5/14/2013

AIM at a terse exchange




The AIM saga finally came to Parliament for a cleansing. And the debate between the two sides strayed from just about the correctness and propriety of the process to personal agenda and motivation. The second part is best summarized by what Boon Wan said, ‘This is self righteous and – pardon me for saying so – arrogant’. I will deal with this later.

The first part of the argument is all about how correct were the procedure and processes of running town councils and the implications arising from the sale of AIM to a $2 company owned by PAP members. The facts are well known to the public. There were suggestions that many more things can be done to improve the current system. The Review Committee also did make recommendations for changes, of course for the better.

The WP are not happy with the existing system and suggested that there were ‘foul play’ akin to fixing the opposition parties or trying to make life difficult for them at the expense of the residents who ended up as collateral to a political bickering which in the words of Boon Wan, are petty.

Boon Wan stood up to defend PAP’s position that all that was done was for the good of the residents, for efficiency and continuity. The residents’ interest is all the PAP was concerned and the system was designed with that in mind. And this is acquitted by the findings of the Review Committee that everything was in order and no one made money out of the deal.

So we have two conflicting positions and some will agree with one and some with the other. Lina Cheam was quoted to disagree that no one made money out of the sale of AIM. But looking at the righteousness of the $2 company, set up to take care of the residents’ interest, making money out of the deal must be the last thing in their mind. They did it as a public service, not to make money.

Who is right or wrong, maybe there is no right or wrong but a matter of perception of who is uglier and who is prettier, is very subjective. The Review Committee had found nothing wrong and the Govt had accepted that finding. So there is nothing wrong officially. But other parties and the masses may have different views and different judgement. Does it matter?

The part about being righteous and arrogant is like someone’s raw nerve being exposed. It hurts, and the exchange was not very pleasant, quite personal I would say, pardon me. There were questions of who is whiter than white, who is more arrogant and who is a patriot. If the debate continues this way, soon they will be wrestling in the longkangs, with gloves removed and nails out scratching.

Is the whole AIM debate about righteousness or arrogance? Is it about fixing or undermining the opponent? Can such an issue be depoliticized? The call for depoliticizing institutions like Town Councils and other public institutions became a sore point. The politicizing of these institutions is, in the eyes of the public unacceptable and undesirable. But would righteous people and arrogant people think otherwise, that politicizing these institutions are part and parcel of politics? Or can these institutions be depoliticized or they should not?

Whatever the recommendations and the eventual character of Town Councils and other public institutions, it is likely to be decided by righteous and arrogant politicians. And the people to judge about who is more righteous and more arrogant must definitely be the people watching the show.

What do you think?

18 comments:

  1. Good morning Mr Redbean,

    KBW admitted TC political in nature.

    They are formed to fix the opposition.

    Knowing that the PAP will win most of the constituencies and joining together on an economy of scale hoping to run the estates better.

    They had proven to be TRUE for the two constituencies that were won by the opposition in nee soon and bukit batok.

    The two MPs only run for a term and was retaken back by the PAP.

    So any opposition MP who won that seat must really worked doubly ir even triple hard to run the estate well and retain his seat.

    Also, the HDB will not give the full cooperation to the opposition wards.

    These running of the estates should be run by the HDB as in the past when the PAP had won all the seats.

    Why now when some are won by the opposition??

    Their main objective to Sabo the opposition MP and made them look bad in order to win back the seats as lost to the opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    PLEASE LAH! KHAW, YOU HAVE NO SHAME?

    Doesn't the PAP have the track record of upseeting Singaporeans by placing opposition wards at the end of the HDB upgrading queue (behind much newer PAP estates)? Didn't the PAP persist in its unfairness despite people and other politicial parties making an issue out of it over the years? The PAP is thick-skinned when it comes to such politicking.

    ALso, Khaw was mischievious in claiming that AHTC could simply have bought similar accounting software "off-the-self" and as such the one-month termination clause by AIM would not disrupt TC operations. If so, Khaw and Teo Ho Pin should simply buy one "off-the-shelf". Why take so bloody long to call for tender to develop a new replacement software. Bollocks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 老狐狸。

      Cheeky old fox
      and
      a holy one some
      more.....#$€£¥¿

      patriot

      Delete
  3. Did anyone ask how much was the cost of developing the 'obsolete' estate management system?

    ReplyDelete
  4. "On the tender, she suggested no software company here could fulfil it other than AIM, because it required all 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."

    What the fish! pian ah pek.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No political party should be allowed to stand for election unless their members have the experience in running a country.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Having this kind of qualification or disqualification, George Bush and Obama would not be qualified to be the President of the US. No wonder their country is in such a bad shape. I bet they don't have a good town council management system.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If a position is indefensible, counter attack the person to divert the attention to that person, make the person defend himself as if he is wronged or flawed. hehehhhheh.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wonder who is the arrogant one?

    Pardon my hanyu pinyin, but this is a classic case of "er ren sian kow chuang"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi rb,

    There's no conflict of interest.
    There's no loss of public funds.
    There's no profiteering here.
    There's no corruption of any kind.
    There's no breach of duty of care.
    There's nothing here.
    There's only AIM.

    In short, there's no KKK.

    You have to move on and quickly focus on the next case. Not the Todd inquest. The big one that starts tomorrow, that would stretch till 2014. You must quickly forget this AIM thingy and see how real financial crime is prosecuted.

    faber

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sylvia Lim must be stern with Khaw and don't let him off lightly. Cane him if needed to.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Whatever they may say in Parliamnt, the whole episode still stinks to high heaven in the coffeeshops, cyberspace, workplaces and on the streets.

    It is no use for them trying to clean themselves with all kinds of reasoning and justifications. What is important is how do the public perceive the whole episode and what they will do come GE2016.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MP Sylvia Lim (in her subsequent speech) kind of dropped the bombshell when she said “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?

    Wah lan, $23.8m! How much they sold it? And now with inflation, the new system is going to be developed at what, $16.8m! So cheap!

    ReplyDelete
  13. People must learn from this AIM episode that separating the country up into different GRC is harmful to the country and people welfare and costs a lot of tax payer money which is a breach of the constitution law. People must learn to stop voting for a party that put up the GRC system.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Khaw breach this - Section 4a Oath for due execution of Office of Minister or Parliamentary Secretary
    "I, ..., being chosen and appointed Minister / Parliamentary Secretary of Singapore, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that --
    (a) I will, to the best of my judgment at all times when so required, freely give my counsel and advice to the President (or any person lawfully exercising the functions of that office) for the good management of the public affairs of Singapore;

    ReplyDelete
  15. You see, nothing is ever wrong with what the PAP does. Let us keep in mind what we should do in GE2013.

    With power or money, anything goes without accountability. I am sure nothing will also stick eventually on the people involved in City Harvest Church. Too many powerful people behind the scene, just like AIM case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sorry, should read as GE2016.

    Anon 10.16

    ReplyDelete
  17. There is no right or wrong, its all in perspective.

    This is the way it was intended for - maximum disruption to civic life with every political change.

    Its time to conduct a real study into the management of estates using political parties.

    Perhaps the political parties can have some representation in a committee, but the everyday function should remain vested with a non political civil body

    ReplyDelete