A blatant conflict of interest

Definition of CONFLICT OF INTEREST
: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.

We get to hear that AIMS has been managed by a line of former PAP members of Parliament for the last twenty years since the company was set up by the PAP and sold off for a token and legally-compliant $2. The Shit Times reported: "The company, FULLY OWNED BY THE PAP, was started more than twenty years ago to provide IT-related services".

What followed immediately after the company was handed over to AIMS in 2010 was the call for 'open' tender for interested companies to submit their bids for a contract that would allow the successful bidder to manage the IT system of PAP-led Town Councils. Of course we know that 2010 was the year Netizens were listened to because of the unknown power of the internet in the aftermath of Obama's hugely attributed net influence win and the influence of Cyberspace over political and governmental matters all over the world.

Suddenly, after 18 years of management by the set up, the PAP saw fit to relinquish the role to a newly and quickly set up company for a token $2. We need the PAP to help us understand this move.

These two points alone attest to the charge that there is a blatant conflict of interest since the company which emerged successful was the same company that the PAP created for the sole purpose of the job in question. Never mind the number of tender applications collected by potential bidders. That was just smoke screen.

At this point we should go back to the definition of 'conflict of interest' which i have presented as the opening phrase of this article, and according to Webster's online dictionary.

'Private interest' is very clearly seen by the way the company was created for the private interest of the PAP. Do not be fooled into believing that 'private interest' is confined to a private individual or businessman. The PAP, collectively as a group, can be construed as a private party that serves it's own interest much of the time.

Which brings us to the next point. The 'conflict' in 'conflict of interest' stems from the fact that the 'interest' is inclined toward the official responsibilities the person/s or group is to serve, and in the position to serve.

The PAP-sympathetic Straits Times tried to make readers believe that there is no such conflict of interest because the company was/is led by FORMER MPs, as if to say that these former MPs are no longer beholden to the PAP. The Shit-wiping Tissue Times attempted to imply that these white folks are suddenly operating as 100% free and private individuals without political party partisanship.

What it failed to report was that these same individuals are still members of the People's Action Party.

It also, and purposely, missed the woods for the trees by publishing an article that defended AIMS, by suggesting that it's bid in the tender exercise was above board and legally compliant. Of course we know that exercise was above board. We just want to know why there was a need to transfer ownership after 18 long years to a company that had yet to learn to walk back then.

From what we hear and what have been reported thus far, we can safely and surely surmise that the original set up was to look after the interest of the PAP and its Town Councils. We do not believe this has changed when the job was tasked to another PAP set up, AIMS. And as clear as day is to night, the conflict of interest less therein.

The Alternative View