Jump to content

Multimillion-Dollar Civil Suits against 3 Workers’ Party MPs


Carbon82
 Share

Recommended Posts

copied from the news.

 

indeed retribution will one day befall those gangs.

 

 

------------------------

 

The defence lawyer also pointed to the fact that the so-called IT firm Action Information Management Pte Ltd (AIM) had terminated its contract with Aljunied town council after WP took over, and refused to let WP continue to use the TCMS software.

 

 

 

WP was forced to scramble to upscale their Hougang computer management system in order to handle the much larger Aljunied GRC.

 

“Despite this, AHTC was subjected to continuing audit from 2012 to 2016,” said the defence lawyer. “During the early part of this period, AHTC was still in the process of upscaling the computer system. And yet, no one, not even KPMG or PwC, mentions this withdrawal of this vital TCMS and its effects (in their audit reports).”

 

“It is (my clients’) case that in all these audit reports the plaintiffs have failed to recognise the predicament that AHTC was in,” he added.

 

It is very unusual that both lawsuits are “based on audit reports and not facts”, the lawyer said. His clients “intend to challenge the accuracy and the correctness of these audit reports”.

 

TCMS software sold off to $2 company owned by PAP before 2011 GE

 

In fact, the TCMS software was originally built for PAP town councils by National Computer Systems (NCS), obviously paid for by residents' conservancy fees.

 

In June 2010, slightly less than a year from 2011 GE, the PAP called an "open tender" to sell away the software. AIM, a $2 company owned by PAP, submitted the sole bid and won the rights to buy over the software for $140,000. It was considered a bargain since PAP town councils probably paid millions to NCS to develop it. The software was finally transferred to AIM in Jan 2011, 4 months before 2011 GE.

 

After AIM bought over the software, it leased the software back to PAP town councils for $785 a month. AIM also engaged back NCS to maintain and further develop the system.

 

What was more incredible was AIM only had two part-time staff. Its three directors were all former PAP MPs: Mr S. Chandra Das, Mr Chew Heng Ching and Mr Lau Ping Sum.

 

At the time after AIM terminated its contract with WP-run Aljunied town council in Aug 2011, WP Chairman Sylvia Lim was visibly angry.

 

"What justification was there for the Town Councils to relinquish ownership (of the systems) and leave the continuity of the Town Council operations at the mercy of a third party (AIM)? Residents all over Singapore have a right to know," she said in a public statement.

 

Noting that PAP MP Teo Ho Pin had admitted that AIM was "fully-owned" by the PAP, she pointed out further that the PAP-managed town councils "had seen it fit to sell away their ownership of the systems, developed with public funds, to a political party, which presumably could act in its own interests when exercising its rights to terminate the contracts".

 

Later Mr Teo came out in public to defend PAP's action saying that the software agreement which allowed AIM to terminate its deal with just a month's notice was deemed "reasonable".

 

He explained the reason for PAP town councils selling and leasing the software back from AIM, which was allowed to terminate the contract with any town council that experiences a "material change in composition".

 

"This (the clause) is reasonable as the contractor has agreed to provide services on the basis of the existing (town council) and town boundaries, and priced this assumption into the tender," he said. "Should this change materially, the contractor could end up providing services to a town council which comprises a much larger area and more residents, but at the same price."

 

He also explained that the sale took place because it was "cumbersome and inefficient" to have 14 individual town councils hold intellectual property rights to the software being used by all of them. He further added that the move to sell resulted in savings of about $8,000 for the town councils.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently a contractor took a hdb prpject at yishun. Tiagong even appeal to mp to take the job also. So hdb awarded them the job.

 

Now the contractor liquidating

 

Can appeal to MP to get exemption from RT or parking fine....

 

but can also appeal to get projects?

Link to post
Share on other sites

something is very wrong with our country system and 70% are still blind to it.

 

These people are truly pathetic.

 

S T O C K H O L M

syndrome

 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Swee lah! Fellow 30%.

Steady! See GCT face I want to puke.

 

NSP then WP.

 

But frankly, I give up on the political scene here in my lifetime already.

