Concessions by LTK (Day 3)
Concessions – Day 3 of Low’s Evidence
(1)
Mr Low professes that having “thought through over the
night”, he wants to share the real reason why he and Sylvia Lim wanted to hide
FMSS’ appointment from CPG:
·
Mr Davinder Singh points out he had asked Mr Low this
question “at least 26 times” yesterday, but Mr Low refused to respond.
·
Mr Low now claims that he distrusted CPG because of one
of its employees, Mr Seng Joo How.
·
Mr Singh reminded Mr Low of his own evidence that,
following a Chinese saying, he would get the best person regardless of
relationships.
·
Mr Low eventually admitted that he – acting responsibly
and honestly, and having regard the need to “appoint the best man to the job”
and to appoint a “good, reliable and trustworthy” Deputy Secretary – voted to
appoint Mr Seng as Deputy Secretary.
A: Mr Singh, before we start, can I make a
request for the Judge … to respond to yesterday’s question that you have.
…
Mr Singh: Your Honour, this is impermissible ….
…
Court: But I thought you were very clear
yesterday that there was no real underpinnings to the distrust, it was just a
general discomfort with CPG?
….
A: But there is a particular
distrust which he kept on pressing me and I didn’t answer because I have
concern that, you know, I should not answer them. But, I mean, I struggled over the night. I bet if I don’t clarify
that, your Honour may smell a rat with a suggestion from Mr Singh that we have
something to hide from CPG and it would undermine our case and it could cost
miscarriage of justice so I thought it better for me to explain the
circumstances and to also, you know, let your Honour know … what was my
hesitant yesterday, appeared to be hesitant, at least, that … there’s something
behind my mind but I just did not answer it.
Court: Sorry. Just so I understand what
you are saying, you’re now saying you had a reason that you didn’t want to
disclose it yesterday?
A: There’s something on the
back of my mind, but I suppressed it.
I didn’t say it because of some concern. But
thought through over the night, and I thought I would have to express it or
it will undermine our case and create the expression or the impression that we
have something to hide from CPG. But by virtue of the fact that I couldn’t
explain or offer explanation as to why I agreed with Ms Lim that we both run
the meeting and discuss we want CPG to go out before we.
Mr
Singh: … Your Honour will also
remember that I had asked him the question about the source of the distrust not
once, not twice, not thrice, but on countless occasions. I gave him chance
after chance after chance to tell the court what was the source of the
distrust.
….
Your
Honour, my last point … I asked him to
explain at least 26 times.
…
Court: Mr Singh … I
am going to allow Mr Low to explain.
…
A: Okay, your Honour. It was pertaining to
Mr Seng Joo How. Mr Seng Joo How is one of the key personnel who is managing
Aljunied Town Council, and Mr Seng Joo How was town council secretary in 1991,
when I was elected.
After the election … HTC decided to
terminate the management service. They also decided to terminate the
organisation of the office that Hougang Town Council was there. I was suddenly
faced with the situation of not having an office to operate from and no one to
manage Hougang Town Council.
At that point in time, faced with
that situation, I thought that the only possible source of redress, it was seek
help from the HDB who has a town council secretary. So I went to HDB and I
asked them. So that’s the situation, and the HDB is not prepared to be an
office for me, and they say “If you want to be an office, you need 40 weeks”. …
…
Because of this experience that I
have with Seng Joo How in 1991, being a public servant who is supposed to help,
but he didn’t seem to do so … I can’t expect myself to feel comfortable with
him sitting at the same table, discussing matter important to the town council.
And the reason why I was hesitant
yesterday to go further into, because going into personal matter, and I think
it may not be fair to him because he was not here. I thought if the plaintiff
call him here, CPG, to run him out and manage to run HDB because of all the
time … that would make it easier. But my concern is that because it might
affect Mr [Seng] if the media pick it up and just spin about, you know, what he
is doing, it may … be injustice to him.
