The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) released a statement on 11th May, Saturday in response to the Facebook Post posted by MP Zainudin Nordin on his public facebook page.

MP Zainudin Nordin cannot be more right in stating that choice comes with responsibility to vote for what is morally right and supports the overall good.  Democracy will not be able to deliver otherwise.

However, it is value system not process that deliver the goods. Our founding fathers have been criticised by foreign press for not abiding to democratic rules. They chose to be guided by morals, social code and the sole purpose of achieving betterment of the masses. Guided by values and right choices, this country has been built on strong foundations and spurred us in the right directions.

Voters have a responsibility to act responsibly. Our founding fathers have shown that government acting responsibly prevails over management style or any ideology.

MP Zainudin has long served on labour unions. It is a moral duty and a skill match that he champions the plight of our elder workers who have been marginalised in workplace.

Elder workers are respected in all advanced economies and progressive societies but not enough in ours yet. It is a moral duty to question whether racial enclaves have any place in our society.

It is also a moral duty to acknowledge the above mentioned issues exists and are increasingly entrenched. It is a moral duty to act responsibly and reverse wrong to right.

Benjamin Pwee

Secretary General of Democratic Progress Party

Dr Chee Soon Juan has been invited to speak at the Oslo Freedom Forum again. The annual event held in Oslo, Norway features speakers from various areas of advocacy, business, academia, politics, media, and technology.

This is the second time Dr Chee will be addressing the forum. He was invited last year but had to record his speech in a video because he could not travel due to his bankruptcy. 

The bankruptcy was annulled last year when he raised $30,000 to pay Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong who had sued him for defamation in 2001.

Titled 'Economic Sustainability in Authoritarian Systems', Dr Chee's talk is scheduled for 15 May 2013, Wednesday, at about 12 noon, Oslo (6 pm Singapore) and will be streamed live. He will speak on the need for political reform in Singapore in order for our economy to progress. 

This year's speakers include Ms Ambiga Sreenevasan, former president of the Malaysian Bar Council. Ms Sreenevasan led the Bersih 2.0 rally in Kuala Lumpur in 2011 which saw 20,000 Malaysians take part, calling for free and fair elections in Malaysia. 

Another prominent Asian speaker is Mr Chen-Guangcheng, a blind Chinese civil rights activist who was placed under house arrest for speaking up against forced sterilization and abortion in China. Mr Chen made a dramatic escape to the US after he was prosecuted and faced imprisonment. 

Asian opposition leaders Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Burma's Daw Aung San Suu Kyi have also spoken at the forum in past years. Other prominent speakers included former Polish president Lech Walesa and Russian chess supremo and democracy advocate Gary Kasparov.

Dr Chee will also participate in a panel discussion under the theme The Threat of Authoritarian Capitalism that will take place immediately following the speech. The discussion will be moderated by BBC presenter Jamie Coomarasamy.  The session will discuss governance models that sacrifice civil and political rights in the name of stability and economic growth. 

The Economist describes the forum as "a spectacular human-rights festival on its way to becoming a human rights equivalent of the Davos Economic Forum."

Former US president Bill Clinton said that Oslo Freedom Forum is "a unique gathering of the best minds, bravest hearts and strongest pillars of the human rights community.”

Singapore Democrats

Source: Channel News Asia

Workers' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim has rejected the Ministry of National Development's (MND) finding that residents' interests had not been compromised in a deal between People's Action Party (PAP) town councils and the party-owned company, Action Information Management (AIM).

In a strongly-worded speech in Parliament, Ms Lim questioned numerous aspects of the AIM deal, including the terms of the tender, the nature of AIM and the one-month termination clause in the event the town council changed hands.

On the tender, she suggested no software company here could fulfil it other than AIM, because it required directors to have town council experience. She also said there was no reason given for the need for the one-month termination clause - and added that the MND report did not address this issue.

"MND fell short in not admonishing the PAP TCs for risking disruption to the public in the name of politics," she charged on Monday, during the debate over a ministerial statement on town councils.

During the speech, Ms Lim said that WP MPs were committed to being politically accountable to voters for town management under the current regime, as set out in the Town Councils Act.

She also offered suggestions for the upcoming review on town councils on restricting the sale of a town's critical assets, such as its IT system, to external vendors and longer termination periods in the event of a handover.

[This is a pre-prepared speech by NMP Laurence Lien in Parliament today]

Singapore is still in a “social recession”, and the recent budget announcements are still not sufficient to turn the country around, Nominated Member of Parliament Laurence Lien said in the House on Tuesday. 

The CEO of the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre (NVPC) said the non-profit organization has found Singapore had a “negative trend” in five areas – individual well-being, family, income security, healthcare, and housing and transport. 

Singaporeans, said Lien, are "neutral" on culture & values, education, and social connectedness and community cohesion, and positive only on civil & political participation. The worrying results, said Lien, called for a “fundamental rethink of both our economic and social policies”. 

He went on to tackle new budget initiatives like the Wage Credit Scheme (WCS) and the enhanced Workfare Income Supplement (WIS).  

“There is no guarantee that productivity will increase; or that it will make any difference to wages, which may simply increase on its own steam,” said Lien on the WCS.

Calling the scheme an expensive exercise, Lien expressed doubt that it would work in motivating Singapore’s workforce.

Lien also questioned the efficacy of the WIS, which benefits lower-income workers in Singapore through government hand-outs, likening it to "throwing money at Singapore's problems".

“Few people feel good getting hand-outs. It demoralizes them because they are reminded that they are not good enough to earn enough for their family. It is better for them to perceive that they can earn a just living wage on their steam,” said Lien. 

Instead, he suggested that a minimum wage law for lower-skilled workers would be more effective in raising their wages and self-esteem.

*Article first appeared on his blog here.

In Parliament today (13 May), NCMP Lina Chiam asked about the Primary One registration which gives priorities to “active community leaders”.

She posed the following questions to MOE in Parliament:

To ask the Minister for Education:

(a) whether only those serving in People’s Association and its affiliated committees and organisations are considered as active community leaders for the purpose of prioritising their children for Primary One Registration and, if so, why; and

(b) whether he will consider expanding the definition of active community leadership.

Instead, Senior Minister of State for Education Indranee Rajah answered that the priority system for children going through Primary One registration is not linked to the government.

Replying to NCMP Lina Chiam, Ms Indranee explained that Phase 2B of the P1 Registration Framework is open to children of active community leaders.

In particular, Phase 2B said [Link]:

Phase 2B
(a) For a child whose parent has joined the primary school as a parent volunteer and has given at least 40 hours of voluntary service to the school.

(b) For a child whose parent is a member endorsed by the church/clan directly connected with the primary school

(c) For a child whose parent is endorsed as an active community leader

Ms Indranee said that community leaders who get priority include those serving the Residents’ Committee (RC), Neighbourhood Committee (NC), Citizen’s Consultative Committee (CCC), Community Club Management Committee (CCMC) and the Community Development Council (CDC).

She added that in addition, Phase 2B is also open to the children of parent volunteers and endorsed members of churches or clans that are directly connected with the school.

She said the commitment and support from these various stakeholders help to build stronger bonds between the school and the community.

She further clarified that not all who are involved in grassroots associations get priority. Those who do not get priority include the People’s Association’s Youth Executive Committees and Women’s Executive Committees.

Ms Indranee said that priority is given to active community leaders and defined the eligibility based on objective view of community service, and not along party lines.

