5 points - Day 8




Comments

New comments are not allowed.

Popular posts from this blog

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 appoin
Read more

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

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 actua
Read more