AIM saga: An independent body should investigate instead of MND

9th January 2013


Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has ordered a probe into the sale of People's Action Party (PAP) Town Council management software to Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd.

The controversial deal has been the source of much debate and tension over the past fortnight ever since it was raised by Workers' Party chief Sylvia Lim and the WP-run Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

In a statement on Tuesday afternoon, PM Lee said he's asked the Ministry of National Development to review the transaction in "the interest of transparency and maintaining trust in the system" and that "public funds were safeguarded and resident's interest were not compromised". He also added that MND would at the same time take a broad-based review of the "fundamental nature" and purpose of TCs in order to ensure "high overall standards of corporate governance". The review is expected to take a month or two.

On hearing that the Prime Minister had ordered a review by the Ministry for National Development (MND) of the business transactions involving Action Information Management (AIM), a company owned by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), ground reaction was, “Isn’t the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan also the chairman of the PAP, the entity at the centre of this whole controversy?”

It is a sentiment shared by some others as well.

“As AIM is a company that was set up by members of the PAP, is it in the public interest to task a Ministry that is headed by the chairman of the PAP to assess the integrity of its transactions?” asks activist Jolovan Wham in his Facebook note.

“Your decision,” he adds, referring to the Prime Minister, “to conduct an investigation via an arrangement that reveals a clear bias in protecting the interests of your party is deeply problematic.”

The order to “review this transaction fully, and satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests were not compromised” is a welcome move by the prime minister, he could have done better by making sure that the agency doing the review was manifestly independent and seen to be so. While one can be sure that the team will do a professional and thorough job of the task assigned to it, this is a particularly special case, one would argue, which requires a higher degree of independence in the public’s eyes.

“After all, if there was anything untoward in the transaction, shouldn’t MND have spotted it in the first place? It’s like telling MND to go through self-criticism,” Bertha Henson wrote on her blog.

As such, the review team should consist of non-PAP, non-MND personnel. “[A] committee comprising independent and respected members of society from the business community, civil society and the various political parties should be appointed to carry out the investigations,” Wham suggested. The controversy over the AIM-PAP issue is one of a conflict of interests. With MND heading the review of the business transactions, another conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, has apparently emerged.

One feels that the PAP must not hide behind this review by the MND and instead take its own initiative to answer the many questions which the public has about its business dealings.

The PAP does not have to wait for the results of the MND review to be released before doing so. It can start by disclosing to the public the number of companies it owns.



Contributed by Andrew. He helms publichouse.sg as Editor-in-Chief. His writings have been reproduced in other publications, including the Australian Housing Journal in 2010.

PR's son renounces PR to avoid National Service

8th January 2013


Apparently, an Indian national by the name of “Krishnaa Mohan” has posted a message on the Singapore Expats forum seeking information and advice.

He said that he was writing on behalf of “his friend”. He wanted to know what would happen to a person’s PR renewal (i.e. to get re-entry permit) if his son surrendered his PR just before enlistment to avoid NS. Refer below screenshot.

Screen shot from Singapore Expats forum page

The Minister for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen, said in Parliament last year that over the last five years, about a third of male foreigners who became PRs under the sponsorship of their parents renounced their PR status prior to serving NS (‘One third of male PRs renounce their PR status to avoid NS‘).

Dr Ng said, “Better don’t take up the PR if your children are not going to do NS. It’s as simple as that. In our system if you don’t fulfil your NS liabilities, even if you choose to give up your PR, there are harsh penalties.”

“The basic message to permanent residents is this: If you want to take up permanent residency for your children, please do so recognizing that they have to do NS as a duty and there will be a course if you don’t. So, it’s better not to take up PR if your children are not going to do NS.”

As Dr Ng says, there are “harsh penalties” for those who give up their PR status to avoid NS. They will not be given work passes to work in Singapore even if they want to after getting their degrees overseas. But they can still visit Singapore as tourists and spend tourist dollars here.


Read full report at TRE website

Tampines GRC MP made a mockery of himself.

8th January 2013

Member of Parliament (MP) for Tampines GRC, Baey Yam Keng is the man slated for the new ‘wayang’, after Teo Ho Pin and Grace Fu’s lame attempts at explaining/side-stepping the AIM-PAP saga was squarely shot down by netizens, point-by-point. 


"TOWN COUNCILS ARE NOT PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS" ~ A claim which Mr Baey proudly made in his monthly FaceBook chat session on Sunday (6 January 2013). He said, “They’re not public institutions; they’re not a public service company”. He did acknowledge, however, that Town Councils do provide public service to residents.

Baey Yam Keng's Facebook page

   

Mr Baey was replying to online questions posted by netizens on the recent AIM-PAP saga. He also felt that the matter had been unnecessarily “politicised”.