However, Ms Indranee’s comment seems to run contrary to what Mr Lee Kuan Yew, former Minister Mentor had said about all the affiliated organizations under the People’s Association (PA).

RCs, CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and CCs (community clubs) etc are all grassroots organizations that come under the purview of PA, a statutory board funded by taxpayers’ money, tasked to take care of all the grassroots activities in Singapore.

The relationship between PA and PAP is a close one. PA’s chairman is none other than the PM himself, who is also the Secretary-General of PAP.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew once said in a dialogue that the PRCs have been sending teams of officials to study Singapore for years. To illustrate a lesson the Chinese learnt, Lee Kuan Yew said:

“They discover that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs, CCCs and CCs.”

And typically, most of the important positions in the various grassroots organizations are helmed by PAP members themselves.

So, how can Ms Indranee said P1 registration priority is given to PA’s community leaders not based along party lines?

TR Emeritus

*Article first appeared on www.TREmeritus.com

Mrs Lina Chiam, NCMP

Response to Ministerial Statement on MND Town Councils Review

Speech in Parliament

13 May 2013

Madam Speaker / Mr Deputy Speaker,

MPs and Town Councillors are public servants. In Section 21 of the Penal Code, a public servant is defined as an “officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, on behalf of Government”. Their status was the same before and after the Town Councils Act was passed in 1988. Through that Act, HDB merely divested its powers in the management and maintenance of their estates to the individual Town Councils.

The Town Councils Act might have been enacted to give the elected MPs as much latitude as possible to run the Town Councils within broad and general rules. But they are still fully subject to the Penal Code as public servants.

Singaporeans therefore find some key points in the AIM transaction puzzling. The Review before us has not satisfied the questions in their minds: -

- How can a two-dollar company, with no staff, be deemed to have an established track record in providing IT services to Town Councils? The fact that AIM was awarded the tender seems to have hinged solely on their past working experience with the PAP Town Councils.

- How can the Review report say that there was no conflict of interest in the AIM transaction, simply because ‘no one made money’? I am not sure if any lawyer will be satisfied with how ‘conflict of interest’ is defined here.

Even if Town Councils are understood to be political, as provided for by the Town Councils Act, it does not mean that we can just forget about the concerns of residents over governance and due diligence.

What ever happened to the mantra that we must strive to observe best practices in public transactions? The Review report does not mention anything about best practices. 

So if the Review concludes that the AIM transaction is in compliance with the Town Councils Act, then the Act is not well drafted. The Act must be revised to better address public concern over conflict-of-interest issues and criteria for the award of tenders.

The Review Team recommended a strategic review of TCs in their current form. One question that has been posed is – should Town Councils revert to centralised control under HDB, as in the pre-1988 situation?

When the Town Councils Act was passed in 1988, it was said that the Government wanted to make life harder for Opposition MPs in running their constituencies. Nevertheless, Potong Pasir Town Council, the only Opposition-held town council then, took up the challenge. We worked hard to run the town. I believe we did a good job, and I believe we earned the trust of our residents throughout 27 years.

But a lot of unfair obstacles were thrown at the Potong Pasir Town Council.

To obtain CIPC funds, we had to seek the endorsement of the Advisor of the Residents’ Committees, who had always been the PAP’s candidate for the constituency. Indeed, no Opposition politician has ever been allowed to become the Advisor of the RCs, even when that politician is the sitting MP for that constituency.

When it was under the Opposition, Potong Pasir did not obtain a single cent from the CIPC fund or any HDB-related funding. The sole exception was funding for improving barrier-free accessibility, granted in 2010. That was, after all, a nation-wide exercise for wheel-chair bound residents.

Recently, Potong Pasir obtained $5 million from MND for the Neighbourhood Renewal Programe, or NRP. I am happy for the residents of Potong Pasir, but I would have hoped that the residents be more informed and involved in the planning of the NRP exercise to decide what they really want for their estate. After all residents have a stake in their estate. While physical structures and beautifications can be bought with money, the ‘software’ of community ties and interactions can never be bought.

All Town Councils, whether they are held by the PAP or not, should be able to benefit from community improvement grants from the HDB. Residents are all tax-payers and deserve equal treatment.

Advisers to the RCs cannot be given the power to endorse community improvement projects or otherwise. Why should the sitting MP, who is democratically elected by the people, be at the mercy of the RC Adviser? MND has got to change this.

MND started publishing the Town Council Management Report in 2010 as a form of a report card on their town councils’ performance in estate management. 

The Opposition-held constituencies of Potong Pasir and Hougang were always ranked lowly. The residents however, are happy with our management of the Town Council.

The evaluation process for the purpose of the TCMR must be led by investigators independent of the MND and HDB, to avoid biasness in the reporting and branding of the performance of Town Councils.

Town Councils should retain its current powers to manage estates, and MND should not have central control over them – for example, when implementing ad-hoc policies at any time, without debate in Parliament.

In conclusion, my question to the Minister is this – is the Government willing to improve the framework for running the Town Councils in the best interests of Singaporeans? Whether they live in a PAP- or an Opposition-held Town Council, they all pay taxes.

Going forward, I urge the MND to review the best practices that Town Councillors must adopt for the running of their Town Councils, as public servants.

Thank you.

By MP for Hougang SMC, Png Eng Huat
[Delivered in Parliament on 13 May 2013]

The MND Town Council Review has left many questions unanswered despite providing a lot of background information on the AIM transaction. While the report has concluded that the sale of the Town Council Management System (TCMS) to a PAP-owned company was nothing more than a business deal, the intentions behind the AIM transaction were not thoroughly scrutinized and explained.

The MND Review also did not look into the possibility that some of the decisions made in the AIM transaction could be politically motivated since MND has acknowledged that Town Councils, by virtue of their leadership, are politicized already.

While the AIM transaction is deemed legal and permissible under the law, the rationale behind the sale of the Intellectual Property (IP) rights to the TCMS to a PAP-owned company and the provision of the Termination Clause in the contract remains unclear and unconvincing in the review. Today I wish to speak on these 2 issues.

Termination Clause
The MND review has not fully addressed how public interest is being served when a vital piece of software for town management, developed at a combined cost of $23.8 million (page 15), was offloaded to a PAP-owned company for $140,000 with an unusual Termination Clause made in favour of the new owner.

The Termination Clause reads:
“The Contractor may in its absolute discretion terminate his services during the contract by giving three (3) months prior notice in writing to the Town Council. However, in the event that there are material changes to the membership of the Town Council or there are material changes to the scope and duties of the Town Council, including but not limited to changes to its present boundaries the Contractor may give a month’s notice in writing, if he wishes to terminate the services during the contract period.”

I find it hard to comprehend that after selling the TCMS to a vendor, the PAP Town Councils also found it imperative to give the same vendor absolute discretion to terminate its services which are vital to the operations of their own towns. How are the interests of the residents protected in such an arrangement?

And what are ‘material changes’ and why it is so important that if such changes were to happen, AIM could just give a month’s notice to terminate its services to any town council.