But because of the inference that Mr
Singh made, I thought it would be interested to us if I’m so concerned about
this injustice to him, so … I thought through. I thought, ok, I [ ] it out here
today. I didn’t expect Mr Singh to finish his cross examination so fast.
Ct: So really it comes down to a discomfort
with Mr Seng?
A: Yes, besides the general discomfort of
the political environment that we were in and my experience in the past that
CPG is a supporter of the PAP and they are managing PAP town council. And I
thought that was – because he kept on asking me “What’s the source, what’s the
source”?
…
Q: You
would not appoint someone a secretary unless you considered him to be good,
reliable and trustworthy?
A: Yes.
Q: Likewise,
for deputy secretaries?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you. Go to the minutes …
“The Council approved the
appointment of secretary Mr Jeffrey Chua and deputy secretaries Mr Seng Joo How
…
As of June 2011, you considered
Mr Seng Joo How to be good, reliable and trustworthy, correct?
A: Not me.
Q: Was this decision to appoint Mr Jeffrey
Chua and Mr Seng Joo How not an unanimous decision?
A: It is.
Q: Thank you. You already told us that … a
deputy secretary is one who you would consider is good, reliable and would
trust.
Now, if you voted to appoint Mr Seng
Joo How deputy secretary on 9 June 2011, would you agree with me that it
follows from your answer that you considered him good, reliable and
trustworthy? Yes or no?
…
A: I
did not share my concern with my fellow elected MPs. I kept it …
…
Q: Mr Low, I’m going to start again.
You said that you would not
appoint someone a deputy secretary … unless you considered him good, reliable
and trustworthy. You also said that you voted to appoint Mr Seng Joo How deputy
secretary on 9 June 2011.
My question, which I repeat: You
voted to appoint Mr Seng Joo How deputy secretary because you considered him to
be good, reliable and trustworthy, correct?
A: I did not consider that. But I did not
object … because I didn’t … share my concern with my fellow MPs, and I thought
it would not be fair because of my personal experience, and there’s no reasons
for me to question his integrity, because I said earlier that to be fair to him
… I don’t know whether he’s behind all these determinations but he’s a public
officer at that point in time. So at that point in time, I didn’t object. It
doesn’t mean that I voted for or agreed to it. So I just go along with the
general consent to appoint him.
…
Q: The
Chinese saying, remember yesterday … about getting the best … regardless of
relationships?
A: Yes.
Q: So having regard to those duties, that
value system, your evidence today, you voted for the appointment of Mr Seng Joo
How because you considered him to be good, reliable, trustworthy and
appropriate for that position?
…
A: It’s not a “yes or no” question. I gave
him the benefit of doubt …
…
Q: I’m going to try the question now in a
different way.
I’m going to change “support” to
“voted for”. Okay? And my question is this. In light of these matters, having
regard to your own belief that you had to act responsibly and honestly, having
regard to your own belief that you had to appoint the best man to the job,
having regard to your own belief that the deputy secretary had to be good,
reliable and trustworthy, you were a member of the town council who appoint Mr
Seng Joo How as deputy secretary, correct?
…
A: I have explained that I did not raise
my concern with the town councillors and I did not object because I want to
give Mr Seng the benefit of the doubt. And
I don’t think it’s fair for me to object and to share because I don’t have
evidence.
…
Q: Now, listen to my question. In light of all these matters, and having
regard to your own belief that you had to act responsibly and honestly, having
regard to your own belief that you had to appoint the best man to the job,
having regard to your own belief that the deputy secretary had to be good,
reliable and trustworthy, you were a member of the town council, all of whom
appointed Mr Seng Joo How as deputy secretary, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you very much. In this meeting,
there was a discussion of other important matters, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you. So, Mr Low, the evidence that you dreamt up last night
is not just false, but you came to court this morning ready and determined
to lie and to mislead his Honour.
A: That is not true, Mr Singh.