Noting that town councils are run by political parties, Mr Baey, who is the vice-chairman of Tampines Town Council, added, “I feel that we may be reading too much into the political association. Because in the first place it’s a political organisation.” 

“They do not belong to the government. They’re governed by government regulations, but they’re definitely not run by civil servants; and they’re not a public agency,” he later clarified with the media (see *note below). 

Netizens also asked Mr Baey whether the tender process was properly done and if there was a conflict of interest regarding the sale during the chat session. He sidestepped the questions and replied that the focus should instead be on whether AIM had failed in its commitment to the town councils and whether its fees have been unreasonable. 

The fact that Mr Baey thinks town councils are not public institutions, he seems to be implying that it’s alright for political party-owned companies to transact with the town councils, which after all, in Mr Baey’s views, are political organisations from the same party.

For the benefit of those who cannot understand the twisted logic, with this statement, Mr Baey has effectively closed the case on the AIM-PAP saga because Town Councils are NOT public institutions even though it provides public services.

As such, since it is a PRIVATE institution owned by PAP, it is not dealing with public funds and is not answerable to the public on its dealings. Town Councils are therefore merely a PAP-controlled business entity at liberty to do business with whoever it wants, as long as it is legal. Going by this logic, S&C charges and other fees collected from residents belongs to the PAP (as owner) and are NOT public funds. So, in essence, when a resident pays S&C charges to town council, he is deemed to be making a political donation to the party controlling the town council?? And, since public funds are not involved, does it mean it’s none of Singaporeans’ business to dictate or know how it is being used??

Imagine if we apply Mr Baey’s latest ‘twisted logic’ to GIC and Temasek Holdings… Scary, is it not? 

The Tampinese GRC MP has made a mockery of himself. How could he say that TCs are all political organisations and he needs the public to tell him likewise! So Mr Baey, let this be a lesson to you and don't just mouth off without checking the facts. What a shame for a "high caliber, elite" PAP Member of Parliament! 

Picture credit: Teo Boon-Pin

*Note: Mr Baey may wish to know that members of a Town Council are deemed to be public servants under the law below -

Public servants for purposes of Penal Code

50. All members, officers and employees of a Town Council shall be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code (Cap. 224).

Read full report at TRE website

HDB has lost its Role & Mission to provide affordable housing. Greed at play?

7th January 2013

HDB website (Role)

HDB website (Vision/Mission)

Straits Times

 If one looks up the dictionary, the word affordable means not expensive. HDB's mission and vision states very clearly to provide affordable homes to Singaporeans. Ensuring every Singaporean a basic roof above their heads.

Fast track to year 2013, we now have HDB flats build and designed by private developers under the Executive Condominium (EC) scheme. A penthouse unit in Tampines was recently sold at a record price of $2.05 million and the EC scheme is meant for the "sandwich class" with a total household income of not more than $12K. With this combined monthly salary of $12K against the price tag of $2.05 million, a buyer is actually buying beyond his means.

Many questions come into mind . . . is it greed or ignorance of the HDB to allow such a sale to take place or allow such luxurious units to be built and offered to the so called "sandwich class"?  Shouldn't prices of million dollar new homes be categorized under the private property sector? Do you still trust the HDB of its objectives to provide affordable homes, while they simply don't practice what they preach?

CPIB must investigate the "Sale of TC software to AIM Pte Ltd" for financial irregularities

3rd January 2013

Here's a written open letter from a member of the public to CPIB and Auditor General requesting for an investigation regarding the sale of Town Councils' software to a $2 company, AIM Pte Ltd wholly belonged to PAP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please publish this open letter. I have already mailed letter hardcopies to CPIB and the Auditor-General. Thanks

Please keep my email address confidential and do not disclose to anybody. Thanks

The Duty Officer,

CPIB, 2, Lengkok Bahru, Singapore 159047.

cc: The Auditor-General's Office, #08-02/03 Revenue House, Singapore 307987. 

Re: Complaint of possible financial irregularities regarding sale of public assets i.e. Sale of Town Council owned Computer & Financial System to a private company AIM Pte Ltd. (Updated as up to 25-Dec-2012)

Dear Sir/Madam,

It had been highlighted in the media recently that a municipal Computer & Financial System, jointly developed by 14 Town Councils (TC) using public monies, was sold to a private company called Action Information Management (AIM) Pte Ltd owned by the PAP.

 As such, I wish to highlight a number of issues that necessitate further investigation for this case (updated as 25-Dec-2012):

1. The Computer & Financial System was developed using public monies of the 14 Town Councils. Was it sold to AIM Pte Ltd with a properly executed open public tender exercise with adequate fairness, transparency and sufficient time limit? Could there be a similar issue like the NParks ‘Brompton Bicycle’ case? Why was it that although 5 companies collected the tender documents, only one company submitted a bid? If only one company submitted a bid in the first tender exercise, was the tender exercise extended in an effort to try to get alternative or better bids? 