In the official explanation of the Termination Clause, the PAP Town Council has failed to fully address the meaning of ‘material changes.’ Nonetheless, the PAP Town Councils felt that the provision of such a one-sided Termination clause was ‘fair and reasonable as the vendor would have priced its bid on the basis of the existing TC and Town boundaries. However, should this change materially, the vendor could end up providing services to a TC comprising a much larger area and a larger population of residents, but is held to do so at the same fixed price since a key feature of the contract was that there should be no price change to the TCs even for extensions. The TCs felt that this would be unfair to the prospective vendors, and a clause explicitly addressing such changes would reduce the business risk to the vendor. This would help fetch a better tender price for the TCs’ old software.’

While the above explanation may sound logical, I will explain to this House, point by point, why the provision of the Termination Clause is ill-conceived and makes absolutely no sense at all.

First, there will always be changes made to the size and population of a town because of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats, Selective En bloc Redevelopment (SER) Scheme, private developments and the constant redrawing of our electoral boundaries. Is it then prudent to allow AIM or any new owner of the TCMS to simply walk away from this critical contract citing ‘material changes’ and leaving an entire town in a lurch? How is public interest protected with such a one-sided Termination Clause?

Second, in its original contract, AIM proposed a Lease-Back payment schedule that did not take into consideration the size and population of a town council. All the 14 PAP Town Councils, regardless of their size and population, were required to pay an equal amount of $785 per TC per month as lease-back payment for the use of the TCMS. Thus, it does not matter if you are running a small GRC like Moulmein-Kallang or a big GRC like Ang Mo Kio, each town council pays AIM the same amount of subscription fee. So was AIM concerned about the size and population of a town when pricing the TCMS subscription fee? The answer is obvious. And if AIM is not even worried about such business risk, why would the 14 PAP Town Councils lose sleep over this and want AIM to address such risk? After all, the PAP Town Councils had assessed that AIM is ‘a company with an established track record in TCs and IT services’ and they had confidence the company would deliver on its commitments.

Third, the above explanation of the Termination Clause sounds even more ludicrous when one finds out that there is a clause in the same contract that allows for variation and AIM would be paid in accordance to a method of calculation based on industry practice. In short, AIM is covered if ‘material changes’ in size and population of a town council were to happen for whatever reason. So why was there a need to give AIM the absolute discretion to cite ‘material changes’ to terminate its services to a town council when ‘material changes’ were already covered under the Variation Clause? Can the Minister explain this anomaly?

The provision of this one-sided Termination Clause in the AIM transaction makes no sense because the interests of the residents were not protected at all. Our towns are always in a constant flux of change due to the dynamics of our public and private housing schemes and the redrawing of our electoral boundaries. Residents should not be made to suffer unnecessarily as a result of such ‘material changes’.

The one-sided Termination Clause has caused so much confusion that even the Minister is confused as he has said earlier that the letter of 10 June 2011 sent by the Interim Secretary of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council was a request to terminate the use of the TCMS. On the contrary, the letter was a request to continue the use of the software of the software till 31 Aug 2011. The Aljunied-Hougang Town Council has no power to initiate any termination based on ‘material changes’. AIM was the one which was given the power to terminate and did exercise it 12 days later on 22 June 2011 according to its own timeline. The question is why PAP Town Councils allowed town councils to be powerless and at the mercy of AIM?

Sale of Intellectual Property Rights
The review report has also concluded that the AIM transaction complied with the Town Council Act and Financial Rules. However, there is a misplaced trust that the sale of the IP of the software to a PAP-owned company was done in the best interests of the residents.

Would any member in this House want to spend $23.8m of your residents’ money to develop a vital piece of software and then offload the IP to a third party knowing very well that future developments and upgrades of the system may depend on the use of the original IP rights?

The risks of system obsolescence are common problems faced by people or companies who depend a lot on the use of IT in their operations. Thus everything from software to hardware can be rendered obsolete in a short space of time but the IP will not. The knowledge system that went into developing the IP for the $23.8 million TCMS is valuable and critical. The TCMS may have zero book value but its real operational value is immeasurable. Right at this moment as we debate in this parliament, the TCMS is keeping almost the entire Singapore humming along, processing payments, managing arrears, handling residents’ feedback and facilities bookings, keeping the financial in check, keeping the communications flowing, and more. The rights to the use of the TCMS must remain open to a town council no matter what or when ‘material changes’ take place.

In the interest of the public, can the Minister state who will own the IP rights to the $17.6 million 3rd generation TCMS that is currently being developed by NEC Asia Pacific? Will AIM be holding any IP rights, direct or derivative, to the new system that is being developed and funded with town council money?

The official explanation of the sale of the TCMS to AIM was to consolidate the IP rights under a single entity for ease of management, future development, and securing extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost to the PAP Town Councils until such time when the current system is replaced.

As AIM outsourced its IT services to other vendors, it is basically playing the role of a project manager and project managers do not need to own the IP rights to the project they managed especially when those projects are vital to the operation of our towns and developed with public money.

It also appears incredulous that the 14 PAP Town Councils would need an external company, who is technically a competitor of NCS, to help them negotiate and secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost to the PAP Town Councils even though the town councils have a longstanding working relationship with NCS going back to 2003 when they first awarded the multi-million project to the IT company.

How hard it is for the PAP Town Councils to secure extensions of the NCS contract at no extra cost on goodwill? Did the PAP Town Councils try to approach NCS directly?

Conclusion
The relationship between the PAP Town Councils and AIM is an uneasy one. It was reported that AIM was set up by the PAP in 1991 to specifically support PAP MPs in the running of their TCs and estates. The company does not seek to make profit from its work done for the PAP Town Councils and only charges management fee based on cost-recovery. Thus, any transaction done between the PAP Town Councils and AIM has very little business consideration, mostly political I presumed.

The MND Review has stated that ‘given the political character of the town council’s leadership and the political implications attached to the management of the town council, it is inevitable that the town council function is carried out in a competitive politicised context.’

The AIM transaction had all the trappings of a high stake political game where the interests of the residents are of the least concern. So how should MND classify the sale of the TCMS to AIM and the provision of the one-sided Termination Clause in this review, business or political?

Finally, I believe whatever that was written in black and white in the AIM transaction has been reviewed by the committee but whatever intention that was written in the hearts of the people that were involved in this transaction will remain hidden for their conscience and makers to judge.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan said in Parliament on Monday that his ministry gives “the same latitude” to all political parties in town council transactions with political affiliates.

It did not interfere when such transactions happened in town councils run by opposition parties like Workers’ Party (WP) and Singapore People’s Party (SPP), he said.

He was speaking at the end of a debate on a ministerial statement on town councils, sparked by a controversial sale and leaseback of software from PAP town councils to PAP-owned company Action Information Management, an issue first raised by the WP.

Earlier in the debate, WP MP Pritam Singh noted that the Town Council Act did not prohibit transactions between town councils and party affiliates, and suggested that laws be put in place to ban transactions with political party-owned companies.

Ms Sylvia Lim, chairman of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) also questioned why MND had used the appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) as an example of such a transaction, when responding to media queries earlier this month.

Delivering a fierce rebuttal to WP MPs, Mr Khaw said if such transactions were to be banned, then his ministry would also have to ban transactions with companies owned by former party members and party supporters – as is the case with FMSS.

He spoke in detail about the circumstances surrounding the appointment of FMSS by the WP. The company was formed by former Hougang Town Council employee Ms How Weng Fan and her husband

Mr Danny Loh, a long-time contractor of services to that town council.

He said the couple are WP supporters who acted as assentor and proposer for the WP’s team of candidates for Ang Mo Kio GRC in the 2006 general election.

