By Andrew Loh
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Ms Grace Fu, posted a Facebook note expressing her views on the AIM/PAP-WP controversy over the computer system used by town councils. Unfortunately, her note misses completely the issues of contention in this whole sorry saga.
Ms Fu seems to want to focus on whose responsibility it is to run the town council in Aljunied GRC. It is a strange matter for her to focus on as this issue has never been in doubt. Of course the responsibility of running a town council is that of the elected Members of Parliament who, in this case, are the MPs of the Workers’ Party (WP).
Is anyone disputing or has anyone disputed this?
Why Ms Fu is even raising this issue is puzzling. Perhaps she has not been following the many questions and issues which have been raised by members of the public. Perhaps this is because the mainstream media have shied away from asking these questions or highlighting these questions and issues so far. In the same way, her PAP colleague, Mr Janil Puthucheary, also seems to be rather ill-informed about the issue and the bases of the controversy. He posted on his Facebook page: “Lots of people trying to distract from the main issue, here is an attempt to get back to it,” referring to Ms Fu’s note.
As with Ms Fu’s note, Mr Puthucheary’s too has attracted mostly negative comments from the public, a fact which the mainstream media – again – has chosen not to report.
But all this finger-pointing about who is trying to distract whom is just empty, ignorant talk, unworthy really of ministers and MPs who should know better, and who should be aware or cognisant of the issues being raised in this matter.
And this is the more serious thing here – the many questions about the PAP-owned company, Action Information Management (AIM), and how it came to be awarded the contract of maintaining the computer system. The questions raised have not been answered at all or to any satisfaction by either the PAP, AIM, Dr Teo Ho Pin (coordinating chairman of the 14 PAP town councils), or even Ms Fu or Mr Puthucheary (both of whom, by the way, have chosen so far not to reply to queries on their Facebook pages).
What are these questions about AIM (and the PAP) which the public is asking? There are many but I feel the main question is this one:
Did not the 14 PAP town councils realise the conflict of interests in awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company? If it did, why did it still go ahead and award the contract to AIM? If it did not, why did it not? Is it possible that 14 town council chairmen, and the PAP which comprises experienced politicians and distinguished lawyers and businessmen and businesswomen, were not aware of this conflict of interests?
This question leads to others – such as: In awarding the contract to a PAP-owned company, with a termination clause which empowers AIM to end its services to the town councils, does this not leave the residents at the mercy of this private entity?
How is it that a software, developed presumably with the money collected from residents, is then sold to a PAP-owned company which would benefit financially from it – leading to another question of whether it is right for residents to effectively and inadvertently (and unknowingly) support a political party which they might not actually support?
Donations or financial benefits to political parties (or to any entity, in fact) must be stated upfront, openly and clearly, especially when public funds are involved. AIM stood to profit from the contract, and being a PAP-owned company, the PAP thus also stood to benefit. But being a political party, it must be open with residents and inform residents that such a sale will or may benefit the party financially. Given that on average the opposition parties attracted 40 per cent of the popular vote in each constituency during the last elections, the question of the PAP benefiting financially from such a deal is a pertinent one – for not every resident would want to pay towards financially benefiting the PAP, directly or indirectly.
The termination clause also throws up a similar question: the computer system was presumably developed with funds collected from the public (or residents) and is supposed to be used for the benefit of the residents. However, with the termination clause, a new town council with a new composition of members which takes over might not be given access to the system – as indeed happened in this Aljunied case. How then do residents benefit from having paid towards such a system?
Were residents explicitly informed that only PAP-controlled town councils will be given access to use the computer system, which was developed with the residents’ money?
Would this not thus mean, in effect, that if residents chose to vote a non-PAP team or candidates to run their estate, residents would or could be “punished” by having to put up with first the withdrawal of the computer system, and second, to put up with inconveniences?
Contrary to what Dr Teo said, such an arrangement – to give AIM the ability to terminate its services on the basis of a change in the composition of the town council management – does not serve residents’ interests at all.
As mentioned, there are many questions to be answered by the PAP and AIM – how is it that a company with a $2 paid-up capital, with no prior experience in running such a system, a company apparently without any staff or office space or even a decent email account facility (despite being “in business for 20 years”) is awarded a contract worth not a small sum of money?
How is it that AIM was awarded the contract even though it submitted its bid one week after the closing date?
Why were there, apparently, such scant information given to potential bidders in the tender notice?
How is it that “being backed by the PAP” is a tender requirement, or an advantage in bidding for such a contract? Is the PAP a renowned expert, or made up of experts, in such IT systems? To cite “being backed by the PAP” as an advantage in awarding the contract is in fact a very questionable thing to do, especially when one of the bidders is indeed “fully owned” by the PAP.
Ms Fu and Mr Puthucheary have completely missed the issues, as you can see – and they are serious matters of public interests.
I am therefore quite aghast that the minister and the MP apparently do not see the serious issues involved here, and instead seem to suggest that the matter is simply one of whose responsibility it is to run or manage the town council.
The computer system is, presumably, being used by the other PAP town councils presently. If and when any of these town councils should come into the hands of any of the opposition parties, residents’ interests would again be put in jeopardy if and when AIM chooses again to exercise its termination clause.
The question is not one of who terminates the service first – for the termination clause allows AIM and the town council to do so anyway. But being a PAP-owned company, it is hard to fathom that AIM would be or would want to be of service to opposition town councils; or that an opposition town council would want to engage the services of a PAP-owned company.
The question therefore is not about this. Terminating the service to opposition town councils could be taken as a given.
The main question is one of an apparent conflict of interests in awarding the contract for such a service to a company owned by a political party with a vested interest in the running of town councils.
Ms Fu, Mr Puthucheary and Dr Teo Ho Pin surely couldn’t have missed this point.
So, why not address these matters head-on, instead of obfuscating the matter by harping on irrelevant points?
To answer Ms Fu's question which she raised in her note - "Why take aim at AIM?" - the answer is: Isn't it obvious?