2. The TC’s wholly owned and paid for the Computer & Financial System. Which means subsequent use of the system after initial developmental costs would have been free. As such, what was the TC’s need or cost benefit to sell the Computer & Financial System to a private company, only for the TC’s themselves to rent the system back again using more public monies? Was the decision in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?

3. According to the media, the Computer & Financial System was sold to AIM for $140,000. As such, was this price sufficient to recover the public monies spent on the system’s development costs and also to cover for future operating/lease costs? What was the actual development costs of the system? Was the final selling price a gain or loss for the TC’s? Was the final selling price in the best interest of the public/residents of the TC’s?
4. At the time of the tender, AIM Pte Ltd was nothing more than a 2 dollar ‘shell’ company, with no known physical operating assets or manpower. Why was this company accepted by the TC’s for the bid? On what basis was this company chosen by the TC’s? Isn’t it a clear Conflict of Interest if AIM is also owned by the same entity, a political party(PAP), in which this same political party also runs the TC’s which coordinated the tender exercise and awarded the tender?

5. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by AIM?

6. Was there any direct/indirect fraudulent monetary gain by the management and decision-makers in the TC’s?

Thank You and regards,

A Member of the Public.

Rohingya refugees rejected ~ Where is your compassion, PAP government?

2nd January 2013

Now the whole world knows how uncompassionate the PAP government is.
What do you expect out of a evil money and power minded political regime who does not even take good care of its own citizens? The PAP is also known to many Singaporeans to be a "you die your business" heartless ruling government.



Rohingya is an ethnic group which is struggling for recognition in Myanmar. But the government of Myanmar continues to refuse to grant citizenship rights to Rohingya residents. Local conflicts erupted this year involving Rakhine and Rohingya villagers in Western Myanmar. The government has denied that the Rohingyas are victims of genocide and religious persecution.



After being adrift at sea for more than 30 hours, 40 Rohingya refugees were rescued by a Vietnamese ship, MV Nosco Victory, on December 5, 2012. A few days after, the ship reached Singapore but the government refused entry to the Rohingya survivors. Singapore netizens and human rights groups reacted strongly to the decision of authorities to send away the refugees.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had appealed to Singaporean authorities to allow the rescued passengers to disembark there, and later, appealed to Malaysia.

Well at least the Singapore government could do was to provide shelter for a day or two, medical, food and fuel supplies to them a basic human need before deporting them. 

Fortunately, Malaysia is compassionate enough to have agreed to give shelter to the 40 Rohingya refugees. The Vietnamese vessel for about a week in the waters off Johor has been brought to shore and are now being held at the Pekan Nenas immigration detention camp.


“They were given food and medical attention at the camp. The Myanmar Embassy has also been notified,” said a source from the Immigration Department. It is learnt that the directive to allow the men to be brought to shore and held at the camp came from the National Security Council.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Regional Coordinator for South-East Asia James Lynch said the decision by the Government was a positive humanitarian gesture and consistent with international norms for the protection of asylum-seekers and persons at risk at sea.

Straits Times

Look at how compassionate Thailand shows to the refugees. Even though they refused them to disembark on their shores, they did the most humane thing, supply them with basic necessities and aid them in reaching a third country.

Should the PAP government continues to exercise their political arrogance, elitism and egoism, and not serving its citizens deserved to be well looked after, spending more public money on welfare, health care and education, they will be in danger of being voted out in future elections. That day will come!

New Attitudes for Better Government - Citizens Engagement

1st January 2013


It is good that the government wants to engage with citizens. However, I think in order to truly engage, government institutions need to go beyond posting information on Facebook and Twitter. One can use these channels to disseminate information, but is that true engagement? How prepared are these institutions to be open with information and be responsive to alternative views? How will they deal with hard questions?

I believe for true engagement to take place, there has to be an attitude change in policymakers. Ground feedback should not be deemed as “noises” and social media viewed as being dominated by those on the “lunatic fringes”. If the government wishes to engage using new media, it must be prepared to deal with some messiness. It must come with an open mind to sieve out and seriously consider good alternative views. Suggestions can come from all mediums – through REACH, through online media, through the forum pages of mainstream media, through focus group discussions and even through other political parties. Amidst the many voices on social media, I have often found sensible opinion pieces.

Engaging is not about disseminating carefully crafted press releases to the public. It is being open with information, being open-minded enough to consider suggestions, and bold enough to push for difficult policy changes when it is necessary to do so.

Read full article by Yee Jenn Jong, NCMP WP.