Mr Khaw also noted that FMSS was awarded several contracts by AHTC. “When we talk about public interest, how would Ms Sylvia Lim characterise the FMSS transactions?... Would she take the position that contracts given to close party associates be prohibited?” he asked.

Meanwhile, Non-Constituency MP Mrs Lina Chiam of the Singapore People’s Party (SPP) was appointed Potong Pasir Town Council secretary in 2010 and paid a monthly salary, he said.

Mr Khaw said his ministry did not interfere in any of these transactions as it applies the “same fair consistent approach applied to all political parties, whether PAP, WP or SPP.”

Sylvia Lim
MP for Aljunied GRC

13 May 2013

Parlimentary Speech

This debate has been triggered by the controversy surrounding the sale of town council management software (TCMS) by 14 Town Councils managed by the People’s Action Party (PAP) to Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) in 2011 prior to the General Elections.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for acknowledging the public interest in this matter and for ordering the Ministry of National Development (MND) to investigate and to do a broader based review of the nature of Town Councils (TCs). I would also like to record thanks to the Ministry officials for their efforts.

Where do we stand today, after the review? MND’s findings cleared the AIM transaction but highlighted areas for strategic review of TCs. It seems, however, that members of the public who have been tracking this issue are still asking critical questions, and many are not convinced that the 14 PAP TCs acted in the public interest when they sold the TCMS to AIM.

It is necessary to debate this matter calmly and clearly, to enable the public to understand the issues more fully and realize what is at stake. That was why I re-filed an adjournment motion last week. The government’s subsequent decision to enable the matter to be debated under Standing Order 44 is belated, but it is the correct thing to do.

WP’s and AHPETC’s Basic Position on MND’s findings

Let me first summarise how the Workers’ Party and Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) view the MND findings before elaborating. I shall thereafter make recommendations for the review.

First, we do not agree with the findings regarding the AIM transaction that public funds were safeguarded and residents’ interests had not been compromised.

From our reading of the documents available to us, there were aspects of tender suggesting it failed to follow the spirit of what an open tender should be. Further, the terms of the sale of the most critical town management IT system had unnecessarily endangered public welfare, particularly the relinquishing of ownership to AIM with the one-month termination clause. MND fell short in not admonishing the PAP TCs for risking disruption to the public in the name of politics. MND also did not take cognizance of the wastage of public funds incurred when such terminations required replacement systems to be set up. In addition, the one-year sale and leaseback was clearly an underestimate of the time needed to re-develop a new TCMS; the fact that the one year happened to straddle GE 2011 suggests that whatever “good faith” the TCs had in the sale to AIM, there were political objectives in crippling any new TC leadership of a different political affiliation, hence endangering the public in the process.

Second, as regards the MND’s recommendations for a review of TCs, we find that while they will improve continuity of services during a handover of TC management, the recommendations do not go far enough to prevent wastages of public funds. MND should entrench principles to recognize the public nature of assets being handled by TCs which should be safeguarded for public benefit, regardless of party politics.

Genesis: Why TC issues were raised by WP and AHTC in December 2012

Before I go further, I should at the onset state WP’s position concerning town management and why we brought the AIM sale to public knowledge in December last year.

WP MPs are committed to being politically accountable to voters for town management under the current regime. Whatever else is done in other countries, the responsibility for town management has been legislated to the MPs under the Town Councils Act. We accept this responsibility and have pledged during elections to manage towns entrusted to us to the best of our ability. We intend to continue keeping this promise.

We raised the sale to AIM after the MND released its banding of town councils under the revised TC Management Review framework in Dec 2012. Contrary to what some PAP members have charged, it was not raised as an excuse for non-performance, nor are we asking anybody to wait 24 or 30 months or 5 years for us to perform. AHTC was actually ranked well and comparably by MND in the areas of cleanliness, maintenance and lift breakdowns – the critical functions residents care most about. The main point which required public explanation was that the new indicator of “Corporate Governance” was graded as “pending”, as our auditors took much longer to complete their work. This was due to the need to reconcile accounts being kept under two different IT systems with differing nomenclature.

We do not believe that the AIM sale served the public interest, and the public deserved to know about this and assess it for themselves. We find it unacceptable for any TC to relinquish control over critical TC assets developed with public funds to third parties, who can cut the TC off from using the assets to service residents. In our view, the PAP TCs had unjustifiably risked a disruption to public services and that this should not be allowed to recur. I am relieved to read that the MND recognized the need to preserve continuity of public services as a paramount priority. The question is: why did the PAP TCs not recognize the risk of service disruption when selling the TCMS to AIM?

AIM Transaction

Let me now go into some detail about our misgivings concerning the AIM transaction.

Reasons for the sale

The reasons given by the PAP TCs for the sale of software and the intellectual property (IP) raise more questions than answers.

They told MND (MND report paras 17 to 19) that having the software rights reside in a single entity was better than having the vendor deal with 14 TCs which would be “cumbersome and inefficient”. But surely this can be easily overcome, since the PAP TCs have a Co-ordinating Chairman who can co-ordinate to ensure the proper authorisations? The TCMS was developed with $23.8 million of TC operating funds (MND report para 13); surely there is reason to retain ownership and control over it for the residents in the 82 electoral wards then under their charge? Much ado is being made in the report that the second generation (2G) TCMS was “almost obsolete and had limited value” (MND report para 19), but does this mean it is of limited value to the TCs using it now? If the system ceased to function without replacement, TC operations would grind to a halt! Another incomprehensible justification is the saving of $8,000 for the 14 TCs that arose from the sale (MND report para 26(a)). The $8,000 saving is the difference between the $140,000 paid by AIM and the sums paid by the TCs back to AIM during the one year leaseback. This total “saving” of $8,000 shared among 14 TCs amounts to about $571 per TC. Is saving $571 significant enough reason for a TC to sell a system?

Tender Terms

It was emphasized in the MND report that the choice of AIM was made after an open tender (MND report para 20, 21). Was it an open tender in substance?

The tender was advertised and 5 companies picked up the documents. However, a closer look at the Conditions of Contract will reveal that the specifications required each of the directors of the tendering company to have “adequate experience with the operations and functions of a Town Council”. I wonder how many companies in the software business in Singapore can say that all their directors have TC experience – perhaps only AIM?

The tender period was advertised as 14 days (MND report para 20), shorter than the minimum period of 3 weeks for local tenders required under the TC Financial Rule 74(6). It was then extended by another week to give 3 weeks. Why the initial period advertised was one week less than the minimum was not explained at all in the MND report.

In addition, one of the companies which picked up the tender forms had told the media that there was insufficient information in the tender documents to make a decision whether to tender (The New Paper, 5 Jan 2013, page 6).

Risk assessment of AIM

The PAP TCs told MND that one of the key reasons for selling the software to AIM was that AIM agreed to bear the risk of any price increases by NCS in maintaining the software, even after the original contract with NCS expired (MND report para 25(b)). We have not been able to find this exact clause in our documents. However, even assuming so, on what objective basis did the PAP TCs assess that it was safe to entrust this risk of cost increases to a company with a paid-up capital of $2? Who will pay in the event of a cost increase? What about the risk of AIM being wound up?

The PAP TCs highlighted AIM’s “track record”, but based on the tender documents we have seen, AIM listed only one prior project, also a sale and leaseback. When AIM was asked to fill in a table indicating the identities of their key technical and professional staff, a line was drawn across the table with only one word typed in: “Outsourced”.

