Concessions of SL
(1) Sylvia admits to breaching the Town
Council Financial Rules, by giving contract to FMSS without a tender.
Q: Let's take ourselves
back in time. We are now on the 13th and
14th, and we're having a chat. You have
already decided no tender, and there is nothing on the record about waiver;
right?
A: At this point, no.
Q: Yeah.
So that's a breach; right? You
know the rules, Ms. -
A: I have to agree, technically, yes.
Q: Technically? It's a breach; right?
A: As I said, the waiver was discussed -
Q. It's
a breach of the rules; correct? Ms
Lim, let's move on.
…
A: At this point, yes.
…
A: On
this date, I agree, yes.
…
Q: … If anyone knew about the rules, they
would know it was a breach; correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Who else, among the elected MPs, knew
about this?
A: I cannot recall
distinctly, but I believe Mr Low knew,
and I believe the other MPs also knew.
Q: So Mr
Pritam Singh, Mr Yaw, Mr Faisal knew? And Mr Chen. Sorry.
A: I can't recall
distinctly, but I believe that they knew. Exactly when, I can't remember.
Q: Right. I'm not asking you about the date, but they would have known at that time that
this had happened; right?
A: Around that time, yes.
(2) Sylvia Lim conceded that she owed duties to
provide frank disclosure so that considered and informed decisions could be
made.
However,
she admitted that they did not disclose, at the June 2011 town council meeting,
that:
·
FMSS had
been asked to be incorporated
·
With
CPG’s release, FMSS would be appointed without a tender
·
FMSS was
owned by Loh & How.
Duties owed to provide frank disclosure
Q: And as chairman of the
town council, the honest and honourable thing for you to have done was to share whatever was in your possession
with all the other town councillors so that considered and informed decisions
could be made on matters relating to the managing agent, to the question of
the tender, and to the question of the waiver; correct?
A: As much as possible, yes.
…
Q: … Whatever
was in your possession should be shared?
A: As
a matter of principle, I agree.
…
Q: And, indeed, sharing,
so that everybody can make an informed and considered decision, would be
consistent with your duties of good faith?
A: Agree.
Q: It would not be consistent with your duties of good faith or honesty to
hold back relevant information from some town council members?
A: Yes,
of course.
Q: In
fact, if you did that, you would breach your
duties?
A: If
I withheld, yes.
Did not disclose relevant information pertaining to
FMSS
Q: … I don't see you
saying to the rest of the town council that FMSS have been asked to be incorporated.
A: This is not -- it's not discussed at this meeting.
Q: I don't see you saying
that with CPG's release, there will not
be a tender and FMSS will be appointed.
A: It
was not discussed.
Q: I don't see you saying
that FMSS would be owned initially by Danny Loh, but later by Ms How as well.
A: I don't think I knew
the exact sequence of how the ownership would develop in any case, Mr Singh.
Q: But
you knew that it was going to be owned by Mr Loh and Ms How; yes?
A: Yes, I believe that I knew that.
Q: But
that was not said at this meeting; right?
…
A: It
was not said at the meeting, correct.
(3) Sylvia agrees that she was under a duty to,
and should have disclosed the FMSS proposal to the other Town
Councillors – but did not.
Q: … But before that
meeting, why wasn't it circulated to the other members, excluding CPG?
A: I mean, Mr Singh, I
mean, on hindsight, I can agree that I
could have done it. But as I
mentioned to you before, the elected councillors wanted to discuss the matter
first. So as things turned out, we went
to the town council meeting on 9 June, I was delegated the authority, so I just
proceeded from there.
Q: It was not only a matter
of you could have done it. You should
have done it; right? On hindsight, you
should have done it; correct?
…
Q: Now answer my
question. Having said that you should
have circulated it, you accept that you were under a duty to do so?
A: I think what I meant
here was that, yes, I can agree in
general that I should have done it after the elected councillors have seen it. …
Q: My question, again,
is: Having agreed that you should have
circulated it, you accept that you were under a duty to do so?
…
A: I
was under a duty to keep councillors informed, yes, but -
Q: Thank you very much.
A: -- they delegated the authority to me.
(4) SL
conceded that:
·
AHTC had
sufficient time to call a tender (which she knew was needed) to appoint a
managing agent
AHTC
could require CPG to stay on as MA
Q: And you would have seen, therefore,
that CPG had no right to walk out;
correct?
A: Correct.
