KEY POINTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN CLOSING


KEY POINTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN CLOSING

1. Starting position:

(a)   Starting position is that all payments made to FMSS / FMSI – S$33.7m – were entirely illegal and improper.

(b)   All of these payments were made under a payment system which has no accountability whatsoever.

2. KPMG’s findings:
(a)   KPMG was severely critical of the entire payment system that TC has put in place.

(b)   KPMG found the system to be “seriously flawed” where “[a]n unacceptably high degree of financial responsibility was relinquished by the Town Councillors to the Conflicted Persons, in a control environment in which meaningful oversight by the Town Councillors was absent”.

3. Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang (Low) acted for collateral purposes:

(a)   Set out to favour How Weng Fang and Loh Thia Khiang (their friends) and let them profit from the TC.

(b)   This is a wholly unacceptable purpose, and is dishonest.

(c)   They did so by appointing Loh and How as Secretary and GM, respectively, of the TC, which allowed them to pay themselves, and also verify all these payments to themselves by themselves.

4. Conflict of interest:

(a)   Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang were aware of the clear conflict, but suppressed it.

(b)   Instead, “what emerges is a very disturbing picture of political opportunism” where the Town Councillors “use[d] the hard earned monies of innocent residents to improve [their] political standing and to score political points”.

5. False and dishonest conduct:

(a)   Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang lied to all other Town Councillors and suppressed the truth:

·       They lied that FMSS was not paid higher rates (compared to CPG).

·       They lied that CPG wanted out, when in truth Lim and Low had already decided, within a few days after being elected, that How’s company would be appointed as MA. 

·       The suppressed the fact that CPG was contractually bound to remain as MA, to avoid calling a tender.

·       To achieve their “twin objectives” of getting FMSS appointed and the tender waived, the Town Councillors deliberately failed to disclose material information, such as How’s and Loh’s ownership of FMSS and the higher rates that FMSS was charging.

(b)   Sylvia Lim lied in the media statement to the public:

·       Sylvia Lim admitted in Court that the media statement that “AHTC did not incur additional MA fees from appointing FMSS” was “not true” and that the other elected members knew the statement was not true but did not correct it.

(c)   Sylvia Lim lied to Parliament:

·       Sylvia Lim lied in Parliament on 12 February 2015 that the 1st MA Contract was “triggered” as CPG asked to be released from its contract with AHTC for business reasons and there was an urgent need to put in place a software system due to the termination of the TCMS.

(d)   Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang lied in Court :

·       The Defendants’ “deplorable litany of lies” was on full display during the trial.

·     In the face of the incontrovertible facts, it was “hugely disappointing that despite so many opportunities to come clean”, the Defendants, instead of doing the honourable thing and accepting that what they did was morally and legally wrong, continued to “remain unremorseful”. 



Popular posts from this blog

FMSS’ PROFITS VS AHTC’S DEFICITS

Image
FMSS’ PROFITS VS AHTC’S DEFICITS FMSS’ How Weng Fan (How) was cross-examined by Mr Davinder Singh (DS) today. For those unfamiliar with FMSS, this was a start-up MA company started by How and her late husband, Danny Loh (Loh), both WP supporters, in May 2011. FMSS was awarded two MA contracts by the WP-controlled AHTC despite lacking experience running a GRC. The first 1-year MA contract with a value of about S$5 million was awarded to FMSS by waiver of tender.   The second 3-year MA contract with a value of about S$16 million was awarded by tender to FMSS, though FMSS was the sole bidder.   These figures exclude separate (and additional) project management fees paid by AHTC to FMSS. During the earlier part of the TC trial, we learnt from the WP MPs that FMSS charged more than CPG, the incumbent MA, even though the FMSS contract was stated to be “ at the prevailing Managing Agent’s fees and fees structure as per the existing Managing Agent contract ” .
Read more

Background on AIM

Background on AIM The WP has been saying all along that they were forced to change their software system because AIM pulled its system, that this was done to hobble the new TC in Aljunied, and this was also why they had to choose FMSS to help them as MA and to develop a new software system to manage the TC. See, for example: ·       AHTC’s 14 Dec 2012 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “After the GE in May 2011, the Town Council was served with a notice that the Town Council’s Computer and Financial Systems will be terminated with effect from 1 August 2011 due to material changes to the membership of the Town Council…. This effectively meant that the AHTC had to develop its own equivalent systems… within a 2 months’ time frame. Given this near impossible task…” ·       AHTC’s 28 Dec 2012 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “AIM had issued notice of termination of the systems, effective 1 August 2011.” ·       AHTC’s 5 Jan 2013 Media R
Read more