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

many businessman plying local market don't want to be openly seen as ally to wp.........because it means they have less business in future knowing how narrow minded pap and their cronies are.

 

That's what happens when one party is dominant for too long. Become too powerful and yet complacent.  

  • Praise 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bus service No 147 was taken out also! I don't know it has been reintroduced or not!

 

No.

 

Only left 142.

Link to post
Share on other sites

singapore is a relatively small market and garmen has connections to a large part of the MA industry.

 

if one were to be openly supportive to the opposition , you be a walking target or a non-preffred customer to the ruling supporters

 

there's a good reason why ONLY after 2015, then potong pasir have their first posb and ntuc outlet

 

 

for your reading pleasure

 

https://www.todayonline.com/ge2015/town-leaves-rustic-label-dust-leaving-some-anxious

 

 

 

I do donate to opposition party on and off, but I don't leave any money trail, just donate a few xxx when I do bump into them

 

attachicon.gif1.1.gif

Talking about this, I feel people association (PA), should not be involved in many high level meetings with different agencies (if they have) and also should not be able to influence the outcome of any commerical project and or use backing power from minister to influence the decision making for opening bank brunches, shopping mall, groceries shop and etc. This is to ensure that no party is above one an other to have a fair and square competition. It also ensure that they will not be able to lobby on their position and influence any outcome that would have or have not been built or setup shops/mall if they are not there in the 1st place.

 

Waiting for that moment to happen. As when that moment happened, it will truly means what it is to be a democratic country. Until then, as we know.. Well..

 

If they want this to continue to happen can, invite to whoever party win the seat to be also able to seat in these meetings and contribute and make conscientious decisions together ( with different party and agencies together , rather then now only PA and different agencies). This will then be a fair and square competition that will be able to benefit everyone to people who stay anywhere in singapore.

Edited by Yewheng
Link to post
Share on other sites

singapore is a relatively small market and garmen has connections to a large part of the MA industry.

 

if one were to be openly supportive to the opposition , you be a walking target or a non-preffred customer to the ruling supporters

 

there's a good reason why ONLY after 2015, then potong pasir have their first posb and ntuc outlet

 

 

for your reading pleasure

 

https://www.todayonline.com/ge2015/town-leaves-rustic-label-dust-leaving-some-anxious

 

 

 

I do donate to opposition party on and off, but I don't leave any money trail, just donate a few xxx when I do bump into them

 

1.1.gif

Well for Hougang SMC, there was a wet market, hawker centre and some rental flats along Hougang Avenue 3. They were “cleared” by the HDB sometime in 2007.

 

In its place is 1 completed bto project , Parc Vera condo and another bto project still under construction .

Edited by No_worries
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.facebook.com/danpsgoh/posts/2028444243884975?__tn__=-R

 

Daniel Goh 吴佩松's Facebook:

 

Heading soon into town for the hearing today. SC Chelva Rajah will be wrapping up the cross-examination of KPMG auditor Owen Hawkes. Rajah ended with a cliffhanger of a nugget yesterday late afternoon. I'd left just before the cliffhanger, and got the nugget from a party colleague who was there:

 

Mr Jeffrey Chua, the CPG managing director who was also Secretary and GM of the PAP-run ATC, apparently had options and rights to over 8,000 shares in the holding company that owned CPG in 2009.

 

Interesting! When I got home later at night, I checked the 2016 KPMG report on improper payments at AHTC, on page 3, there is a paragraph that reads:

 

"The situation of FMSS is unlike that of the Town Council’s previous managing agents. In the former case, those approving payments for the Town Councils were not beneficiaries engaging in a profit-motive transaction with the Town Council. The conflict involving FMSS is entirely different; the appointment of FMSS and FMSI introduced a personal profit motive for the Conflicted Persons, who would be, in effect, approving payments to themselves."

 

So Hawkes didn't know that Mr Chua was a CPG shareholder? That Chua would or could also have had a personal profit motive?

 

How would this knowledge change the direction of the KPMG report, if the conflict involving CPG and the conflict involving FMSS was not entirely different?

 

Would the ATC management controls for CPG/Chua, which AHTC adopted and added the requirement for Chairman or Vice Chairman to sign payments to FMSS, be adequate?

