A Little India Riot - really little.

A week ago, an incident of "epic" proportion happened in our Little India District: A Riot!

A significant event considering that it is the first riot in over 40 years since the 1969 racial riots.

As usual, for any sort of "mishaps" or "gossip-worthy" piece of news coming out of the little red dot, the netizens rushed in to give their opinions and commentary on the event while it unfolds. Interestingly, this is one event that got people getting emotional and agitated, that evolved into a series verbal skirmishes across the cyber landscape.

• There people berating the foreign workers
• There are people blaming the government for bringing too many foreign workers in
• There are people getting racist, with racist comments about a specific community's lack of "drinking grace"
• There are people blaming Singapore for this instant for being too dependent of foreign workers
• We have people blaming the police force for not acting fast enough (or violent enough)
• We have people being amused (like me)
• We have people defending our Indian and Bangladeshi brothers as they are the ones who tolled to build our nation (literally)
• We have people blaming our government or the system for not providing better for the foreign workers
• We have people deciding that it is because we are treating them like slaves, which is why it sparks off the riots
• We have people blaming Chinese Nationals for whatever its worth
• We have people blaming Little India for being Little India
• We have people blaming alcohol as the cause of the violence
• We have people asking people to stop blaming the world
• We have people asking people to be calm

So what's the problem here?

The problem is that we are all debating at different frequencies and different magnitude of things. Its like the saying, "Ask the right questions and you will get the right answers."

People aren't asking the specific questions and start diving into the sharing their opinions to people who aren't at the same frequency or having the same perspective of things.

Fact:
An Indian National who got drunk, try to board a bus. The bus can no longer accommodate him especially not when he is making a nuisance of himself. He got invited out of the bus, and the bus drives off without him. He, being drunk, chase after the bus (alongside the bus). And when the bus turns, he got drove over and trapped beneath the bus. 

So this is the first part of the drama. Nothing really special. Just another accident.

Fact:

The police and SCDF are notified and arrived at the scene promptly. Police control the crowd (and requested for reinforcement as the crowd is swelling), the SCDF personnels and paramedics tries to extract the body from under the bus. The crowd then starts to get rowdy (perhaps due to misinformation spreading among themselves) and started attacking the police and SCDF personnels.

This is the 2nd part, where the accident escalates into senseless attack on the people who are trying to save a trapped "kin" of the crowd. 

Fact: 

The mob started to riot, overturning police cars and ambulance; setting them on fire. Riot Police (SOC) forms up and disperse the mob. It took an hour plus for the mob to be fully disperse and the area under police's control. They also arrested 27 people during this operation.

The 3rd part, basically the riot itself. On its own, it also aren't very special.

Suggested Fact:

The foreign workers are underpaid, treated badly and living in poor quarters. They are frustrated and it is a because of this underlying issue that resulted in the "explosion" into a riot.

This is where a lot of contention came. There are NGOs fighting for these foreign workers' rights; and many people arguing and linking this perception (may be true, may be not) to the riot itself. 

And if you break it down as above, you may see, it is like a free-for-all for people to make up their own conclusions and stories. 

I can even imagine: "Living like a slave in this prosperous country, the victim had little to smile about but to drown himself with the little money he earn in beer and hard liquor. He cant even be treated like a human being, being kicked out of the bus who he have the money to pay by some Chinese pigs despite there is plenty of space for him to squeeze in. Chasing the injustice, he fell to the rolling wheels of an uncaring society! Fellow kins saw his death, and their pent up frustration boils to the surface awakens the vendetta in them! Down with the Society!!! And they pelt the lackeys of their uncaring society with their fervent anger and fire. We shall make a statement, they cried. And all of Singapore shall be cursed upon these flames...."  

And seriously, the story above sounds really legit. 

But as pragmatic citizens of Singapore, please, look at the facts again. We have one drunk guy, being drunk, making a nuisance and got himself kill trying to run alongside a bus. A handful of people (probably drunk too) got pissed and takes the opportunity to vent and make trouble (which could explain why they attack the very people who are apparently saving their "kin"). 

What is a true riot? What is real boiling issue? A true boiling issue would have triggered a much bigger and objective-focused riot. Even if the accident is a trigger to some underlying problem, its apparently only big enough to trigger a handful of people (which in numbers would not even have been bigger than the gangs we have in our heartlands).

IS A HANDFUL OF MOB = SERIOUS ISSUE?

