Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

MUST READ: STEVE WU -- THERE IS NO RULE OF LAW IN SINGAPORE AND NEVER HAS BEEN SINCE LIE KY RIGGED 1963 ELECTION WHICH HE LOST BY LANDSLIDE, AND AIM-gate + MND COVER UP PROVES THIS FURTHER

Expand Messages
  • Robert Ho
    The Rule of Law and the Paradox of the AIM Transaction 2
    Message 1 of 1 , May 7 8:46 PM

      The Rule of Law and the Paradox of the AIM Transaction 2

      Part 2 – Conflict of Interest

      Rule-of-Law

      The MND Town Council Review Report (TCRR) on the AIM Transaction was released on 3 May 2013. There is consensus that the TCRR has failed in several key areas. However, I shall only address the conflict of interest issue.

      AIM Pte Ltd was set up in 1991 by the PAP (Section 9, TCRR), and wholly-owned by the PAP (Section 32, TCRR). Therefore all PAP members have aninalienable interest in AIM by default. The TCRR revealed that there were two AIM transactions. Firstly, AIM participated in the open tender in 1994 and was awarded the contract to develop the first generation Town Council Management System (TCMS) software (Section 12, TCRR). Secondly, AIM was the sole bidder in the open tender in 2010 and was awarded the sale and leaseback contract (Section 27, TCRR).

      The 14 PAP TCs received the tender report for their approval before the tender was awarded to AIM in 2010 (Section 27, TCRR). I expect a similar approval process for the 1994 tender which AIM also won. I infer that most, if not all, of the members of the PAP TCs are PAP members.

      Footnote 6 (Page 6);  Footnote 10 (Page 13), TCRR
      The Review Team found that it was not an uncommon practice across parties for the elected MPs to tap on the reliability, expertise and support of those who share their political party affiliation (instances include party council and ordinary members, as well as party supporters or political supporters of the MP personally) and engage them as TC professional staff to deliver their programmes for the estate and achieve the MPs’ electoral promises.

      The Town Councils Act was enacted by Act 12 of 1988. Except for re-numbering, Section 15 of the Town Councils Act (Cap. 329A) has not changed since its original enactment. This Disclosure of Interest section is generally similar to those in other statutes.

      Section 15, Town Councils Act (Cap. 329A) – Disclosure of interest by members
      (1) A member of a Town Council who is in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a transaction or project of the Town Council shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Town Council.

      (2) The disclosure under subsection (1) shall be recorded in the minutes of the Town Council and the member shall not take part in any deliberation of the Town Council with respect to that transaction or project.

      (3) For the purpose of determining whether there is a quorum, a member shall be treated as being present at a meeting notwithstanding that under subsection (2) he cannot vote or has withdrawn from the meeting.

      If a TC were constituted with only PAP members as TC members, it would be impossible to approve any transaction involving a PAP-owned company by virtue of Section 15. That AIM was awarded contracts by open tender in 1994 and 2010 respectively meant that some TC members violated the direction of the law under section 15 of the TCs Act. Such TC members attract liability under Section 166 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224).

      Section 56, Town Councils Act (Cap. 329A) – Public servants for purposes of Penal Code
      All members, officers and employees of a Town Council and all employees of its managing agent shall be deemed to be public servants for the purposes of the Penal Code (Cap. 224).

      Section 166, Penal Code (Cap. 224) – Public servant disobeying a direction of the law, with intent to cause injury to any person
      Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

      Section 44, Penal Code (Cap. 224) – Injury
      The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.

      The above discourse is incongruous with the findings of the TCRR.

      AIM Transaction and Compliance under the TCs Act, TCRR
      32. An issue that has been raised in public discussions is that of conflict of interest and whether the interests of the TCs were protected, because AIM, a PAP owned company, was contracting with TCs which were headed by PAP MPs. In considering the issue of conflict of interest, the background to the setting up of TCs and the nature of the TCs as explained earlier is important. 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 thereforewhether 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.

      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.

      The reported absence of pecuniary, direct or indirect interest is contrary to the facts of the AIM transaction.   Moreover, the pecuniary, direct or indirect interest does not exhaust the in any way interested test of Section 15 of the TCs Act. The MND Review Team erred in its conclusion that the TCs Act does not prohibit transactions with persons and entities associated with political parties (Section 6, TCRR). The AIM transactions are contrary to Section 15 of the TCs Act.  The MND Review Team has produced a misleading report with respect to the conflict of interest issue, one which the Prime Minister has accepted.

      .

      Steve Wu

      *Steve Wu is a physicist; he enjoys logical and critical analysis. Occasionally, he takes on issues which affect a little red dot on a tiny pale blue planet in an otherwise nondescript corner of an average galaxy in a vast universe.

      Related:
      [1] The Rule of Law and the Paradox of the AIM Transaction
      [2] The Rule of Law and the Paradox of the AIM Transaction 2 – Conflict of Interest


      --
      >>>>>>>>>>  TO HELP ME, COMPLETE THESE STATEMENTS, THANKS:  http://roberthorequestforstatements.blogspot.com/

      My wife, an accountant, then a manager in an MNC drawing a 5-figure salary before she retired, can confirm that I write the Truth in all these.  <<<<<<<<<<

      RH:   LKY LHL WKS ELECTION RIGGINGS EMAILED TO ALMOST ENTIRE GOVT:
      http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/2010/06/lky-lhl-wks-election-riggings-emailed.html

      ME ON VIDEO DESCRIBING lky lhl wks NUMEROUS ELECTION RIGGINGS + PoBoB and CCTV Ideas:
      http://i-came-i-saw-i-solved-it.blogspot.com/search/label/%22A%20Video%20RH%20on%20LKY%20LHL%20WKS%20cheating%20elections%20%2B%20PoBoB%20and%20CCTV%20Ideas%22

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQCab3QZbBk

      MY ACQUAINTANCE, MR DAVID DUCLOS, A FORMER POLICE INSPECTOR, AND HIS LAWYER FRIEND, EYEWITNESSED LEE KUAN YEW RIGGING THE 1997 CHENG SAN GRC ELECTION.  READ MORE AT MY BLOG ENTITLED "I CAME, I SAW, I SOLVED IT" : 

      b.  SWORN EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT OF AFFIDAVIT:

      c.  SOME LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON WHICH I GROUND MY CASE:

      d.  THE PATTERN OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOINGS THAT PROVES MY CASE;

      e.  3rd EMAIL TO UK PM FOR OBSTRUCTING, PERVERTING JUSTICE:

      LEE Kuan Yew, LEE Hsien Loong, Tony TAN, HO Ching corruptions and theft of billions:

      "POWERFUL POLITICIANS WHO CANNOT CREATE, INVENT, SOLVE PROBLEMS AND CHANGE THE WORLD CAN ONLY TAKE SATISFACTION BLOCKING, DEGRADING, THOSE WHO CAN."
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.