pasir ris punggol 20132014
    MA fees charged to Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council in FY 2013/2014
    In FY2013/2014, the town council made a pay out of $13.8 million to its managing agent. Given that the households is then 85,000 after Punggol East SMC is taken out from the town council, it should make a payout of about $5.6 million for the residential units. This leaves $8.2 million to be accounted for, the number of commercial units then is now 124,294 units. more than 100,000 than what AHPETC has.

    Beyond the point of it being impossible to have more commercial units than what AHPETC has, given that the removal of Punggol East SMC should reduce the number of units in Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council, instead the estimated figure actually went up.

    Also it would seem that the managing agent charged a much higher amount of agent fees to the town council despite the drop of 13,000 units. We can compare the spending of the TC in the earlier part in 2012 and 2013, (14,228,005 versus 13,813,448). If we were to drop the amount of spending based on a proportionate drop due to the reduction of town council units taking into the assumption that PPTC has the same commercial unit as AHPETC. the spending should be at about $12.54 million for 2013 but instead the amount was $1.26 million more than what it should. The increase is definitely far higher than what any inflation index normally practiced in contractual service agreement.

    So if both town council have the same number of commercial units and AHPETC is charging the highest MA per household and commercial unit based on the rate chart that the law minister provided, then why is Pasir Ris Punggol GRC which the chart says charges only $5.50 for its residential and commercial units, paying so much more for its MA fees even after taking out 13,000 units away after the loss of Punggol East SMC?

    AHPETC’s $9.13 million versus PPTC’s $14.22 million.

    CCK Town council hosehold
    70,000 units for residential and commercial units for Chua Chu Kang Town Council.
    So going further, and using Mr Shanmugam’s chart, we examine a similar sized town council like Chua Chu Kang Town Council for comparison.

    The 70,000 household and commercial units would be charged at $5.06 each, which would cost the TC $4.25 million a year.

    CCK managing agent fees
    MA fees charged to Chua Chu Kang Town Council in FY 2012/2013
    However, from Chua Chu Kang Town Council’s annual report in FY2012/2013, the total amount made payable to the managing agent is $9.07 million for the fiscal year.

    This is more than double what the cost was supposed to be, based on the rates presented by Mr Shanmugam.

    Even if we take 80,000 units to calculate the sum, it is still only $4.85 million.

    The sampling of the rates versus actual payment to the managing agents begs the question of whether the chart depicting “cheaper” rates presented by the Law Minister is really accurate.

    And Mr Shanmugam should have been able to quote from the back of his mind that his GRC pays the same amount to its managing agent, if he was involved in the running of the town council.

    It seems that Ms Lim is indeed correct and that Mr Shanmugam should check his facts and figures which he said was confirmed by the MND.

    Edit: The numbers for Pasir Ris Punggol should reflect 98k for the number of households for FY2012/2013.


  21. #81
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default Is recent public transport fee hike justified?

    Is recent public transport fee hike justified? Read about comments here...


    Fare hikes justifed? Or not?

    From FY2003-2014, SBS Transit paid out a total of $369 million in dividends.

    From FY2001-2014, SMRT paid out a total of $1.6 billion in dividends.

    In total, the total dividends paid by the two public transport companies amount to $2 billion!

    The LTA's Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), which started in 2012, is budgeted at $1.1 billion. LTA said the 1,000 Government-funded buses will be on the road by 2017 to enhance connectivity and improve bus service levels.

    However, it is clear that the dividends paid out by the transport operators are enough to pay for the 1,000 new buses under the BSEP almost twice over, without touching taxpayers' money.

    Therefore, the fare hikes including the most recent one, might be seen as an attempt by the authorities to reverse the declining dividend yield of the two companies' stock in recent years.

    Note: Temasek Holdings is a majority shareholder in SMRT and SBS Transit's parent company (ComfortDelgro).

  22. #82
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    This is the Chart provided by Shanmugam in Parliament on PAP Town Council's MA rates......


    How could residential and commercial rates be the SAME?