I have to clarify, I am not turning a blind eye as to the possible plight and definite hard life these people are living (they probably would live just as hard a life back in their home land); but are we looking at this in the correct perspective?

I am absolutely against linking foreign labour's living standard to this riot. This riot is not 400 people strong. Its probably 25-40 people with 300 over people having fun looking at the spectacle. 

If the issue is truly serious (to a boiling point), the riot would be way into the hundreds and thousands. And the riot will be better planned, with a specific objective they would like to achieve at the end of the riot after negotiation with whichever authority that is handling their issues.

The Riot IS significant (as its the first riots in decades); but it is NOT important. 

Fight for the rights of the foreign labours? Go ahead! 

Fight for the rights of the foreign labour and speaking for them because of this riot and the fear that it will spark more riots? Forget it, dun waste your pretentious and self-righteous time.

If you cared, you would have cared way before their riot, whenever you passed by a construction site or their accommodation. 

I personally always wondered how hard their life must be, living in those container-like dorms, working in the mud and the blazing sun; every single time I walked, jogged and passed by their accommodations on the bus. I reflect it upon my army days and decided that these guys are really having a hard life. But its definitely better than stories I have heard of the foreign labours being REALLY treated like slaves and have their wages owed by the rich Arabs whom refused to pay (many of them trapped in foreign lands).

The issue of whether the life provided to these foreign labours are really not good enough or humane enough, is one hell of a complicated and difficult issue to resolve. But this riot? Just forget about it, I doubt it will happen again that easily (if it does, then I will perhaps stand corrected and write another opinion post on it)

SDP's Universal Healthcare

In Today's news (http://www.todayonline.com/voices/s600-year-your-health-sdp), SDP proposed a universal payment of 600SGD every year by all Singaporeans from their CPF into a National Health Investment Fund - basically a national health insurance. (read the article to understand more)

I personally dun see the point of this. The 3M system (Medisave, MediShield and Medifund) is adequate, just require some tweaking and improvement to make it better.

WHAT SDP TRYING TO SOLVE:

- a peace of mind when come to spending for healthcare
- not to use CPF which is a retirement savings for hospital bills (including parents and children's bills)
- create a simpler healthcare system

SOLUTION BY SDP:

- All Singaporeans pay on average 600 SGD from CPF
- Those cannot afford to pay this yearly fee will be contributed by the Govt instead
- Treat healthcare as a basic right of Singaporeans
- Different co-payments for outpatient treatment of acute conditions and serious hospitalisation

All sounding good right (if you think very simply)?

Now read this article on the 3M, to understand what it does: http://www.healthxchange.com.sg/healthyliving/SpecialFocus/Pages/Understanding-Medisave-MediShield-Medifund.aspx

MY QUESTION/DOUBTS ON THE SDP'S PROPOSAL:

- What's the difference from what we are already paying for Medisave via our CPF account? The SDP idea may be over-compensating or even resembles too much of a socialistic mentality (resulting in many people paying a lot more than what they do now)
- Co-payment for serious conditions vs MediShield's insurance plans that help ppl to cover large bills (including up to 80% of hospitalisation fee); Co-payment sounds like we need to pay the cost sum...
- Those of low income group are now protected by Medifund. The SDP solution basically still requires them to pay for their national fund idea; if not then govt help them pay... Somehow something just doesnt feels right on this.
- the "simpler system" may turn out to be too "simplistic".
- SDP's idea did not touch on how they are solving the "used for children and elderly parent's bills" part. I cant supposed they want the children and retired people to contribute to this fund also right? PIAK! back to square one isnt it?

MY SUGGESTIONS :

- Don't take up the SDP idea. But improve the current 3M system
- Anyone who passed away, their medical debt that is borne by their children/next of kin should be halved (or waived, but waiving it will create problems, as people may just choose not to pay the bills); so to not burden them further than the hurt of losing their love one. Furthermore, its only fair since the medical care rendered did not really save the patient's life.
- Allow the usage of CPF OA funds to be used for serious medical problems or huge healthcare fees. What's the point of having savings for retirement when you can live longer enough to touch it? Health must come first, money can earn more later.
- Create a more comprehensive national scheme for retirement --> which I will touch on with another article some day.

-------

Conclusion:

The threat of ideas that sounds really good, may not really be that good. Political points can be gained with the Oppositions give populist ideas, but not all are valid or a true improvement on the current systems. What SDP had proposed is basically more of the same thing, just phrased differently. And if they are in power, they might implement this, and then end up having more worms in the can to catch than they expected.