 

 


https://www.facebook.com/danpsgoh/posts/2027924113936988?__tn__=K-R

 

Daniel Goh 吴佩松's Facebook:

 

5. PAST PRACTICE PRINCIPLE

 

There was this interesting exchange between SC Rajah for the Defendants and KPMG auditor Owen Hawkes during the cross-examination yesterday. The KPMG Report is important because it forms the basis for the Plaintiffs’ claims against the WP MPs and town councillors.

 

Rajah questioned Hawkes as to why he determined some contracts for facade repair, re-roofing and repainting works to be improper payments made from AHTC to FMSS. These contracts would normally fall under cyclical works and as project management services that would be charged on top of managing agent fees. Managing agent fees would cover basic services and not project management services.

 

Hawkes determined these contracts to be improper payments because they should fall under basic services. When asked how he determined that, Hawkes said that it was because KPMG sought legal advice and the legal advice was that they should fall under basic services.

 

Rajah asked if Hawkes had considered the view of the WP MPs, which was (1) there was an overlap between basic services and cyclical works, thus the MPs had to exercise some discretion, (2) the MPs turned to the past practices of the PAP-run ATC to help them make the decision that the re-roofing, facade repair would be considered cyclical works under project management services.

 

On (1), Hawkes said he recognised the overlap but the legal advice was that the works should be considered basic services. The MPs’ discretion did not appear relevant.

 

On (2), Hawkes said what happened with ATC was beyond the scope of the KPMG audit, and ATC may have made improper payments too to CPG. So, the MPs’ justification was invalidated by a simple timeframe cut off. It appears the payments were improper by virtue of the legal advice KPMG received (and not quite on the basis of accounting principles?)

 

But weren’t past practices of the PAP-run TC an important guide to what should be done in the present for the WP-run TC?

 

Going back to SC Rajah’s opening statement for the Defendants last Friday, this past practice principle is also at the heart of another point raised in the statement. This point is the potential conflict of interest in having the officer of the managing agent being employed as the Secretary and/or General Manager of the TC. The WP MPs were concerned that FMSS would be in such a situation.

 

So they asked Jeffrey Chua, who was CPG’s Managing Director and also the General Manager and Secretary of the PAP-run ATC. Mr Chua replied that a system of checks was in place in ATC to address the potential conflict of interest. The system comprises:

 

(a) the MA job specifications were drawn up in the contract by independent quantity surveyors;

 

(b) MND required TC to inform it of contracts entered into with the MA through regular quarterly declarations;

 

© the Secretary and General Manager roles were executive in nature and decision-making authority lay with the TC;

 

(d) TC was subjected to annual audits by external auditors.

 

AHTC adopted the same practices to address the potential conflict of interest for FMSS and added another, additional check: requiring all payments to FMSS to be signed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of AHTC.

 

Question is, is this enough to show that the MPs acted in good faith and in the best interests of the residents? If not, what would have been enough?

 

Edited by Weez911
  • Praise 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

I say cut all these circus act and stop wasting taxpayer money.

 

We all know what PAP is up to.

 

All learnt from Master Lee.

  • Praise 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

this hawkes also stupid enough or ingratiator to allow his professional name to be used in this politcal massacre exercise.

 

he is relying on legal opinion from the legal office rather than people on the ground running the show

 

he is completely ignoring standard practices in other pap run town councils?  

 

*facepalm*

Edited by Acemundo
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

something is very wrong with our country system and 70% are still blind to it.

 

These people are truly pathetic.

They are like those brand loyal car owners! As long as it is the ****** brand, it is the best and preferred! :XD:Never mind where it is made, what old version engine is dropped in, whether SOHC or whatever! When they see the brand, they are very happy! :XD:

Edited by Fitvip
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for Hougang SMC, there was a wet market, hawker centre and some rental flats along Hougang Avenue 3. They were “cleared” by the HDB sometime in 2007.

 

In its place is 1 completed bto project , Parc Vera condo and another bto project still under construction .

The centre of activities is very detrimental to them. So, have to clear!

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...