Workers’ Party: AIM terminated software contract, Singapore News & Top Stories

The Workers’ Party (WP) fired the final salute in the ongoing war of words over the termination of the Aljunied-Hougang city council computer system and the contract between the city councils led by the People’s Action Party and the company appointed to manage their computer systems.

In a statement released on Saturday, WP Chair Sylvia Lim also addressed the statement by IT company Action Information Management (Aim) that Aljunied-Hougang City Council (AHTC) wanted to develop its own management system. computerized after the WP took control of the council following the general elections of May 2011.

She said: “To remove any doubt as to whether Aim had in fact terminated the software contract with AHTC, a copy of the termination notice is attached for public review.”

The letter, dated June 22, 2011, is signed by a director of Aim. He said the company would stop allowing the town hall the use of intellectual property and system functions related to the existing software, “due to major changes in the composition of the town hall.” The software would be terminated on August 1, 2011, he added.

Last month, Aim revealed that she sent such a letter on June 22. But she also said the letter was in response to a June 10 letter from AHTC, in which AHTC said it was developing its own computer system and seeking an extension of the current system until its system. be ready. Aim then published an exchange of letters, which showed that this letter – 12 days earlier than the termination letter published by WP – was from the acting secretary of the city council and thanked Aim for his help. Ms. Lim’s statement yesterday made no reference to this June 10 letter from her city council.

Ms Lim, who is the president of the AHTC, also criticized Dr Teo Ho Pin’s explanation earlier this week as to why the 14 city councils run by the PAP under her responsibility sold the rights to their system. IT to Aim, a company owned by PAP, claiming it still has not answered the question of whether the public interest had been served in the transaction.

Comments are closed.