Duration and timing of sale and leaseback

MND noted (para 5) that the TCs “underestimated the complexity of the task of developing the new generation TCMS software”. We find this quite puzzling, since the TCs had experience in developing the 1st and 2nd generation TCMS and should have known that one year was too short. Now, as MND has noted, 2 extensions were required after that (para 5), and a fresh tender was only called this year in 2013. Was there any re-development work from 2011 to now?

The timing of the sale to commence a few months before the General Elections in 2011 also calls for explanation. Was it a pure coincidence? Or was there simply a need to sell the software quickly, so that termination can be effected if political seats were lost? Let me now turn to the termination clause.

Termination clause

The reasons given by the PAP TCs for the one-month termination clause (MND report, para 3(e)) are plainly unconvincing.

First, no attempt was made to explain why a material change in membership of TC should allow unilateral termination by the contractor with one month’s notice. It is unfortunate that MND did not seem to query this, as this is the crux of the exchange between the PAP and WP. Could it be that there is simply no good reason to give?

Some attempt was made to explain why termination may be fair in the case of a change in boundaries: it was said that the contractor might be faced with a much larger town than anticipated, but be held to a fixed price to his detriment (MND report para 3(e)). I am not sure why there was this worry. At that time, the TCMS was being developed for the whole of Singapore except 2 SMCs viz. Potong Pasir and Hougang. In addition, the contract itself already provided for a variation in price based on the number of property units!

The real sting of the termination clause lay in its one-month notice period. Is a one-month termination reasonable for a critical IT system? It is quite clear that time is needed to develop a system of this complexity – in the PAP’s own estimation, 18 to 24 months. Did the PAP TCs not realize that this aspect of the AIM transaction endangered the continuity of public services? Or perhaps that was the intention in the case of a change in political leadership?

It was fortunate indeed that the WP could use the IT system in place in Hougang TC and upscale it within a much-abridged time to cater for a town of GRC magnitude. What if a constituency was won by a political party not running any TC, or by an independent candidate? Or is the continuity of public services not important to the PAP once they lose a constituency?

Wastage of Public Funds

No finding has been made about the wastage of public funds caused by the need to replace IT systems due to a change in political leadership. Once a system has been developed with TC funds, the residents have a beneficial interest in it, since they contribute to TC funds via Service and Conservancy Charges. Why should they pay again, for a replacement system, just because the town council management has changed hands? Even those who live in private estates have asked me about the wastage, since TCs are also funded by government grants that they, as taxpayers, contribute to. MND has made a finding that there was no loss of public funds caused by the AIM transaction, but what about the wastage of public funds which the transaction brings about? Residents and taxpayers pay twice for political intrigue – how is that justifiable?

Nature of TCs and AHPETC

Let me now move to the nature of Town Councils and the recommendations for strategic review.

Town Councils provide essential public services to HDB dwellers via public funding. As custodians of public funds, all MPs must act in the best interests of residents, regardless of which political party they support. At the same time, TCs unavoidably have some political elements. The manner and quality of town management is one factor in a voter’s choice of MP, and MPs wish to do well in town management in order to get re-elected. However, it does not mean that MPs can allow TC assets to be endangered or cut off from TC use for political reasons.

Let me at this juncture share some essential facts about AHPETC and correct some misconceptions.

The IT system in use in AHPETC belongs to the TC and will be there for use even if there were to be a change in political leadership. There are no equivalent termination clauses unlike the AIM transaction. In fact, I understand that Potong Pasir TC is still using the IT system developed before the change in political leadership in 2011.

I also take strong issue with a misleading release by MND on our Managing Agent, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd. The Straits Times of 7 May 2013 reported that “MND gave examples of how politics and town councils sometimes mix” which included, in our case, the former General Manager of Hougang TC and her husband setting up a company to provide town management services to AHTC. We find this insinuation mischievous, as neither she, nor her husband, nor any of the directors and shareholders of the company, are WP members. They were hired based on their experience in property management, professional skills and track record in running Hougang TC. What is MND implying? The Minister should explain.

Recommendations for TC review

I now come to the final part of my speech – our key recommendations for the review of Town Councils.

First, restrictions should be in place in the TC Act to prohibit the sale of critical assets / systems still needed for TC’s operations to third parties. On no account should TCs relinquish control over the use of the assets, which should survive any change in political leadership. The most critical system would be the IT system for town management. Ownership of the town management software system and its intellectual property rights should reside with the Town Council.

Second, town management systems which serve several constituencies should be configured to be easily segregable at low cost in event of boundary change or leadership change. This should be ensured for the 3G TCMS.

Third, another important IT system which should be safeguarded for continuity is the telemonitoring system (TMS), which monitors lift breakdowns and lift rescue. All TCs are currently using the TMS from the same provider, and at the minimum, the existing termination period of 3 months is too short and should be reviewed.

Fourth, important service contracts such as those for Managing Agent and Essential Maintenance and Services Unit (commonly called EMSU) should provide for a longer termination period to allow for a fresh tender to be called, if necessary, after a handover.

Finally, unilateral terminations by contractors of essential contracts due to a change in political leadership should be disallowed. Should there be a need to put in place another contractor due to business considerations, a mutual discharge can be agreed between the TC and the contractor.

We are ready to provide further input if needed.

Conclusion

We believe that the sale of the TCMS by the PAP TCs, whatever its other ancillary benefits, was to enable AIM to cut off any non-PAP TC from using the TCMS at short notice, crippling the TC. By doing so, they acted in their party political interest and jeopardised the public interest, using a critical asset developed with public funds.

In this light, I cannot help but recall the Parliamentary debate in 1988 when the Town Council Bill was first presented for the Second Reading. At that debate, the then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong justified the introduction of Town Councils as providing political stabilisers to the political system. He said there was a need to protect the public by ensuring that political parties which aspired to be government should first prove that they could run a Town Council for a constituency. He said: “If a new party finds itself unexpectedly in government, it would be like an aspiring pilot taking over an SIA jumbo jet in mid-air before he has flown solo in a Cessna. This cannot be in the interest of passengers in the jumbo… TCs are the Cessnas of our political system”. He also highlighted that some PAP MPs had expressed a fear that opposition MPs could win “some seats, prove themselves” (able to run the Town Councils) and thereafter “fan out to other constituencies in subsequent elections” (Hansard, 28 June 1988).

Is this what this whole AIM episode is about – ensuring that the passengers in the Cessnas have bumpy rides or even crash land? Does the government even care about the passengers in the Cessnas, or are they simply collateral damage in a bigger political game?

The thirteenth Malaysian general elections were said to be the most hotly contested elections in its history. For the first time, a whopping 80% turned out  to vote. The vibrant campaigning by the political parties and civil society was the talk of the town.

I had the privilege of representing the Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia (ARDA) as an International Election Observer during the campaign leading up to polling day. My team's observation was done mostly in central Johor. In addition to a formal report of our observation, which is a work in progress, I wanted to pen my personal reflection of this historic event. In this piece, I would like to focus on what I thought was the single most important factor that made this election phenomenal—the contribution of the civil society.

The NGOs

One shop stood out in the midst of a row of quiet suburban shophouses on May Day. In stark contrast to the rest, this shop was abuzz with human activity. I was led up a narrow stairway on the side of the shop into a room jam-packed with people. Volunteers were crowding in groups, each with a leader detailing the job and mission of either a polling agent or a counting agent.

