Concessions by LTK (Day 2)
Concessions (Day 2)
(1) Low conceded Loh/How’s shareholdings in
FMSS were not disclosed, said it was “not a big deal”, but when pressed,
conceded that disclosure was important.
Q: At 4.05pm on 3 August,
Ms Lim said: “We can/should enclose the
ACRA search … Let me arrange”. It wasn’t done, right?
A: Say again.
Q: It wasn’t done,
correct?
A: It wasn’t done, yes.
…
Q: So it would appear
that having initially decided that it should be disclosed, a decision was made
not to?
A: A decision was made?
Q: Not to disclose it.
A: No, I don’t know. You have to ask Ms
Lim whether she – I don’t think so. Why
is that a big deal, to disclose or not to disclose this?
Q: It’s
not a big deal?
A: Yeah.
Q: Do you know that we are all in court
because of this? It’s not a big deal?
A: Not to me it’s a big deal, not a big deal.
Q: Thank you, thank you. Even today it’s
not a big deal according to you? You are sitting there and saying that the
non-disclosure of the shareholding was not a big deal? You are saying that
today?
A: I’m saying that –
Q: Yes or no? Are you saying?
A: I’m
saying at the point in time that to me, this is not a big deal because –
Q: Today, now that you know what the
issues are, is it your evidence that having heard everything it is still not a
big deal? Is that your evidence, sir?
A: Today, no. But at that point in time, I don’t think it’s a big deal.
… I’m not sure today I recognise
it’s a big deal, but the fact is it took all the way up to here, and the
shareholding seems to be an issue, so I cannot say it’s not a big deal.
Q: So
today you recognise it’s an important issue, yes?
A: It appears to be, yes
…
(2) Low decided on hiring of FMSS as
Managing Agent, and staff for FMSS, and payment for them, without consulting other
Town Councillors.
[Note: This was
also done without consulting CPG, the MA at that time.]
…
Q: In this e-mail [dated
28 May 2011, from Low to How], you said “Dear Ms How, AHTC MA should employ all
the existing staff of Hougang Town Council at least for a start. Please read
today’s ST report on PPTC staff employment”.
…
Q: And so two days before the meeting with [CPG], it had already been
decided and therefore communicated to Ms How that AHTC’s managing agent should
employ all the existing staff, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And therefore it could only be FMSS, right?
A: Yes.
…
Q: The decision to get FMSS to hire the
staff and then to fund the payment of the staff was made without consultation with the town council, correct?
… There was no town council meeting
before 28 May right? …
A: No meeting, yes.
…
Q: And you
were giving instructions without consulting and getting the consensus of your town councillors, correct?
A: Yes.
(3) WP’s emails show that WP had decided to
release CPG and appoint FMSS before CPG asked to be released (on 30 May). Mr
Low conceded that the emails suggest that, but he denied that that was his
intention.
Q: Now, let’s focus on
the next sentence:
“The existing
managing agent of Aljunied Town Council, CPG, will report to us until we
release them at such date not later than 1 August”.
….
So, Mr Low, a
sentence which reads “they will report to us until we release them at such date
not later than 1 August” actually means “will report to us until we release
them, provided they want to be released, at such date not later than 1 August”.
Is that what you’re saying? That’s what the sentence meant?
A: The sentence appeared
that way, but always our assumption has been that they will not like to
continue to manage, and they will likely go on 1 August. That’s our assumption.
Q: So when you say the
sentence might appear that way, you
agree with me that this sentence appears to suggest that the decision to
release CPG had already been made, yes?
A: No.
Q: So what do you mean
when you say the sentence might appear that way?
A: Yes, I think you’re right. Okay, they … appear that we
have decided, but the fact is we didn’t.
…
Q: Just back to the
e-mail …:
“Jeffrey Chua
of CPG will continue until we release him. We will appoint our secretary when
our MA is ready to take over”.
…
Would you agree with me that these two
sentences also appear to suggest … that a decision had already been made by
elected members to release CPG and to appoint FMSS?
A: It appears to be, yes.
(4) Low conceded that he and other WP MPs
did not do what a responsible town councillor would have done – to check the
terms of the CPG contract when reviewing the terms of FMSS’ proposal.
This was despite the FMSS proposal
being to “follow closely to the specifications stipulated under the [CPG]
managing agent’s contract of Aljunied Town Council”.