    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Would be awaiting clarification on PAP TCs' MA rates presented by Shanmugam in Parliament on why the commercial rates for all PAP TCs are the same as residential rates? Did he make a mistake? He said he will check with MND..........

    For details, you can read at this website...


    Shanmugam’s chart raises questions about PAP TCs’ MA rates

    FEBRUARY 13, 2015 BY TERRY XU IN TOC REPORTS · 66 COMMENTS


    In Parliament yesterday, the Workers’ Party faced a barrage of accusations against its Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).Law Minister, K Shanmugam, was one of those who had strong words for the WP-run town council.

    He said “that WP took money from the man in the street and gave it to FMSS, to their friends” and described the town council’s finances as a “sorry state of affairs”.

    He also took particular issue with the fees which FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) charges AHPETC.

    They are higher than in other town councils, Mr Shanmugam claimed.

    From July 2013 to July 2014, FMSS charged $7.43 for each residential unit and $14.92 for each commercial unit, compared to $4.80 to $6.65 for units of each type, charged by the managing agents of the PAP town councils, Mr Shanmugam said

    In other words, he claimed that FMSS charges the highest rate among all the managing agents.He handed out charts showing a table of the MA rates for the different town councils to the Members of Parliament to illustrate his point.

    Chart by K Shanmugam

    However, upon closer inspection, the MA rates presented by the Law Minister appear to be lower than what Ms Lim would have expected.

    An apparent anomaly were the residential and commercial unit rates which Mr Shanmugam’s chart indicated were the same.


    AHPETC’s chairman, SylviaLim noticed this and highlighted this to Mr Shanmugam.

    “From what I know, MA rates are usually different from residential units and commercial units,” Ms Lim said. “But in your chart, they are all the same. So I would like minister to clarify that there has been no mistake in this chart and it is really the fact that all this MA are charging the same rates for commercial and residential units because from the data that I have, even the MA for PAP town councils, such as CPG, from the Aljunied town council records that we have, the MA rate for commercial units was 12 dollars and something. So I think minister may want to check his chart.”

    Mr Shanmugam got up and replied to Ms Lim immediately, “I can answer your answer straight away. You should look at annex 3 and you will see in the first page that the MA rates once they are done on a weighted average basis, these figures are accurate, [I’m] told by MND.”

    However Ms Lim was unconvinced.

    She said, “Minister, I would still request it to be checked because I don’t think it is correct.”

    WP’s secretary-general Low Thia Khiang also told Mr Shanmugam that the rates cannot be the same.

    Mr Shanmugam replied that he would check the rates for accuracy.

    Indeed, looking at the figures, one would come to wonder if the figures are correct.

    Did FMSS overcharge the residents and business owners under AHPETC?

    MA rates are based on what the Managing Agent charge the town council to manage the estate based on the number of residential units and commercial units.

    Although AHPETC never did say what their total units were for the town council, based on the audit by the Auditor General and given that 7.42% of all households in arrears for March 2013 is 4,379 units, this gives us an estimate about 59,016 households under the charge of AHPETC.

    It is to be noted that Punggol East SMC is not included in the annual report for 2012/13.

    Using the rate given in the chart, the total amount that is to be paid by AHPETC to FMSS for the residential units is thus $5.26 million.

    managing agent fee
    MA fees charged to AHPETC in FY 2012/2013
    While it is unknown how many commercial units there are, working the sum backwards using the total sum of $9.13 million paid to FMSS, we get about 26,000 commercial units.

    change in household
    Screencap of Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council’s write up
    To use another town council as an example, say Pasir Ris Punggol, according to the chart from Mr Shanmugam, the managing agent charges $5.50 for both residential and commercial units.

    The total amount payable to Pasir Ris Punggol town council’s managing agent is claimed to be $14.22 million.

    PP managing fee
    MA fees charged to Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council in FY 2012/2013
    For its 98,000 residential units, the town council is expected to pay $6.46 million for FY2012/13.

    So does it mean that the remainder of the $14.22 million paid to its MA is from the commercial units? If this were so, it would mean the Pasir Ris Punggol GRC has about 117,575 commercial units, more than 90,000 than what AHPETC has.