"So, this is where the party trains its agents," I quipped.

"No," my guide, Thomas Fann, corrected. "Not the party. Bersih."

Bersih (the Malay word for clean) is a movement made up of numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) calling for a clean and fair election. The Johor People's Action Group (JPAG) is one such. Its Chairman, Christopher Ling, an engineer by profession, was simultaneously on the phone and speaking to several persons at once. Sparing a few moments, he explained that JPAG was formed in 2010 to bring together like-minded people who want to eradicate election fraud. "If the [opposition] parties cannot do it," his eyes burdened with ownership of the situation, "then we, the people, will have to do it." 

The response from the rakyat (people) to his call to action was overwhelming. So much so, many volunteers had to be rescheduled while others were turned away because of space and other logistical constraints. The training sessions were meant to prepare agents to represent the opposition political coalition, Pakatan Rakyat [PR, comprising the Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and the Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS)]. Indeed, almost all of the Bersih NGOs' activities during the election campaign were designed either to lend support to PR or to be anti-Barisan Nasional (BN, the ruling coalition).
"Why," I asked, "would an NGO be willing to shed its political neutrality and align itself with a political entity?"

All the activists I spoke to, were firm in the conviction that they are not compromising their neutrality in any way. What they strove to achieve, they argued, was synonymous with the goals of their organizations. The typical reasoning was if you were convinced that a one-party system was not good for the nation, you would want to see  political change (hence their war cry, Ubah!). It is as much the responsibility of civil society as it is that of the alternative political parties to bring about this change. If, indeed, change did come, the same NGOs would be compelled to speak up against the new government should it in turn became dishonest in its practices. With such an understanding it is no wonder many NGOs were unashamedly pro-opposition. Tan Wee Tiong, a member of the Johor Yellow Flame (JYF) and the Hak Air Untuk Semua (HAUS), who volunteered at a PKR office put it  succinctly, "Whoever supports our cause, we support them."

The Religious Communities

Among the throng of volunteers, I was introduced to a person described as one of the key people. Key because Pastor James Tan mobilized his congregation to action during the campaign. "Why would a pastor be involved in a political movement?" was my first question. Is he not worried about mixing the affairs of church and state?

"God is concerned about politics," he declared in a sermon-like fashion. "Because he appoints and disposes governments."

Pastor James had closed his church services during the  ten-day campaign both to contribute himself and to enable his congregation to participate in the election activities. I discovered later that Pastor James was not alone. There were several other pastors and lay pastors among the activists who were doing likewise. One of them was clearly astounded by my astonishment when he jibed, "We are civil society too, you know?"

In the evening, I attended a panel forum organized by the Council of Churches Malaysia (CCM) and the Community Action Network (CAN). Tommy Thomas, a constitutional lawyer, Yeo Yang Poh, former Bar Council President, and Malik Imtiaz, a Hakam (Islamic arbitrator) and constitutional lawyer formed the panel of speakers. Throughout the evening, the speakers argued passionately that every individual has the moral and civil responsibility not only to vote but to participate in the electoral process to ensure social justice in the society.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM) and the National Evangelical Christian Fellowship (NECF) were also vigorously involved in civil education and activism.

The Lawyers

Besides the three lawyers who spoke at the CCM forum, many other members of the Malaysian Bar Council led by their past President, Ambiga Sreenevasan, were making circuits around the Federation, educating the public on their political and civil rights. While they tried to maintain some sense of neutrality, many of them did not hesitate to reveal their anti-Barisan Nasional sentiments.

The Small Business Owners

Lining the street, I noted coffee shops and other small neighbourhood businesses unabashedly displaying flags or posters of the party they were supporting. One coffee shop owner, I was told, routinely offered the use of its venue as an activist rendezvous.

The Rakyat (People)

There was never a dull moment speaking to volunteers. Everyone has his personal vignette as to why he was moved to contribute to the electoral process. A day before the poll, in a briefing session where activists were taught to identify and record election irregularities, Adam Khoo complained that fraud  was already taking place. A builder in Kuala Lumpur, Adam had taken leave from his job to volunteer in the Johor area, where he is resident. At a petrol kiosk on his way home, he swore he saw drivers being offered free petrol and food vouchers in exchange for carrying BN bumper stickers.

Another voter, a firefighter who works in Singapore, is fed up with the unfairness he sees in Malaysian politics. He wants to play his part, no matter how small, to bring about real change. He wants Malaysia to have a two-party system. Likewise, National University of Singapore (NUS) law graduate Evelyn Chua got involved because she was angry and upset with the "abuses, vote buying, and corruption" of the establishment. Nodding in profound agreement were her two friends Elizabeth Teoh, a medical representative and Priscilla Tan, an NUS architecture graduate, who added, "Besides, this is our home."

At a ceramah (rally) that attracted over 15,000 people, Josh was shooting away with his impressive looking camera. A student, Josh contributed his time and talent because "it is time to take sides. And I choose the side that is honest with the people."

Zipping through the enraptured crowd were a dozen youths, sporting yellow t-shirts emblazoned with Bersih's slogans,  were passing out a variety of flyers and paraphernalia. One of these activists handed me a flyer. I accepted, thanked him and attempted to toss him a question. It was too late, the enthusiastic young man had promptly moved on to the next person and was soon lost in the crowd.

Heroes and Heroines

It is people such as these that make a nation proud. The unsung heroes and heroines who toiled away silently in the background; who seek no personal glory but only a better society for all; who sacrifice their time, money and effort for the good of the community; who risked their lives to pursue, relentlessly a freer, fairer Malaysia.

It is appropriate to end this reflection with the story of my contact person—no, my friend—Thomas Fann (pictured left, with John Tan). The principal of a private school, he goes home to a lovely wife and two sons. He also pastors a house-church. The dual professions Thomas holds are  enough to keep him awfully busy. He knows what is going on in his country. He could not help but notice what the authorities did to the participants of Bersih 2.0 (click here to watch video). As a pastor and a citizen, Thomas felt a moral obligation to right the wrong he saw.

"Fear was a big thing." Thomas reminisced. "I contemplated and thought a lot about it. Making excuses is not the solution, I figured. I confronted my fear and decided I had to do something despite my fear."

With that, Thomas co-founded JPAG and Bersih 3.0 Johor Bahru (click here to watch video), co-chaired Bersih 3.0 (click here to watch video), and is presently the state coordinator of the Bersih Permantau (Observer) Program.

I am sure this little vignette does not tell half the story of this man nor does justice to the sacrifices he has made. Nevertheless, to my dear friend, Thomas, and to all who like him possess the burning spirit to do what is right... I tip my hat. 

John Tan is the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP.

A terse exchange broke out in Parliament between National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan and Ms Sylvia Lim yesterday, after the Workers’ Party (WP) chairman suggested that the People’s Action Party (PAP) would risk compromising residents’ interests to trip up the Opposition.

Mr Khaw also turned the tables on the WP, pointing out that its town council appointed — and handed large contracts to — FM Solutions and Services (FMSS), a company run by a husband-and-wife team who are long-time WP supporters and were, in fact, the assentor and proposer for former Hougang Member of Parliament (MP) Yaw Shin Leong in the 2006 General Election. The company was set up just four days after the WP won Aljunied GRC and it was given a S$5.2 million-a-year managing agent contract without the town council calling a tender, Mr Khaw said.

