Palmergate is
yesterday’s news. Let’s move on. He’s human.
He erred. He has resigned. This is now a personal issue for him to deal
with his family. What remains to be
sorted out is the vacant Parliamentary seat.
Even though the current judicial interpretation of the Constitution
would result in a full discretion for the PM to decide whether or not to hold a
by-election in Punggol East, it would be politically prudent for the PM to call
for one in order to avoid the further hardening of moderate voters against the
PAP.
Amidst all
this, and amidst online discussion about the undesirably close (though not
necessarily improprietous nor unlawful) relationship between PA and PAP (with
Michael Palmer and Laura Ong providing the useful metaphor of being in bed with
each other), the Workers’ Party’s Sylvia
Lim has revealed that a certain Action Information Management Pte Ltd manages
the computing and financial system for PAP run Town Councils. This information has surfaced as a result of
Sylvia Lim’s public clarification as to the reason for delays in her Town
Council’s audited statements. The following is from her statement:
"After the GE
in May 2011, the Town Council was served with a notice that the Town Council’s
Computer and Financial Systems will be terminated with effect from 1 August
2011 due to material changes to the membership of the Town Council. This
Computer and Financial Systems had been developed jointly by the 14 PAP Town
Councils over a period of more than 15 months but was in January 2011 sold to
and leased back from M/s Action Information Management Pte Ltd, a company which
was dormant. This effectively meant that the AHTC had to develop its own
equivalent systems, in particular the Financial System, within a 2 months’
timeframe."
Sylvia Lim
has brought this information up in the context of explaining delays to the
audit of the Town Council. She does ask
the relevant question as to why the Computer and Financial System was sold to
Action Information Management (AIM).
Although AIM director, S Chandra Das, has attempted to clarify that they
were willing to grant a further extension if requested, he has not stated
anything about how or why AIM was awarded this contract in the first
place.
At this point
in time we do not know what is the price for which the 14 PAP run Town Councils
sold their Computer and Financial Systems to AIM.
Let’s assume
that the System was valued at market value through an independent valuation
process and sold to AIM. AIM then leased
it back to the Town Councils. The Town
Councils will now be contractually bound to pay a price to AIM under the terms
of this leasing agreement. What is the
contracted price? Is there a profit
derived by AIM through the purchase by them of the System and the subsequent
lease back to the Town Councils? If so,
what is the amount of profit so derived?
Whilst it is
understandable that a Town Council might commission a third party to develop a
system, it is indeed strange that a system developed by a Town Council should
be sold to a third party only to be leased back to the Town Council. But, perhaps the third party might have had
particular skill and expertise that it could bring to bear in relation to the
system. If that were the case, what was
the specific skill and expertise that AIM brought with it in order to justify
this contractual arrangement. Sylvia Lim
claims that AIM was a dormant company.
(The company’s registration number is 199103607Z. That would mean that it was incorporated in
1991. Perhaps it was operational for
some time.)
What was the
process by which AIM was awarded this sale and lease back contract? Was it done through a tender process? Considering that the directors of AIM are ex
PAP MPs, did the Town Councils invest in extra effort in going through a transparent
process in awarding the contract (so as to avoid inviting unwarranted
allegations of impropriety)?
On the
assumption that AIM derives no profit from the contract, why would a private
company want to enter into a contractual arrangement where it is not going to
benefit at all? That leads us to come up
with a grand conspiracy theory (which was probably what Sylvia Lim was hinting
at). Anticipating that PAP might lose
control of more constituencies at GE 2011 and therefore some Town Councils, the
Computer and Financial System might have been sold off to a third party with a
lease back arrangement. The contract
provided for termination by giving a month’s notice. In the
event that a Town Council management falls into the hands of an opposition
party, AIM’s services could be withdrawn by giving 1 month’s notice. There is nothing illegal about it. Just some old-style politics. The kind of politics that we hope to
eventually see the back of.
PAP leaders
have recently lamented the increasing polarization of Singaporeans and expressed
their wish that we don’t embrace divisive party politics. The problem is that it is the PAP’s
traditional approach of demonizing, maligning and disadvantaging opposition
parties that has caused a certain degree of anger and frustration amongst many
voters and led to the kind of online vitriol that we witness on and off.
Expecting civility in politics
would mean that one has to be civil in the first place. It is not too late. We can start afresh. We can start by looking at all the aspects of
our electoral and political system that creates a less than level playing field
and seek to change that. Right now, that
looks like a mammoth task. It may
involve a systemic overhaul. Many
citizens are arguably ready for it. But,
is there the political will or desire for it?
