AS A taxpayer for the past 34 years and an avid cyclist,
I find it hard to comprehend how the National Parks Board's (NParks) bulk bicycle purchase
was value for money ('Khaw okay with NParks' purchase of $2,200 bikes'; Thursday).
Target price
should have been less than $1,000
The National Parks Board's (NParks) explanation
that because only one vendor had responded,
and therefore Brompton bicycles (the cheaper of the two options offered)
were chosen, is questionable.
4 comments:
Another case for the Accountant General and the CPIB?
Especially, when the Authorized Distributor has written in!
The same thing, i.e. Purchasing Decisions in the hands of one man, as in all other Govt Agencies.
Govt should really overhaul their internal systems where there is money involved, else could easily lead to abuses and/or corruption.
I refuse to believe it is justifiable to pay $2,200 for a foldable bike. My foldable cost $69. That's what happen if the boss is paid $1.2 million a year thus $2,200 seems insignificant. To make things worst, after GE, his salary was cut by 30% to $700k a year thus no motivation to serve. Everything is Money from the point of view of PAP.
Someone said that 前线追踪 today 10:30pm talk about $2200 foldable bikes bought by Nparks.
Post a Comment