In response, Ms Lim said the couple were not WP members and a special audit called by the opposition party had concluded that the contract was “value for money” for the residents.

Mr Khaw was wrapping up the debate on the Ministry of National Development review report on the controversial sale of a town council management computer software by the PAP town councils to a PAP-owned company. Towards the end of his speech, he zoomed in on Ms Lim’s claim: “This is self-righteous and — pardon me for saying so — arrogant. Many of us in this House have been serving Singaporeans for decades, long before she entered this House. Please, don’t behave as if you’re the only patriot in this House.”

Mr Khaw said he was “disappointed” with Ms Lim’s suggestion that the saga showed that the PAP “sees hurting people in Aljunied as ‘collateral damage in a bigger political game’”.

He added that the PAP would not be “so stupid” as to want to deliberately disrupt the lives of residents in Aljunied knowing that the WP would make a political issue out of it and cause residents to pile the blame on the PAP.

“What is the bigger political game? It is about winning back Aljunied, not about doing something petty that will just upset everybody and make us lose Aljunied permanently,” Mr Khaw said.

He said it was Ms Lim who had politicised the episode instead, questioning why she had chosen not to request the company, Action Information Management (AIM), to extend the software’s contract if she was concerned about the disruptions to town council services as a result of AIM exercising a termination clause.

“If there is anything suspicious about timing, it is really the timing of Ms Sylvia Lim raising the AIM issue. Why didn’t she raise the termination of (the software) back in 2011 when they took over, instead of thanking AIM for agreeing to the extensions that they had requested? Why, after thanking AIM, then wait 18 months till December 2012 when the MND revealed that the town council’s audit report had been delayed to raise this complaint against AIM?” Mr Khaw questioned.

He said: “I presume she will claim that they had been too busy setting up their own system to bother about raising this issue. Anyway, I must say it has been quite an effective move in distracting the public from the actual situation in the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.”

He added: “Maybe pride or political motives got in the way, and residents’ interests became secondary.”

Mr Khaw cited how Potong Pasir MP Sitoh Yih Pin, in contrast, “worked quietly round-the-clock” and also asked the long-time general manager of his predecessor — veteran opposition politician Chiam See Tong — to stay on in order to minimise disruptions during the handover.

Ms Lim rose to speak immediately after Mr Khaw ended his round-up speech. “I have to take issue with his ascribing to me personal motives of pride and arrogance because I think nothing can be further from the truth,” she said.

“The reason why we raised this matter for public discussion and debate is because we want to improve things for the future. So I definitely do not accept his ascription of those motives to me personally.”

During the debate, Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh suggested that town councils should be blocked from transacting with companies that are owned by political parties in the wake of this saga. In response, Mr Khaw, who revealed that AIM was the only company owned by the PAP, said the prohibition should instead extend to firms owned by those affiliated in any way to political parties, should such a rule change come about.

In reiterating that his ministry had exercised the existing rules fairly across all town councils, Mr Khaw cited how Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council was not barred from appointing estate management company FMSS, which was set up by Mr Danny Loh and Ms How Weng Fan.

He also noted that managing agent rates in Aljunied were 20-per-cent higher under FMSS than it was when the PAP ran the town council.

Mr Khaw said: “To be precise, when it was under (former Foreign Minister) George Yeo, the rate was S$6.51 per unit per month. Now, it is S$7.87 in FY2011 — the first contract — and then it went up to S$8.04 per unit per month in FY2012. In fact, the FMSS rate is more than 50-per-cent higher than the rate for Tampines Town Council which is of similar size.”
 

Source: Channel 5

AHPETC / WP’s RESPONSE TO COMPARISONS ON MANAGING AGENT RATES

We refer to the comparisons of Managing Agent (MA) rates cited by Minister Khaw Boon Wan in Parliament on 13 May 2013 during the debate on Town Councils, which were published in various media today.

We are not privy to how the government derived the unit rates, even for Aljunied and Aljunied-Hougang, which differ from our own documents and calculations.  We set out below the agreed MA rates for public perusal.

Comparison between Aljunied TC’s MA rates under PAP and Aljunied-Hougang TC’s MA rates under WP

For the year FY 2011, Aljunied TC was managed by PAP’s MA, CPG Facilities Mgt Pte Ltd (CPG), until August 2011 when they handed over to Aljunied-Hougang TC’s MA, FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS).  Due to the urgency and public interest in working on the handover after the General Election in May 2011, a tender was waived for a one-year contract to FMSS, as we note was also done in Potong Pasir TC for their MA.  The fees charged by FMSS for this one year was the total of two components: for Aljunied, the same rates contracted by CPG for 2011 were used and prorated according to the new electoral boundaries (to include Kaki Bukit Division and exclude the Division now known as Ang Mo Kio-Hougang); for Hougang, which directly hired staff without an MA, the staff costs were included.

FMSS’s Fees (August 2011 to July 2012) = CPG’s rates for ATC (2011) + Hougang SMC TC staff cost

For FY 2012, a tender was called for MA Services for 3 years, and FMSS was the only tenderer.  The MA rate for residential units was $7.01 for 2012, which was about 4% above the rate which CPG had contracted to provide to Aljunied for the same year had they continued as MA.

Table 1 – Comparison Table for MA Rate (Residential Units)

In addition, we note that the Project Management Fees of FMSS compared favourably with other Managing Agents as follows:-

Table 2 – Comparison Table for Project Management Fees

The rates charged by FMSS for AHTC also included the following which were not provided under the previous administration for Aljunied Town:

(a)    Costing for a significant increase in the number of lifts due to the Lift Upgrading Programme, which would increase the lift testing fees the MA was required to bear in accordance with industry practice.

(b)   FMSS had contracted to run 5 offices, not just the 3 managed by the former administration.  The additional 2 offices are in Hougang SMC and a new office at Kaki Bukit Division to serve residents whose profile included the elderly.  An additional collection point for service and conservancy charges was also provided at Serangoon Division.

(c)    Certain services which used to be contracted out such as IT administration and maintenance was provided by the MA, resulting in savings.

(d)   Additional technical staff to improve service delivery.

The MA rates for the 2^nd and 3^rd year built in reasonable increases for inflation and staff wages.

Tampines TC’s MA rate for 2012

According to the Minister, Tampines TC’s MA rate for 2012 is $4.99 per property unit.  We understand that there was a change in MA from 2011 to 2012, meaning that it was the first year in Tampines for the incumbent MA, CPG.  Coincidentally, CPG was incumbent in Aljunied TC until 2011, and its unit rate tendered in FY 2010 for Aljunied had been $6.51 (according to the government’s tables).  We do not wish to speculate why a MA would tender in 2012 at a lower rate for MA services than in 2010, given the rising costs.  However, we note that as early as at 2007, another MA, EM Services, had tendered at $5.75 per residential unit for Pasir Ris-Punggol Town.

Table 3 – Tampines TC’s MA rate

We can only surmise that the Tampines TC’s MA rate of $4.99 in 2012 which was chosen for comparison was an outlier.

Audit of Award to FMSS

As mentioned in Parliament yesterday, AHTC had commissioned a special audit to evaluate the award of the MA contract to FMSS in 2012.  The audit covered compliance and good governance practices, and noted the steps taken in due diligence to ensure value for money for the Town Council.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL AND THE WORKERS’ PARTY

14 May 2013

My question for 13 May 2013 sitting: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will allow Singapore citizens to replace their identity cards that are damaged by wear and tear free of charge every decade.