So YOLO peeps~ =}

Population White Paper : Simply Flawed.

I just going add one last comment on this Population White Paper debate before I going to shut my mouth (or rather my fingers) for good on this (since the white paper going to be passed regardless, no thanks to those who voted PAP in in such majority:

Its not even abt the figure 6.9 million. Its about the concept of using immigration as the resort to replace the ageing workforce and the lack of babies.

It is the hallmark of 1st world developed society that birth rate will drop drastically upon reaching the status of educated and developed society. And its no surprise most of the 1st world countries have less than 2 for 2 replacement for their population.

So what makes you think that immigrants who finally settled in Singapore (lets say that they are all 100% loyal to Singapore and would rather die than to leave Singapore) would do otherwise than what we Singaporeans chose : to have 1 or 2 babies only. Or even not getting married?

Wont the immigrants also have the same cost of living and comfort of life concerns once they settled in Singapore. What makes anyone think that these foreigners would choose having a large family over material comfort, in contrary to us local bred Singaporeans? Do these immigrants can escape the daily traffic congestions and public service failures that we Singaporeans facing today?

So ask yourself, by 2030, when all these artificial population increases completely sets in, and the reality of each individual's personal desires reflected thru their choices in life and their future : isn't PAP going to set about yet another artificial population increase to remedy the yet-another series of ageing and lack of babies issue?

And if PAP decides that in 2030, we should try something different like - NOT artificially pump up the population and try encourage the couples of today to have more babies; why not we simply do it now instead? Rather than when the social fabric of Singapore is already totally torn beyond recognition, and with the Singaporean Identity all in tattles.

Artificial population increase (or you can call it prostituting ourselves) will never solve this 1st world problem, without the genuine allegiance from the people who picks up the pink card and their sincerest desire to fit in to become one of the coolest people on Planet Earth: we, the Singaporeans.

*prostituting ourselves : devalue the value of Singapore Citizenship to the point that its so cheapo and pointless to have it, to give to ppl whom just barely wants it; and deny those people who would truly treasures it*

(p.s: this is a status update i posted on my facebook after debating and sharing a lot on this issue in facebook. I kindda give up on it, so I want to just move on; although not before i final word on this matter.)

Dr Koh Poh Koon ill-fated battle

The PAP candidate for Punggol East By-Election, Dr Koh Poh Koon suffered a defeat of great significance - PAP's first defeat in their own backyard in decades.

Revelations that he only became a PAP member 2 weeks before the election, that he did not take up the offer at first asking, and that his election campaign speaks nothing of what his predecessor had already done / done right / and still yet to be done. He campaigned like as if he is running for a fresh slate. Not to mention, a personal opinion, that he doesnt look like someone I can trust.

Coupled with all the disastrous revelations and continued unhappiness; and surprisingly, poor town management (rivervale mall saga), that had hardly been addressed since the last election, he is destined to become, perhaps, the weakest PAP candidate since Tin Pei Ling. Under such bad political climate and condition for the PAP, they should have selected a heavy weight (maybe from the Aljunied GRC team - although perhaps none of them want to return to politics) to fight this battle... His surgeon background is hardly enough to ward off the negative public sentiment.

So if WP cant even win against such a weak candidate, GE2016 is likely to be a struggle to build on what they had gained in the last election.

Although, on hindsight, its hard to think of who could be capable enough to win it for PAP. (the only person I thought who could, is George Yeo)

WP now in PAP's league.

I have not been certain of a Worker's Party victory in Punggol East SMC, despite feeling that WP have a good chance at winning it. Alas when the result came, its better than I expected, WP's Lee Li Lian won more than half of the total vote cast, despite being in a 4 corners fight for the seat.

Other than the usual generic stuff you had read or heard about what this means for Singapore and Singapore politics, more importantly, its how Worker's Party is officially seen as an equal to PAP.

Never before since the early years of our nation's independence, had any Opposition parties held in as high an esteem as the PAP. No Oppositions; not SDP, SPP, SDA, NSP or even WP years ago had been much of a fight for the PAP. PAP elections is like going thru the motion, just appease the people, and the election is won. PAP had never really needed to explain themselves thoroughly of their decisions and actions; they didnt even do that during the last GE which they lost Aljunied GRC; they only apologised. In short, the Oppositions had not been even vaguely been an effective check and balance they kept selling themselves to be; they just arent seen as credible enough.

