From: phillip ang
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 6:05 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 ; MP 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: 20130517 MND sidesteps AIM issue, more distractions introduced
Dear PM Lee
The Ministerial Statement on town councils has raised more questions than the MND review.
A transaction such as AIM’s is the equivalent of a managing agent of several condos selling an asset belonging to all the condo owners. Any meaningful review cannot be conducted by the directors (MND) of the condo managing agent. In reality, the discovery of an AIM-like transaction has a possible outcome where the condo owners would have:
– immediately sacked the managing agent.
– taken legal action.
Appointing the MND to conduct the review made no sense to members of the public. It still doesn’t.
In the minds of many Singaporeans, the issue of AIM has simply been deflected. It is disingenuous of the Chairman of TCs, Dr Teo Ho Pin, to introduce irrelevance into the AIM issue i.e. comparison of TC’s managing agent’s rate which is subjective, WP’s appointment of its supporters as the MA etc. (“Still no answers on dealings with agent”, ST. 17 May)
An apple to apple comparison would be an incident where the WP has sold its TC property to an affiliated private entity. This has not been shown. The MND is piling confusion onto a simple issue.
As regard the subjective (level of service) MA rate, Teo Ho Pin seems to have issues with Maths. MP Sylvia Lim has explained the calculation. Perhaps a better explanation would convince Dr Teo @ http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/05/17/uncle-leong-lets-get-back-to-the-main-issue-aim-deal/.
If the MA rate is of any significance to residents, WP’s fate will be decided by them.
By highlighting WP’s appointment of its supporters as the MA, the PAP is effectively inviting the WP to question its similar practices. The “serious questions” raised by Teo Ho Pin is best answered by the CPIB, which MP Sylvia Lim has already offered “full cooperation”. Teo Ho Pin’s ”serious questions”, if investigations revealed wrongdoing, could then be raised and debated at the next Parliament sitting.
Heartlanders, like myself and my friends, would like to see a closure to the AIM issue. Nothing less.
If Teo Ho Pin still does not understand what the questions on the AIM issue are, they can be found in this article by Andrew Loh @ http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/pap-aim-big-fat-white-elephant-room-065935476.html.
Minister Khaw has also taken a cheap shot at MP Sylvia Lim in Parliament by saying “..Please, don’t behave as if you are the only patriot in this House.”, which to many is a conduct unbefitting a Minister. As such, an apology is in order and PM Lee should advice all MPs and ministers to refrain from ‘getting personal’ in Parliament.
There has yet to be any closure on the issue of the AIM transaction.
If a similar transaction had taken place in the private sector (MA selling residents’ property to its affiliated company), there would have been an outcry followed by the immediate termination of the MA and legal actions taken.
Heartlanders would like to see a closure to this issue without further distractions by the MND and Dr Teo Ho Pin. Any review has to be conducted by an impartial committee.
Please note I am not a member of any political party.