Dr TEO Ho Pin is now exposed as the biggest PAP liar [after LIE KY and 2A1B] in his pathetic 4-page spin and justifications for corruptly giving faked tender contract to S$2 PAP shell company
On Wednesday (2 Jan 2013), Dr Teo Ho Pin, the self-described “co-ordinating Chairman of all the PAP-run Town Councils”, issued a “further statement to set out fully the relevant facts” regarding the AIM saga.
Dr Teo issued Wednesday’s statement in response to one issued on Friday (28 Dec 2012) by Ms Sylvia Lim, one of five Workers’ Party MPs for Aljunied GRC and Chairman of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.
On Friday, Ms Lim had issued a statement asking questions about the circumstances surrounding the deal between PAP Town Councils and AIM, a $2 company. That same evening, Dr Teo said he would go through Ms Lim’s “latest allegations” of conflict of interest and “deal with them openly, in a further statement over the next few days.”
This “further statement” comes in a 26-paragraph, four-page missive outlining why and how the town councils came to have a sale-and-lease-back agreement with the PAP-owned AIM.
Dr Teo is seeking to clarify matters and to convince Singaporeans of the uprightness of the AIM transaction, but he has instead drawn a lot of unfriendly fire from TRE readers, as may be seen below:
A reader nicknamed localSgean makes this comment:
Whatever he is trying to say, it’s not justifying why AIM, a $2 company, should be awarded the contract. Obviously the party has already thought of some crappy explanation on the issue to make this look reasonable.
The focus is on the worthiness and competency of the company and why it is owned by the party. It could be that they set up the company just prior to the tender to get the deal??
localSgean’s comment has, at point of writing, received 192 “thumbs up” and 0 “thumbs down”.
Another TRE reader, Julesvernesg, says:
I don’t really know how his explanation justify TCs can benefit from savings when you add another layer of ‘fat’ or margins to the transactions, unless he in implying that AIM is ‘losing’ money in these transactions.
Furthermore, as a lot of folks already pointed out, AIM is purely a shell company with no staff nor expertise to manage the support, so where does this so-call benefits arise from? Still too many illogical explanations and spins, I think
A reader with considerable IT expertise, nicknamed Taken for a ride?, puts it so simply and clearly even a child can understand:
Dr Teo Ho Ping’s statement has now exposed his ignorance on computer software.
Unlike a real machine, a computer software cannot get outdated. It is just a series of instructions to an operating system to perform a task. There are no rotating gears or other moving parts in a software which could suffer from wear and tear. To say that a piece of software can become obsolete is to assert that a simple mathematical statement like 1+1=2 will also be outdated someday.
In almost all modern software there will be lots of subroutines each dedicated to perform a specific task. Such subroutines also last forever. For example, a very old subroutine written by IBM to solve a quadratic equation in Fortran will remain as valid today as it was 50 years ago. Only the Fortran language or the operating system handling the computer language can get outdated.
When an operating system is updated, it is quite a simple task to migrate all the subroutines from the old operating system. In fact there are dedicated computer softwares that will automatically perform this migration without any human intervention.
In conclusion, a financial management software system and all the subroutines that have been written in any particular programming language would always remain as fresh as ever, and it is quite a simple matter to migrate this software to newer computers using new operating systems. There is no need to waste time and money to completely write off the software.
Reader Anson Be says:
Seriously you could have consolidated the IP rights of the software to the party HQ or one of the TCs instead of finding one company to pay for this and lease back, sounds fishy you know. With the consolidated IP rights, the TC could negotiate with NCS for no fee increase, unless the TCs are unable to do so (then it is time to change the TCs at the next election?)
Worse, now we know that our system is working on an old platform until April 2013. What happens after April 2013? Spend more taxpayer’s money again to have new system?
The explanation fails terribly at having to justify why the need to sell to AIM, where one of the TCs could consolidate on behalf of the rest like you as the coordinating Chairman.
It is sad that all 14 TCs do is to pay money for the services of D&T (what company is D&T? Hopefully not another shell company of some PAP/PA related company!) to advise them to do such.
So you are blaming D&T for this idea of selling the system to AIM? This is pathetic. If a company gives you poor ideas, you accept that! If a citizen tells you something good, we are noise? This is sad.
It is time for a change of TCs, and have one like AHTC which really care for the citizens.
For Dr Teo’s statement and all the comments made by TRE readers in response (154 comments and counting at point of writing), please click “Dr Teo Ho Ping’s latest statement on AIM“.
The Singapore public, as the responses demonstrate, have roundly rejected Dr Teo’s explanation.
We wait with bated breath for Dr Teo to enlighten us further.
Dear Dr Teo Ho Pin,
Your latest statement on AIM-gate is very illogical:
1) You are the Coordinating Chairman of the TCs and you dealt with AIM on behalf of the TCs. Therefore, any vendor would only have to deal with you and not the 14 TCs. How can it then be “cumbersome” for the vendor when reviewing or revising the IT system?
2) You said that D&T “raised…the option of having a third party own the computer system.” But is this the option most recommended by D&T? In the interest of transparency, will you publicly disclose the report prepared by D&T?
3) Why was the advertisement for tender vaguely worded? It seems to suggest that the TCs wanted to buy a software, instead of selling and leasing back. Why was the tender period so short (just 2 weeks)?
4) You said, you were “confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honour its commitments”. This is strange because all the 14 TCs are managed/controlled by PAP. In fact, all the cabinet ministers are members of the various 14 TCs. Are you implying that the weight of all cabinet ministers cannot get NCS to extend their maintenance contract, whereas AIM (whose dorectors are merely former PAP MPs) can? Do you know that NCS is a subisidiary of Singtel, which is controlled by Temasek and Temasek’s CEO is the wife of PM Lee (who is a key member of one of the 14 TCs)?
5) You statement suggests that the TCs have to pay NCS for the maintenance, in addition to paying IP rights to AIM to use the software. Please disclose how much the TCs have to pay NCS for the maintenance of the system.
6) You claimed that the reaason for the draconian termination clause is to protect AIM against changes to a constituent boundaries that could result in a larger area and more residents. But PAP changes the constituency boundaries just before every general election, including GE 2011. Did the number of residents at Aljunied GRC increase significantly after GE 2011? Since all the boundary of every GRC has changed following GE 2011, why didn’t AIM terminate its contract with any of the other TCs?