Q: Right. A responsible town council with
responsible town councillors must ask themselves, “Okay, which part of that CPG
contract is now applicable and which part is not applicable”, correct? Very
basic.
A: I thought the contract is what it says,
specification. I –
Q: Answer the question. My question is: Responsible town council members must ask
that basic question, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You didn’t ask that question,
correct?
A: Yes, I didn’t ask
that question.
Q: As
far as you know, none of the elected MPs asked that question, correct? As far
as you know?
A: Yeah,
as far as I know.
(5) TC could
have asked CPG to stay on until a proper tender was called.
Q: And therefore even as of the date of
this meeting, 4 August, if AHTC
wanted more time to call a tender, it
could have asked CPG to stay on for a longer period, yes?
A: I suppose so.
Q: Well as a matter of fact, correct?
A: Yes.
…
Q: … on your own defence, you had the
two-month period between 1 June to 31 July [to call a tender for an MA],
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, if you needed more time, you
could have asked CPG to stay on for a little longer,
yes?
A: I should think so.
(6) Neither Low, nor any of the WP MPs
(including 3 lawyers) considered calling a tender. Despite it being required
under the Rules.
Q: Therefore, it was not
a question of there being no time to do a tender. It was not a question of you
being put in a situation where it would be a rush to call a tender. On your own case … your own fall back plan
would be inconsistent with calling a tender, correct?
A: Yes, you can say that, but it has never been … on my mind to call a
tender in the first place.
…
Q: Can I tell you why it
is difficult to accept what you’re saying? … Someone who has been a chairman of
a Town Council for 20 years… someone who says that you’re familiar with your
duties, it could not have escaped your attention that you needed a tender sir,
it could not.
A: That was a fact that
it didn’t cross my mind that we need a tender.
…
Q: How can it be, and you
must help the court here, that all these
members of Parliament, including an experienced town councillor who’s been
chairman for 20 years, including three lawyers, didn’t even raise this issue of
the need to call a tender, and for that purpose, to ask CPG to hang on until
the tender is done? How? How is it possible?
A: Well, that’s a fact.
(7) Low’s evidence, that “it didn’t cross my
mind that we need a tender” is false (see S/N 6): as early as 13 May, he was
reminded by his supporter to prepare for tender.
A: No.
Q: From
the time you were elected until July, when we’re looking at these emails, no
one spoke to you or communicated with you about tenders, right?
A: Yes.
Q: On
13 May, one Mr Tan, who you describe … as a member of the Workers’ Party, sent
you an e-mail … where he said “… 3. Start employing or ask for tender now”.
Mr
Low, as early as on 13 May 2011, six
days after you were elected, you were reminded by a Workers’ Party member to
prepare yourself for a tender because of what he had heard about CPG.
Therefore, your entire evidence that you
gave today about the tender not having crossed your mind, and no one telling
you about the tender, is regrettably untrue. Do you agree or disagree?
A: Disagree.
Q: And
because … you and your colleagues wanted, at all costs, to avoid a tender?
A: That’s
not true.
Q: You
did not want CPG to learn about FMSS … because if CPG had learned about FMSS,
CPG would have raised a red flag about a breach of the law?
A: That
did not cross my mind.
Q: In
fact, it would appear from the documents that there was a concerted attempt to
hide this plan so that you can avoid a tender, so that nothing can stop you
from engaging FMSS.
A: No,
there’s no such plan.
(8) Calling a tender would have required the
WP to accept any better bid (rather than FMSS). But Mr Low was not prepared to
accept a better bid (cheaper, more experienced), because he wanted to retain
the Hougang staff.
Q: The reason why there
was no tender is that if there is a tender, there was a risk that someone else
might put in a bid.
… in an open
tender, where someone else puts in a bid which is better than FMSS, then you
are duty-bound to consider that better bid, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And, if having regard to all objective criteria,
that better bid has to be accepted in accordance with your duties, then FMSS
wouldn’t get the job, correct?
A: Yes.
…
Q: … So it appears from
your own testimony that even if there
was another tenderer, cheaper, more experienced, with staff that’s more
qualified, you were not going to accept or you would not have accepted that bid
because of the overriding importance of retaining the Hougang staff, correct?
A: Yes.
Comments