However, Punggol East SMC by-election changed that. For PAP to lose their own ground, its devastating. Its a sign that in the coming General Elections, voters would be willing to put their bet on the Worker's Party just as the Punggol East SMC residents had done. I'm not saying WP is going to win every seat they fight, nor are they really better than PAP. But simply that WP had now officially proven that they are capable of winning against the PAP and seen as just as credible as the PAP which the resident can put their faith in - battles between PAP and WP during the next GE will have to be taken very seriously by the PAP.

PAP will have to really start answering serious question posted to them, look after their towns really well (especially those they are likely to be competed by WP) and can no longer "cheat" their way with carrots and threats (which works extremely badly against a nation of people who just have too big an ego to take that lying down). PAP will run risk of losing more GRCs to WP, as more and more people is embolden to vote for WP. Every PAP vs WP battles may all become a 50-50 fight.

Just like Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said, if the Opposition is any decent, the people will vote for them. And his prophesies are coming true.

PAP Town Councils - AIM controversy.

I have been laying dormant and unwilling to write more on political stuff.... but this Town Councils - AIM thing is really giving me plenty to be angry about.

I shall quote the entire Today Paper's article of Dr Teo Ho Pin's (Coordinating Chairman for the 14 PAP Town Councils) statement, posted on the Today website on 2 Jan 2013.

Coordinating Chairman for the 14 PAP Town Councils Dr Teo Ho Pin has issued a statement on why the town councils entered into a transaction with Action Information Management for the redevelopment of their computer system. This follows a dispute over the termination of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council's former computer and financial systems. Here is the statement in full:


1. On 28 December 2012, I issued a press release in response to Ms Sylvia Lim's statement on the website of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. Ms Lim had made various assertions in her statement. However, her statement was made without citing the relevant facts. I now make this further statement to set out fully the relevant facts. 

2. I am the co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils ("the TCs"). The PAP TCs meet regularly and work closely with one another. This allows the TCs to derive economies of scale and to share best practices among themselves. This improves the overall efficiency of the TCs, and ensures that all the PAP TCs can serve their residents better. 

3. In 2003, the TCs wanted to harmonise their computer systems. Hence, in 2003, all the TCs jointly called an open tender for a vendor to provide a computer system based on a common platform. NCS was chosen to provide this system. The term of the NCS contract ("NCS contract") was from 1 August 2003 to 31 October 2010. There was an option to further extend the contract for one year, until 31 October 2011. 

4. In 2010, the NCS contract was going to expire. The TCs got together and jointly appointed Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services Pte Ltd ("D&T") to advise on the review of the computer system for all the TCs. Several meetings were held with D&T. 

5. After a comprehensive review, D&T identified various deficiencies and gaps in the system. The main issue, however, was that the system was becoming obsolete and unmaintainable. It had been built in 2003, on Microsoft Windows XP and Oracle Financial 11 platforms. By 2010, Windows XP had been superseded by Windows Vista as well as Windows 7, and Oracle would soon phase out and discontinue support to its Financial 11 platform. 

6. The TCs were aware of and concerned about the serious risks of system obsolescence identified by D&T, and wanted to pre-empt the problem. In addition, as the NCS Contract was about to expire, they sought a solution which would provide the best redevelopment option to the TCs, and in the interim would allow them to continue enjoying the prevailing maintenance and other services. 

7. As Coordinating Chairman of the TCs, I had to oversee the redevelopment of the existing computer system for all TCs. It was clear to me that the existing computer software was already dated. The NCS contract would end by 31 October 2011 (if the one year extension option was exercised). However, assessing new software and actually developing a replacement system that would meet our new requirements would take time, maybe 18-24 months or even longer. We thus needed to ensure that we could get a further extension (beyond October 2011) from NCS, while working on redevelopment options. 

8. D&T also raised with the TCs the option of having a third party own the computer system, including the software, instead, with the TCs paying a service fee for regular maintenance. This structure was not uncommon. 

9. We decided to seriously consider this option. Having each of the 14 individual TCs hold the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the software was cumbersome and inefficient. The vendor would have to deal with all 14 TCs when reviewing or revising the system. It would be better for the 14 TCs to consolidate their software rights in a single party which would manage them on behalf of all the TCs, and also source vendors to improve the system and address the deficiencies.

10. The TCs thus decided to call a tender to meet the following requirements: 

a. To purchase the software developed in 2003, and lease it back to the TCs for a monthly fee, until the software was changed; 

b. To undertake to secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost i.e. take on the obligation to get an extension on the existing rates, until the TCs obtained new or enhanced software. This was put in to protect the financial position of the TCs; and

c. To work with the TCs to understand their enhancement and redevelopment needs and look for a suitable vendor to provide these upgrades.

