From: phillip ang
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 9:19 PM
To: PM LEE ; <a title="teo_ho_pin ; SYLVIA LIM
Cc: AMY KHOR ; <a title="bga336 ; bokkoh ; CHARLES CHONG ; <a title="showmao.chen ; cue_liew ; DPM TEO ; <a title="tharman_s ; GAN KIM YONG ; <a title="gerald.giam ; HENG CHEE HOW ; <a title="heng_swee_keat ; INDERJIT ; <a title="s_iswaran ; JANIL PUTHUCHEARY ; <a title="jayakumar89 ; jjauto ; ken_dxb ; KHAW BOON WAN ; <a title="lchertan ; LEE KUAN YEW ; <a title="ltk ; LILY NEO ; <a title="maliki_osman ; MP ZAINAL SAPARI ; <a title="news ; newseditor ; ngys ; nicole.rebecca.seah ; ongqyqy ; PNG ENG HUAT ; <a title="pritam.singh ; RAVI ; <a title="seahkp ; SIM ANN ; <a title="yuanyi ; ST CHINLIAN ; <a title="stnewsdesk ; STANLEY ; <a title="stlocal ; TOC ; <a title="andrew ; yahoo ; <a title="zblocal
Subject: 20121230 Clarification needed for AIM issue
Dear PM Lee
We refer to the recent revelation that Town Councils’ software was sold to a PAP company and subsequently leased back to them. We totally disagree that public property be allowed to be sold to ANY political party.
2 As heartlanders who contribute monthly to our Town Council, we feel shortchanged by Dr Teo Ho Pin’s ‘reply’.
3 Ms Sylvia Lim has hit the nail on the head to say that “Singaporeans have the right to know what justification there was for town councils to relinquish ownership” of a computer software developed with public funds”.
4 Such a system is also able to reap a humongous profit of more than 300 per cent over 5 years. If the deal was not as attractive as made out to be online (high maintenance costs involved, etc), it would be detrimental if facts are not stated.
5 Speculation is detrimental and the whole issue will eventually be blown out of proportion. Engagement means laying bare the facts for all Singaporeans to see. Inconvenient questions require answers, not silence ie
a What was the cost of developing the system?
b Who decided on the sale of the system?
c Why was it sold to a company with a paid-up capital of $2, one which belongs to a political party?
d How much have the ex PAP MPs profited since the system was sold to AIM? (independent party verification needed because no one in their right mind sets up a commercial entity not to make any money)
e Who were the other potential bidders for AIM?
6 We are not members of any political party but are increasingly disillusioned with an opaque government and the manner in which the PAP side steps issues. More questions have been raised with Teo Ho Pin’s ‘reply’. Are there other public assets sold by the government? How much business relationships does the government have with similar companies run by ex PAP MPs? These are questions which require upfront answers.
We would appreciate if PM Lee could clarify this issue to erase any lingering doubts.