Minister for Home Affairs:

The Identity Card (IC) is made of a highly durable polycarbonate material that has been subjected to stringent tests to ensure its durability. It is not easily damaged with normal handling. Nonetheless, there are a small number of cards that may be damaged due to excessive wear and tear over time.

The $60 fee for replacing a damaged IC is to cover the production cost, which includes manpower, material, as well as other costs incurred in producing a new card. This fee has not been increased since 1991.

ICA will consider a waiver of the fee for cases which warrant special consideration. This will include situations where the card was damaged due to circumstances beyond the cardholder’s control, such as accidents or fire.

Baey Yam Keng

PAP MP

By Teo Ho Pin (Article first appeared on his Facebook page)

Mr Teo Ho Pin, the PAP Member of Parliament for Bukit Panjang and Co-ordinating Chairman of PAP-run Town Councils, posted a statement on Facebook today, questioning the Workers’ Party’s dealings with FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS), which manages the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council for the opposition party. The full statement is as follows:

In Parliament, Min Khaw Boon Wan revealed troubling facts about FMSS. He then asked Sylvia Lim directly how she would “characterise the FMSS transactions and if public interest has been protected”. Ms Lim has not answered these queries.

The public deserves to know because the award of contracts worth $26 million by the Workers’ Party (WP) run Aljunied Hougang Town Council (AHTC) to long time supporters and close business associates of WP, through FM Solutions and Services Pte Ltd (FMSS), raises serious questions about public interest and transparency.

Ms Lim and WP MPs have not disputed the following facts:

a) WP won in Aljunied GRC on 11 May 2011.

b) Four days later, on 15 May 2011, FMSS was set up.

c) Mr Danny Loh and Ms How Weng Fan (who are husband and wife) own FMSS.

d) Mr Loh and Ms How were Assentor and Proposer for the WP team of candidates who contested in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the 2006 General Election. They were clearly close and trusted supporters of the WP.

e) How and Loh are also Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager respectively of AHTC. How had been an employee of Hougang TC.

f) AHTC, headed by Ms Sylvia Lim, gave a $5.2 million contract to FMSS on 15 July 2011 (soon after the General Election) to manage AHTC, without calling a tender.

g) One year later, in August 2012, AHTC awarded a contract worth $16.8 million to FMSS to manage AHTC. This time AHTC called a tender, and FMSS submitted the only bid.

h) AHTC also gave another contract in 2012, for the Essential Maintenance Services Unit to FMSS, worth $3.9 million. In total, AHTC has awarded $25.9 million worth of contracts to FMSS.

FMSS charged AHTC $7.87 per property unit in July 2011 to be its Managing Agent (MA). This was 20% higher than the rate charged by the previous managing agent ($6.51 per unit per month) before the GE. In the August 2012 tender, FMSS increased the unit rate to $8.04. This is more than 50% higher than the unit rate ($4.99 in 2012) paid by Tampines TC, a comparable-sized estate, to its managing agent.

Instead of trying to obfuscate the public with wrong calculations on how much FMSS charged AHTC, Ms Lim needs to explain clearly why a WP run Town Council gave more than $26 million of public funds in contracts to close associates. And why it paid management fees significantly higher than normal, and 20% higher than its previous managing agent.

Three key questions of public interest arise:

a) Did AHTC secure the best possible deal by awarding an MA contract worth over $5 million to a company formed by close WP supporters just days after the 2011 GE, and without a tender?

b) Did AHTC exercise due diligence when they awarded not one but two contracts worth over $21 million to the same company a year later in 2012?

c) Has AHTC protected the interests of Aljunied and Hougang residents?

Ms Sylvia Lim is Chairman of AHTC. Presented with these facts in Parliament, her first response was that she was not sure about the unit rates that AHTC paid to FMSS. She had awarded contracts at significantly higher prices to close and trusted party supporters, and she did not know the facts?

Ms Lim then said that the high price could be due to inflation. Really? Can inflation explain the huge difference in rates with Tampines TC?

On Tuesday 14 May, the WP issued a statement in Ms Lim’s name disputing MND’s figures for the MA rates and providing her own figures. But for some inexplicable reason, Ms Lim had left out commercial units and only included the residential units. Her figures were therefore erroneous and misleading.

On Wednesday, Ms Lim issued another statement to explain the MA rates. She raised her estimate of the MA rate for FY2012 from $7.01 the previous night to $7.58. This is indeed more than 50% higher than the Tampines rate ($4.99). Further, as MND pointed out, even at $7.58, the MA contract value for the whole estate for 3 years would only be $15.8 million - $1 million less than the $16.8 million that Ms Sylvia Lim herself had declared to HDB last year. Where is the missing $1 million?

One possible explanation is that AHTC has staggered the MA rate with increments each year starting with $7.58 in 2012. If so, it is bad news for residents – it means simply that their current MA rate, which is already high, will rise even higher each year. By my calculations, it will increase from her figure of $7.58 in 2012, to $8.00 this year and $8.50 next year!

Beyond these specific problems with WP’s claims, more basic questions must be asked:

a) Loh and How are Secretary and Deputy Secretary/General Manager of the AHTC. Do they draw salaries as employees of the TC?

b) As Loh and How do business with the TC through FMSS which they own and profit - do they get paid twice?

c) What was the need to form FMSS just a few days after WP won Aljunied GRC? If urgency was the chief consideration, as Ms Lim claims, would it not have been easier for AHTC to have employed How directly and managed the town itself, just as Hougang TC had done, without having to form this for-profit company?

These questions raise serious issues of financial probity and transparency. The WP MPs in AHTC owe it to the residents of Aljunied and Hougang, as well as Singaporeans in general, to give full answers to them.

MEDIA RESPONSE TO MND’S COMPARISON OF MA RATES (NO. 3)

We refer to the media statement of the Ministry of National Development (MND) issued in the late evening of 15 May 2013.

There is no contradiction in MA rates nor missing money as MND suggests. 

To recall the sequence of events: When we first gave our MA rate for FY 2012 based on residential units, MND said our computation should be based on residential and commercial units, so we then re-computed the MA rates based on MND’s methodology, which continued to show at best a 4.5% increase over the PAP MA’s rate for Aljunied for 2012, not 20% as claimed. 

In last evening’s release, MND unjustifiably suggested that $1 million was missing.  MND simply took FMSS’ MA rate for FY 2012 for the first year and multiplied it by 3 to arrive at $15.8m, when we had clearly stated earlier that the MA contract for the 3 years (i.e. 2012, 2013 and 2014) provided for staggered pricing, with increases in costs factored in each year.  The total contract price declared is correct at $16.75 million.  If MND is still unclear about the matter, clarification can always be sought before erroneous assertions are made.

We can assure residents that based on the scope of works, due diligence has been taken to ensure value for money for the town council.  The tender award was also specifically audited.

We understand that there may be public fatigue on this protracted debate on the MA rates, which is in any case deviating from the core issue of the sale of town management software with the one-month termination clause to Action Information Management Pte Ltd.  Despite our disagreement with the MND’s findings on the AIM transaction, we shall use our best endeavours to have a professional working relationship with MND for the sake of our residents and the public.

SYLVIA LIM
CHAIRMAN
ALJUNIED-HOUGANG-PUNGGOL EAST TOWN COUNCIL AND THE WORKERS’ PARTY