Cross Examination of Pritam Singh and Kenneth Foo
Day 15 – Cross
Examination of Pritam Singh
(1) Pritam agreed there was a conflict of
interest with the appointment of Loh/How. And admitted that their shareholding
interests in FMSS had to be disclosed to all Town Councillors who did not
know.
Pritam also admitted:
(a) Loh/How’s shareholdings were not
declared at the 4 Aug meeting
(b) He did not know how many shares Loh/How
owned in FMSS on 4 Aug
(c) He did not know who else (other than
Loh/How) owned FMSS shares on 4 Aug
[Background: In reality, FMSS was 100%
owned by employees of AHTC.]
Q: Assume that the town
councillors, or not all of them, knew that they were shareholders. That would have been a material thing to
disclose?
A: On that assumption, yes.
…
Q: Leaving aside that, it would have been relevant for the town
councillors, again, on the premise that they did not know, to know that the
managing agent was actually owned substantially by people who were going to be
on this side of the fence, the secretary and the deputy secretary and the
general manager, correct?
A: The general manager
and the secretary, yes.
Q: And the deputy
secretary? Wasn’t she deputy?
A: At that point, yes.
Q: Yes. And because that gives rise to a conflict
of interest?
Ownership on the one
hand and share positions on the other?
A: Yes.
(a) No disclosure of
Loh/How’s shareholdings at 4 Aug meeting
Q: Thank you. Another
matter which would have been relevant, and you’ve heard my questions to Mr Low
and Ms Lim about the shareholding of Mr
Loh and Ms How. There was no
declaration of that either at the … 4 August 2011 or 2 August 2012
[meeting]?
A: Yes,
you are right.
(c) Did not know who
else owned FMSS on 4 Aug
Q: Right. And did you know who else owned the company?
A: No, I did not. At that point, I did not.
(2) Pritam admitted no independent verification
was done before the cheques to the MA (FMSS) were signed. They relied on the MA
to verify, and the payments were going to the MA. There was no independent
verification.
[Background: How and Loh (as FMSS directors) were issuing
the invoices for FMSS to AHTC. How and Loh (as General Manager and Secretary of
the TC) were also the ones who verified the work done on behalf of AHTC.]
Chairman/Vice-Chairman would rely on verification done by
conflicted persons
Q: Yes. And when you get
those cheques, you would have to rely on
the MA having done a proper job in verifying and calculating?
A: That is correct.
No independent verification done
Q: And so because of what
I just described, the interests of the secretary and the deputy secretary and
general manager both to the fact and the amounts that are paid to FMSS, was it ever discussed that there should be
someone independent appointed to oversee this process so that it is not all
done on both sides by the same people, excluding the chairman and vice-chairman
of course?
A: I do not believe so, but precisely for that reason, because we
operated with the chairman or vice-chairman not being related to FMSS as being
that insurance, if I can put it that way.
Chairman/Vice-Chairman
aware that payments made to FMSS were going to How and Loh
Q: Yes. And where invoices come from FMSS, then
whoever is signing the cheques … would have known that whatever is paid to FMSS
clearly would, if there’s a profit on the FMSS side, be to the benefit of the
shareholders, yes?
A: It follows, yes.
Day 15 – Cross Examination of Kenneth Foo
(1) Kenneth
Foo agreed that:
(a) He did not know FMSS had been appointed,
until the 4 Aug TC meeting
(b) He did not think the TC had to approve
the appointment of FMSS – instead, the item was for “information” and “clarification”.
(c) He did not recall anyone asking
questions on the appointment of FMSS, at the 4 Aug TC meeting.
(a) Did not know FMSS was appointed until 4
Aug
Q: … Did anyone tell you
that actually a new managing agent had been engaged? And I’m still on 3 August.
A: No, not that I recall of.
Q: Thank you. Would it be
right that the first time you came to
learn about a new managing agent was on 4 August?
A: Yes,
if I remember correctly.
(b) Tabled at 4 Aug meeting for
“information” and “clarification”
Q: Did you understand
that the town council’s approval was needed for FMSS to start work?
A: No, I don’t think so.
As I refer back to the earlier statement that I made, the authority was already
delegated to Sylvia in June.
Q: Right.
A: So I believe that this is coming to us for our information
to know who had been appointed to manage the town.
Q: So
it was an information item?
A: Yes,
I would think so.
…
A: I
think it’s for information and for clarification, if any.
(c) Nobody asked questions on appointment of
FMSS
Court: The question is whether you remember anyone
else asking questions.
A: To
the best of my memory, I don’t recall.