11. Under the tender, the TCs sold only the IP in the old software. The ownership of the physical computer systems remained with the individual TCs. We wanted to sell the IP rights in the old software because it had limited value and was depreciating quickly. Had we waited until the new system was in place, the IP to the superseded old software would have become completely valueless. 

12. The TCs advertised the tender in the Straits Times on 30 June 2010. Five companies collected the tender documents. These were CSC Technologies Services Pte Ltd, Hutcabb Consulting Pte Ltd, NCS, NEC Asia Pte Ltd and Action Information Management Pte Ltd ("AIM"). 

13. I am aware that NCS considered bidding but in the end, decided not to do so as it was of the view that the IP rights to software developed in 2003 on soon to be replaced platforms were not valuable at all. 

14. Another company withdrew after it checked and confirmed that it was required to ensure renewal of the NCS contract without an increase in rates. The company did not want to take on that obligation. The others may also have decided not to bid for similar reasons.

15. In the end, only AIM submitted a bid on 20 July 2010. 

16. We evaluated AIM's bid in detail. First, AIM's proposal to buy over the software IP would achieve our objective of centralising the ownership of the software, consistent with the model suggested by D&T. 

17. AIM was willing to purchase our existing software IP for S$140,000, and lease it back at S$785 per month from November 2010 to October 2011. The lease payments to AIM would end by October 2011, with the expiration of the original NCS contract. Thus after October 2011, the TCs would be allowed to use the existing software without any additional lease payments to AIM, until the new software was developed. 

18. This meant that the TCs expected to gain a modest amount (about S$8,000) from the disposal of IP in the existing software. 

19. Second, AIM was willing to undertake the risks of getting an extension of the NCS contract with no increase in rates. This was the most important consideration for us, as it protected the TCs from an increase in fees. 

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

21. Given the above considerations, AIM had met the requirements of the tender on its own merits. We assessed that the proposal by AIM was in the best interests of the TCs, and thus awarded the tender to AIM. 

22. Under the contract with AIM, the TCs could terminate the arrangements by giving one month's notice if the TCs were not satisfied with AIM's performance. Similarly, AIM could terminate by giving one month's notice in the event of material changes to the membership of a TC, or to the scope and duties of a TC, like changes to its boundaries. This is reasonable as the contractor has agreed to provide services on the basis of the existing TC- and town-boundaries, and priced this assumption into the tender. Should this change materially, the contractor could end up providing services to a TC which comprises a much larger area and more residents, but at the same price. 

23. Since winning the tender, AIM has negotiated two extensions of the NCS contract until April 2013, at no increase in rates. The first extension was from November 2011 to October 2012, and the second from November 2012 to April 2013. The TCs received a substantial benefit in terms of getting the extensions from NCS beyond the original contract period, without any increase in prices. 

24. AIM has also been actively working with several vendors to explore new software options and enhancements for the TCs. AIM has identified software from a number of possible vendors, and has invited them to make presentations to the TCs in order for a suitable option to be chosen. 

25. Following the expiry of the initial lease arrangement for the software from AIM on 31 October 2011, no further lease payments for the software were made to AIM. During the period of its contract extension from November 2011 to April 2013, the management fee payable to AIM for the whole suite of services it provided was S$33,150, apart from what was payable to NCS for maintenance. In the end, inclusive of GST, each TC paid slightly more than $140 per month for AIM to ensure continuity of the existing system, secure the maintenance of this system at no increased costs, and identify options for a new system to which the TCs could migrate. 

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

Dr Teo Ho Pin
Coordinating Chairman
14 PAP Town Councils 

I read it sharply, with extra care taken when coming to "legal-like" phrasings... and I found it to be a tremendous play on words.

Let me go thru all the dubious points:

"The term of the NCS contract ("NCS contract") was from 1 August 2003 to 31 October 2010. There was an option to further extend the contract for one year, until 31 October 2011. "
"In 2010, the NCS contract was going to expire. The TCs got together and jointly appointed Deloitte and Touche Enterprise Risk Services Pte Ltd ("D&T") to advise on the review of the computer system for all the TCs. Several meetings were held with D&T. "
" However, assessing new software and actually developing a replacement system that would meet our new requirements would take time, maybe 18-24 months or even longer. We thus needed to ensure that we could get a further extension (beyond October 2011) from NCS, while working on redevelopment options. " 

The contract was from 2003 to 2011, and it takes them until 2010 before realising that it will take 1.5 - 2 years to develop the software???

