PAP's AIMS at dirty level - time to come clean

By: The Alternative View

How dirty is politics? How much dirtier can it get? More than five days after he had promised to deliver a daily dosage of explanation to Singaporeans, and to assuage that there is absolutely no conflict of interest when the PAP's Town Councils decided to award the IT contract to the PAP's $2 IT Company, AIMS, the same PAP Chief representing both sides of the coin finally comes out from hiding to write a lengthy explanation which does nothing to address anything.

On the contrary, it opens up more worms in a tin can which we are discovering to hold more than one compartment. Let us be fair and not be found wanting as we present the alternative view to what the PAP mouthpieces have presented - very obviously to glorify the virtue of the devil.

We have heard yesterday that the AIMS contract lasted from 2003 to 2010. That's a total of 8 years, including both start and end years. . For those familiar with contacts, bids and tender exercises, nowhere in the four corners of this tiny island would you see any company offering a contract this long. It is even more stupid for any contractor to sign a contract this long. Does the reason for the other four potential bidders not submitting their bids be somewhere in this?

We know that eight years in business is a very long time to stay committed. Inflation and economic standards are but a face-changing certainty where the risk of running losses cannot be assisted by a contract this long. It does not take a rocket scientist to tell you that any system in use will not see any upgrading to maintain cost. The point is proven when Big Canon Ho Pian said " ... that the TCs were advised by D&T Risk Services that the software was OBSOLETE AND UNMAINTAINABLE".

Yet in the same breadth, Ho Pian added "...that PAP TCs work closely with one another to derive economies of scale and to share best practices among themselves". We wonder how the "best practices" he speaks about could end with an IT system that was "obsolete and unmaintainable".

Next up was the point about engaging a risk management company to provide a solution that even a $1000 a month Security Guard could make - to outsource the IT system to another company. We know that most in-house security departments have been outsourced to professional security firms for the longest time. So why does Ho Pian need to waste money on a risk management firm to provide something so obvious?

We come to his next point on cost-saving and how the contract should benefit the TCs. He boasted: "... we entered into the transaction with AIMS with the objective of benefiting the town councils ... there is no basis that it was disadvantages to residents in the town councils."

It is getting harder to understand this guy with his double-talk. Is it meant to benefit the town councils, or the residents in the town councils, or both? Anyway, we wonder on what basis does he suggest that the residents have benefited? On the basis of the $8000 cost-savings? I'm very confused by how he derived at this amount. Let's see what the TODI Papers reported:..

"The arrangement with AIM yielded savings of about $8000 for the town councils BETWEEN NOVEMBER 2010 and OCTOBER 2011. During this period, AIM had paid $140,000 for the intellectual property of the software and leased it back $785 per month (which worths out to a total outlay of $131,880) ..."

Pause here for a moment ... how many of you had been thinking all along that the contract was worth only $140,000, or, the contract was worth $140,000 PER YEAR!? Of the contract was for 2003 to 2010 (a total of 8 years inclusive), the $2 PAP Company had actually been contracted to a contract value of $1.120,000 MILLION. Why was the total CONTRACT VALUE never mentioned?

We'll let him and his mouthpieces answer to that.

Meanwhile, we continue looking at the inconsistencies of the numbers he provided. Keep in mind, the TCs have already profited $8000 a year. If the TC had profited, then someone should be losing something. Is Aims losing money? Apparently not. Here's what Ho Pan said: "AIM was also paid about $33,150 during the contract extension for November 2011 to April this year. A back-of-the-envelope calculation would show that AIM made about $25,000 from the contracts".

So, the PAP TCs made $8000 a year; AIMS made a tidy $25,000 for one contract extention; who is paying them if not the residents. It does bring us back full circle to Ho Pian's statement that the contract "had benefited residents". Where is the benefit if residents are paying for these profit margins?

Enough of merry-go-round Ho Pian. Let's kick up some dust with his sidekick, Chandra Das. He claimed that the PAP's right hand did not know what it's left hand was doing. He insisted: "..AIM participated in the tender not knowing that other companies WOULD NOT do so". Being PAP through and through on both ends and he wants us to believe that he could shut one ear and one eye and say the left does not know what the right heard and saw?

He let the cat out of the bag with his next claim. He said: "The sum involved in the transactions are modest ($1.12M is modest?). But as a PAP company we wanted to be helpful to the PAP TCs (shouldn't it be the residents?)... the objective of the company with the town councils IS NOT TO MAKE PROFIT."

Now now, who is saying he didn't know why the other companies did not submit their bids? Which company would bid for something that MUST NOT BE PROFITABLE?". Puzzle solved. The PAP had aimed at it's own company when it called for the tender. The No-Profit criteria was set up to be taken up by it's own company. Yet, we remember Ho Pian declaring that it made $25,000 last year.

Singaporeans are no longer untalented. We are no longer daft. We refuse to be confuse further. The PAP had better quickly come clean on this one.