Concessions by LTK (Day 1)


Concessions by LTK

1)     Low agreed that a responsible town councillor would have checked the agreement before releasing CPG – and conceded that he had not done so.


Q:         So your evidence is that if the managing agent said it wanted out, it was not event the responsible thing … to check whether it is entitled to get out, not even that? Yes or no? Answer my question. Was it the responsible thing to check whether CPG was entitled to get out? Yes or no?

A:         That was not on my mind.

Q:         I’m asking you now. Was it the responsible thing to do?

A:         To do what?

Q:         To check whether they are entitled to get out …

A:         Yes.

Q:         Thank you very much. And you didn’t do that; yes?

A:         Yes, I didn’t do that.


2)     Low conceded that there were two other parties who were interested in providing MA services to AHTC who were more qualified than FMSS, but turned them away instead.

Q:         Isn’t it correct that … you were approached by other parties who were interested in providing management agent services?
A:         I think so.
…
Q:         So therefore they [FMSS] were in no different a position than these other two interested parties?
A:         No, but I know –
Q:         Yes or no.
A:         Okay. Strictly speaking, you compare it at that point in time, yes.
…
Q:         … But instead of allowing them to consider that objection, you rebuffed them? … Rejected?
A.         Okay.
Q:         Correct?
A.             Yes.
Q:         Now, how can that be an act of responsibility when you had people interested who were in no different a position compared to FMSS? In fact it appears that they had actually provided facility management service and property management services.
A:         Yes.
Q:         And yet they were turned away.
A:         Yes. 

3)         Low knew that by incorporating FMSS, instead of hiring Loh/How directly, there would be a profit element.

Q:         By law, her contract of employment would be … transferred … to the new AHTC. You know that right?
A:         Yes.
Q:         So she’s now an employee of AHTC. She’s according to you, a first-rate secretary?
A:         Yes.
…
Q:         Now, would you agree with me that if Ms How had worked for AHTC, she would receive a salary?
            A:         Yes.
            …
Q:         But if you incorporate a company that enters into … a MA contract, you just not only pay their costs, which is the salary that FMSS has to pay its employees, there’s a profit element, right?
A:         Profit element, you mean of the company?
Q:         Yes, of the company.
A:         Yes.

4)         Despite knowing that setting up a company would involve a “profit element”, Low did not check FMSS’s or CPG’s costs structures.

Q:         You didn’t know that by engaging FMSS at CPG’s rates, you are not only covering FMSS’ costs, which includes salary, but a profit element? You didn’t know that?
A:         I did not know. I’m not sure because I don’t know what is the cost structure and I don’t know CPG’s cost structure.
Q:         If that is the case, you were reckless. You didn’t bother to check on the cost structure. You didn’t even bother to check on CPG’s cost structure. You didn’t bother to do a proper assessment, and you merrily allowed FMSS to use CPG’s rates; yes?
A:         We didn’t know this situation.
Q:         Yes or no. Is it not right that you didn’t check?
A:         I didn’t check.

5)         Low admitted FMSS did not have relevant experience or employees in May 2011

Q:         … You did know, did you not, that Ms How and Mr Loh had … as of early May 2011, no experience running a town council of the size of ATC plus Hougang?
            A:         Yes.
Q:         Thank you. In fact, as of 9 May, you would have known that they didn’t have a company to provide such services for such a sizeable town?
            A:         Yes.
Q:         You knew that they didn’t have, as employees of them, persons who could run a town of that size?
A:         Yes, of that size.

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