And then, in the past: "In 2003, the TCs wanted to harmonise their computer systems. Hence, in 2003, all the TCs jointly called an open tender for a vendor to provide a computer system based on a common platform."

So why isnt it that they call for the same open tender for a vendor to provide that new computer system???


------

 "10. The TCs thus decided to call a tender to meet the following requirements: 

a. To purchase the software developed in 2003, and lease it back to the TCs for a monthly fee, until the software was changed; 

b. To undertake to secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost i.e. take on the obligation to get an extension on the existing rates, until the TCs obtained new or enhanced software. This was put in to protect the financial position of the TCs; and

c. To work with the TCs to understand their enhancement and redevelopment needs and look for a suitable vendor to provide these upgrades."

First, they expect that a private company can negotiate with NCS to get extension on existing mantainence rate from NCS to remain the same. You mean Town Councils dun have enough power to do that???

2nd. To work with the TC to understand enhancement and redevelopment needs of what? the existing software?


------

 "3. In 2003, the TCs wanted to harmonise their computer systems. Hence, in 2003, all the TCs jointly called an open tender for a vendor to provide a computer system based on a common platform. NCS was chosen to provide this system. "

So in the case of "provide a computer system" - why is the IP with TCs? Providing and developing a computer system is 2 different thing.


-------

"17. AIM was willing to purchase our existing software IP for S$140,000, and lease it back at S$785 per month from November 2010 to October 2011. The lease payments to AIM would end by October 2011, with the expiration of the original NCS contract. Thus after October 2011, the TCs would be allowed to use the existing software without any additional lease payments to AIM, until the new software was developed. 
18. This meant that the TCs expected to gain a modest amount (about S$8,000) from the disposal of IP in the existing software. 
19. Second, AIM was willing to undertake the risks of getting an extension of the NCS contract with no increase in rates. This was the most important consideration for us, as it protected the TCs from an increase in fees. 
20. Third, we were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments. "

So, for 8000 dollars, TCs decide to do this complicated business. And since when the TCs are not backed by the PAP??? So now because its PAP, NCS will give special price???

So PAP = special price?


Another thing, if TC expects to earn 8000, that also means AIM will lose 8000 SGD.

Which company do this kindda loss making business?

-------

 "24. AIM has also been actively working with several vendors to explore new software options and enhancements for the TCs. AIM has identified software from a number of possible vendors, and has invited them to make presentations to the TCs in order for a suitable option to be chosen." 

2010 until now 2013 liao, still dun have a new software?

And why is AIM becoming the sole vendor for the new software project?

Isnt that already going around what was fair trade and virtually constituting to a corruption or under the table deal?

Putting a ridiculous terms which no business can take up, and then benefiting the only company that can take it up with a probable million dollar project (software development are expensive)???

The terms of the tender, and the "action" is not congruent.

--------

 "25. Following the expiry of the initial lease arrangement for the software from AIM on 31 October 2011, no further lease payments for the software were made to AIM. During the period of its contract extension from November 2011 to April 2013, the management fee payable to AIM for the whole suite of services it provided was S$33,150, apart from what was payable to NCS for maintenance. In the end, inclusive of GST, each TC paid slightly more than $140 per month for AIM to ensure continuity of the existing system, secure the maintenance of this system at no increased costs, and identify options for a new system to which the TCs could migrate. "

So first, they say, no extra fees to be paid to NCS, or rather, the TCs will pay no extra fees for the extended maintenance. Then they also say, they will pay no lease for the software after October 2011.

Now suddenly, we have management fee to be paid to AIM, apart from the maintenance fee for NCS.

So the TCs paid 33,150 SGD for the 18 mths contract extension for this management fee. Is there management fee for the original contract? So in addition to the "leasing", isnt it losing money for the TCs?




==========================


 IMPT QUESTIONS:

- So what about the contracts of TCs which have boundary changes? How was it dealt with, for example, my GRC: PM Lee's AMK GRC?

- Why is there isnt a open tender for the next version of this sofware? Why is it done only under AIM?

- Why from 2010 to today (2013), the new software still arent ready?

- Is there management fee on top of the lease back by AIM during the initial contract?

Its not just a matter of serving public interest or not. Its a matter of integrity and if there is corruption or not.




There is a simple rule to many things: if you feel that something is wrong, more often than not, something is definitely wrong.