    Managing agent for pasir ris punggol 20132014
    MA fees charged to Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council in FY 2013/2014
    In FY2013/2014, the town council made a pay out of $13.8 million to its managing agent. Given that the households is then 85,000 after Punggol East SMC is taken out from the town council, it should make a payout of about $5.6 million for the residential units. This leaves $8.2 million to be accounted for, the number of commercial units then is now 124,294 units. more than 100,000 than what AHPETC has.

    Beyond the point of it being impossible to have more commercial units than what AHPETC has, given that the removal of Punggol East SMC should reduce the number of units in Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council, instead the estimated figure actually went up.

    Also it would seem that the managing agent charged a much higher amount of agent fees to the town council despite the drop of 13,000 units. We can compare the spending of the TC in the earlier part in 2012 and 2013, (14,228,005 versus 13,813,448). If we were to drop the amount of spending based on a proportionate drop due to the reduction of town council units taking into the assumption that PPTC has the same commercial unit as AHPETC. the spending should be at about $12.54 million for 2013 but instead the amount was $1.26 million more than what it should. The increase is definitely far higher than what any inflation index normally practiced in contractual service agreement.

    So if both town council have the same number of commercial units and AHPETC is charging the highest MA per household and commercial unit based on the rate chart that the law minister provided, then why is Pasir Ris Punggol GRC which the chart says charges only $5.50 for its residential and commercial units, paying so much more for its MA fees even after taking out 13,000 units away after the loss of Punggol East SMC?

    AHPETC’s $9.13 million versus PPTC’s $14.22 million.

    CCK Town council hosehold
    70,000 units for residential and commercial units for Chua Chu Kang Town Council.
    So going further, and using Mr Shanmugam’s chart, we examine a similar sized town council like Chua Chu Kang Town Council for comparison.

    The 70,000 household and commercial units would be charged at $5.06 each, which would cost the TC $4.25 million a year.

    CCK managing agent fees
    MA fees charged to Chua Chu Kang Town Council in FY 2012/2013
    However, from Chua Chu Kang Town Council’s annual report in FY2012/2013, the total amount made payable to the managing agent is $9.07 million for the fiscal year.

    This is more than double what the cost was supposed to be, based on the rates presented by Mr Shanmugam.

    Even if we take 80,000 units to calculate the sum, it is still only $4.85 million.

    The sampling of the rates versus actual payment to the managing agents begs the question of whether the chart depicting “cheaper” rates presented by the Law Minister is really accurate.

    And Mr Shanmugam should have been able to quote from the back of his mind that his GRC pays the same amount to its managing agent, if he was involved in the running of the town council.

    It seems that Ms Lim is indeed correct and that Mr Shanmugam should check his facts and figures which he said was confirmed by the MND.

    Edit: The numbers for Pasir Ris Punggol should reflect 98k for the number of households for FY2012/2013.

    Last edited by teddybear; 14-02-15 at 19:35.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Did Shanmugam get sabotaged by MND? Oops, must be embarrassing after all that sound and thunder.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,
    According to you, $308 per month NOW is more than enough for a person's basic living in Singapore!

    BUT CPF Advisory Panel is saying that with minimum CPF Life of $80,500 that pay out NOW $650 per month is not enough by 2017 that they recommend GOVT to increase CPF Life by 3% every day from 2017, in line with long-term inflation rate.

    So, minority, YOU LYING or you are telling us that CPF Advisory Panel is LYING?


    GST REBATE ARE NOT FIX YOU BLOODY DUMB ASS. AS TIME GOES GST REBATES ARE ADJUSTED. YOU WANT TO TAKE A 10YR LATER VALUE THEN YOU KPKB TODAY BASIC COST? WTF?? AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CALCULATED THE BASIC SUM IS TODAY $413 BASE ON YOUR INFLATION RATE!!! BLOODY LIAR!!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    This is the Chart provided by Shanmugam in Parliament on PAP Town Council's MA rates......


