By: Leong Sze Hian
I refer to the article “Japanese company wins PAP town councils’ IT contract” (Straits Times, Apr 3).
New contract has “boundary change” clause?
It says that the contract includes a clause for boundary changes. What exactly is this clause and what does it mean?
“Don’t care a hoot” about AIM review?
Given the public outcry on the termination of the software when the town council changed, and the fact that the review has yet to be completed, is it in a way, jumping the gun and ignoring perhaps a fundamental and controversial issue which the review is expected to address?
How much cost savings?
As to the new software giving cost savings in the maintenance of the town council, can we have more details as to how the savings are derived?
How much are the savings expected to be?
Opposition town council’s software cost?
In the interest of evaluating the prudential use of residents’ funds, how much did the opposition town councils pay for their software?
Difference between “software”?
Are there significant differences in the functionality of the different town councils’ software?
Software is “obsolete”?
When did the town councils realise that their existing software is obsolete and thus require a new software to be developed? Can we be given the timeline of the actions that were taken?
“$64,000” question remains unanswered?
Finally, the “$64,000” question that many people have been asking – how much was the cost of the existing software system – remain unanswered?
How can there be transparency and accountability when such a simple question in the public interest continues to be greeted with silence?