Background on AIM


Background on AIM

The WP has been saying all along that they were forced to change their software system because AIM pulled its system, that this was done to hobble the new TC in Aljunied, and this was also why they had to choose FMSS to help them as MA and to develop a new software system to manage the TC.

See, for example:

·      AHTC’s 14 Dec 2012 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “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 effectively meant that the AHTC had to develop its own equivalent systems… within a 2 months’ time frame. Given this near impossible task…”

·      AHTC’s 28 Dec 2012 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “AIM had issued notice of termination of the systems, effective 1 August 2011.”

·      AHTC’s 5 Jan 2013 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “To allay any doubts whether AIM had indeed terminated the software agreement with AIM, a copy of the termination notice is attached for public scrutiny.”

·      Sylvia Lim’s 12 Feb 2015 speech in Parliament – “There was a need to put in place a computer system due to the termination of the former system in use”.

·      Sylvia Lim’s affidavit – “My sense was that Jeffrey gave us this “heads up” [in early June 2011] so that we could make the necessary preparations. In the circumstances, AHTC started urgent preparations for the withdrawal of the TCMS by upscaling the Hougang SMC computer software”.

Ms Lim’s evidence shows that all these claims were untrue. WP wanted AIM out, they asked their people to develop a new system, and also admitted that AIM was helpful in the transition, gave them help which AIM was not obliged to give.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

KEY POINTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN CLOSING

KEY POINTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN CLOSING 1. Starting position : (a)    Starting position is that all payments made to FMSS / FMSI – S$33.7m – were entirely illegal and improper. (b)    All of these payments were made under a payment system which has no accountability whatsoever. 2. KPMG’s findings : (a)    KPMG was severely critical of the entire payment system that TC has put in place. (b)    KPMG found the system to be “ seriously flawed ” where “ [a]n unacceptably high degree of financial responsibility was relinquished by the Town Councillors to the Conflicted Persons, in a control environment in which meaningful oversight by the Town Councillors was absent ”. 3. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang (Low) acted for collateral purposes : (a)    Set out to favour How Weng Fang and Loh Thia Khiang (their friends) and let them profit from the TC. (b)    This is a wholly unacceptable purpose, and is dishonest. (c)    They did so by appoin
Read more

FMSS’ PROFITS VS AHTC’S DEFICITS

Image
FMSS’ PROFITS VS AHTC’S DEFICITS FMSS’ How Weng Fan (How) was cross-examined by Mr Davinder Singh (DS) today. For those unfamiliar with FMSS, this was a start-up MA company started by How and her late husband, Danny Loh (Loh), both WP supporters, in May 2011. FMSS was awarded two MA contracts by the WP-controlled AHTC despite lacking experience running a GRC. The first 1-year MA contract with a value of about S$5 million was awarded to FMSS by waiver of tender.   The second 3-year MA contract with a value of about S$16 million was awarded by tender to FMSS, though FMSS was the sole bidder.   These figures exclude separate (and additional) project management fees paid by AHTC to FMSS. During the earlier part of the TC trial, we learnt from the WP MPs that FMSS charged more than CPG, the incumbent MA, even though the FMSS contract was stated to be “ at the prevailing Managing Agent’s fees and fees structure as per the existing Managing Agent contract ” .
Read more

Cross Examination of Pritam Singh and Kenneth Foo

Day 15 – Cross Examination of Pritam Singh (1)         Pritam agreed there was a conflict of interest with the appointment of Loh/How. And admitted that their shareholding interests in FMSS had to be disclosed to all Town Councillors who did not know. Pritam also admitted: (a)         Loh/How’s shareholdings were not declared at the 4 Aug meeting (b)         He did not know how many shares Loh/How owned in FMSS on 4 Aug (c)         He did not know who else (other than Loh/How) owned FMSS shares on 4 Aug             [Background: In reality, FMSS was 100% owned by employees of AHTC.] Q:          Assume that the town councillors, or not all of them, knew that they were shareholders. That would have been a material thing to disclose?             A:          On that assumption, yes . … Q:          Leaving aside that, it would have been relevant for the town councillors, again, on the premise that they did not know, to know that the managing agent was actua
Read more