    How could residential and commercial rates be the SAME?
    PROOF THAT ITS NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEN!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  27. #87
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    What has CPF Life payout to do with GST rebate?

    You mean every Singaporean receiving CPF Life payout is entitled to GST rebate????? minority, What bloody BIG LIE you are spinning!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by minority View Post
    GST REBATE ARE NOT FIX YOU BLOODY DUMB ASS. AS TIME GOES GST REBATES ARE ADJUSTED. YOU WANT TO TAKE A 10YR LATER VALUE THEN YOU KPKB TODAY BASIC COST? WTF?? AND YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CALCULATED THE BASIC SUM IS TODAY $413 BASE ON YOUR INFLATION RATE!!! BLOODY LIAR!!!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    minority,
    According to you, $308 per month NOW is more than enough for a person's basic living in Singapore!

    BUT CPF Advisory Panel is saying that with minimum CPF Life of $80,500 that pay out NOW $650 per month is not enough by 2017 that they recommend GOVT to increase CPF Life by 3% every day from 2017, in line with long-term inflation rate.

    So, minority, YOU LYING or you are telling us that CPF Advisory Panel is LYING?

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    Is recent public transport fee hike justified? Read about comments here...


    Fare hikes justifed? Or not?

    From FY2003-2014, SBS Transit paid out a total of $369 million in dividends.

    From FY2001-2014, SMRT paid out a total of $1.6 billion in dividends.

    In total, the total dividends paid by the two public transport companies amount to $2 billion!

    The LTA's Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), which started in 2012, is budgeted at $1.1 billion. LTA said the 1,000 Government-funded buses will be on the road by 2017 to enhance connectivity and improve bus service levels.

    However, it is clear that the dividends paid out by the transport operators are enough to pay for the 1,000 new buses under the BSEP almost twice over, without touching taxpayers' money.

    Therefore, the fare hikes including the most recent one, might be seen as an attempt by the authorities to reverse the declining dividend yield of the two companies' stock in recent years.

    Note: Temasek Holdings is a majority shareholder in SMRT and SBS Transit's parent company (ComfortDelgro).
    Trying to smoke and lie to people again? DO you even read the annual report?

    http://www.smrt.com.sg/Portals/0/PDF...R14_040614.pdf

    2014 per share dividen pay out is 4.1c Bloody 2% yield! They are loosing $ in the BUS with a negative operating profit of -25M!!! the part that make $ is the advertising.!!! and for 2014 they have a free cash flow of -414M!!!

    Are you stupid complaining on dividend? Bloody capitalized on stock market for funds you don't pay dividend back? WHO THE F WANT TO TAKE YOU THE LISTING!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    6,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear View Post
    What has CPF Life payout to do with GST rebate?

    You mean every Singaporean receiving CPF Life payout is entitled to GST rebate????? minority, What bloody BIG LIE you are spinning!!!!!!!!!!!!
    HEY DUMD ASS!!!!! YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS KPKB ABT GST!!!!!! I TELL YOU TO GET INTO YOUR STUPID SKULL THAT THERE IS GST REBATES THAT COVER BASIC COST !!! SO WHAT BLOODY BS YOU FLIP FLOPPING AGAIN?

    WHY??? PRATA AGAIN!!!!
    “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
    ― Martin Luther King, Jr.

    OUT WITH THE SHIT TRASH

    https://www.facebook.com/shutdowntrs

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    Question :

    are our gas price lowered ?

    oil price has fallen so much ... shouldnt they save quite a bit on that part of running cost ?

Similar Threads

  1. Bear News - Singapore Total Deposits
    By Arcachon in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 2
    -: 16-05-20, 11:55
  2. Significant Property News & Discussions
    By teddybear in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 871
    -: 05-06-17, 01:38
  3. Here’s why Brexit is bad news for Singapore property
    By reporter2 in forum HDB, EC, commercial and industrial property discussion
    Replies: 9
    -: 20-06-16, 23:39
  4. Replies: 0
    -: 19-01-14, 17:44
  5. Straits Times Singapore News flash
    By KTKW in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 34
    -: 21-06-12, 20:27

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •