I think there are more questions than answers that the PAP and AIM (Action Information Management Pte Ltd) provided to the public
1. Would you sell software that you spent thousands to develop to a $2 company with no track records for leaseback?
Yes, PAP did ask for tender and there is only one bidder, aka AIM the PAP owned company. The question is why only one bidder and how attractive is the tender for commercial operators in the first place? Also even if there is only one bidder, does that mean that PAP TC will choose any ah beng company only because one bidder? Even if the company only has a paid up capital of $2, has been dormant and has no website for the technology company AND have no history or track records? Who any one trusts their software to a company like that? Only PAP will, it seems.
2. Why are taxpayers money used against taxpayers?
This begs the question why is PAP using taxpayer’s money to develop the TCMS (Town Councils Management System) so that they can have a contract that can be used against taxpayers should PAP lose? Is AIM a commercial entity or a political entity? If so, why as a commercial entity would they want to lose existing income from AHTC, even if there is a change of “material changes to the membership”? This simply does not make commercial sense. Unless, this is NOT really a commercial entity but another PAP front.
3. How many staff are working in AIM?
The question now is back to AIM. How many people actually work at AIM? How could AIM have supported the TCMS technically and continued with enhancements to the software with a shell company of no actual working software and support engineers? This is leaving more questions unanswered.
4. Lastly, are the any more such conflicts of interests that PAP having governed so long are not telling us?
This is definitely not the first skeleton in the closet, as more opposition win in the elections, I will expect to see more and more skeletons being revealed.