Q: And that there was
still two years to run, actually two years and a bit to run on that contract?
A: Until July 2013.
…
Q: Yes. And therefore you were aware that from a
contractual point of view, if you needed CPG to stay on longer, you could have
insisted on it?
A: Legally, we had some rights.
Q: That's not my
question. You had the right, not "some rights", to ask them to stay on
longer?
A: Yes.
(5) SL
conceded that despite this, she had decided to waive a tender and appoint FMSS:
·
By 9
May, it was decided that AHTC would appoint a MA, that was likely to include Ms
How.
·
By 13
May, they had acted on the basis that WP would take over management of AHTC
from CPG
·
She had
done all of this, without checking the CPG contract, or speaking with CPG
By 9
May, it was decided that AHTC would appoint a MA, which was likely to include
Ms How
Q: … According to Mr Low,
by 9 May it had been decided that you
would go down the route of a managing agent.
A: Yes.
Q: Right?
A: Yes.
…
Q: So just let's focus on
9 May, and you've just very helpfully said that, right, you're going to go for
a managing agent, but you then said something surprising; that tenders can be
waived. So is it your suggestion, therefore, that on 9 May the question of
waiver was contemplated?
A: I
certainly had it in my mind.
Sylvia Lim
did the above without checking the CPG contract or speaking with CPG
Q: By that time, 30 May, had you,
yourself, looked at the CPG contract?
A: No.
Q: Had you asked someone to look at it to
brief you on it?
A: Not that I recall.
…
A: I believe it's "no", yes.
…
Q: Ms Lim, that can't be
true, because if you didn't know what would happen with CPG, did you ask to see
Jeffrey Chua to ask him about his intentions?
A: Mr
Singh, this was 9 May, so I did not ask to see Jeffrey.
Q: On the 10 May, on 11 May, on 12 May, did you ask to see Jeffrey? Did you go down to the town council,
introduce yourself, and say, "I'd like to have a chat with you because we
have some concerns"?
…
A: No,
I didn't.
Q: After The Straits
Times article of the 10th appeared, did you go down and say, "Mr Chua, is this right? Are you withdrawing? Is it your case that you wish to be
released?" Did you do that?
A: I didn't.
(6) Sylvia Lim did not negotiate FMSS’ rates
even though FMSS was a newcomer without relevant experience, seeking to charge
the same rates as the existing, more experienced MA.
When put
to her that no reasonable person would spend his own money in this manner,
Sylvia Lim said “this is just for the transition of one year”.
Q: Ms Lim, you seem to be a bit casual with other people's money.
A: I don't agree.
Q: It seems to me strange
that here is a proposal by someone who's never done management agent services
for a town of this size saying that, "I will do it for the same price as
the existing provider," who is many more times experienced. You don't even know what FMSS's costs will
be. You don't know whether the people
they hire will be sufficient or have experience, and you are happy to pay the
same price?
A: Mr Singh, at this
point in time, I mean, the information was incomplete, so we had to get things
moving in order to avoid a disruption of services. So to answer at that point in time, it is
reasonable for this company – we know that they have to employ more staff, FMSS,
but it is reasonable for them to adopt the rates of CPG at that time because
the TC would have been spending that amount of money in any case. And of course we understand that FMSS would
have to employ staff who have the ability to do the job, and that's the understanding.
Q: Because it was the residents' money, not coming out of your pocket, it
didn't matter to you, to apply your mind to negotiate for a better deal?
A: I disagree, Mr Singh.
Q: You were content,
because it served your political purpose of getting rid of CPG and having your
own people in, to use residents' monies to achieve those political purposes?
A: I don't agree with the way you put it.
Q: I suggest to you that no reasonable person, having to pay his own
money or money from his own pocket, would do anything like this.
A: Mr Singh, this is just for the
transition of one year, the critical transition period -
Q: Thank you.
A: -- where we could not afford any
disruption to the residents.
Q: Thank you. Thank you for sharing with us that you
considered that, never mind, it's only
for one year. …
(7) Sylvia
claimed that she had to appoint FMSS because CPG could not be trusted.
However,
she admitted that AHTC had allowed CPG to continue providing EMSU services –
which she agreed was a “critical service” – because they considered CPG to be
“reliable”.
AHTC kept CPG as provider of EMSU services
Q: Well, contractually,
yes, for EMSU. You were content for the
contract to run its course to the very end; correct?
A: September 2011, which was three months,
I mean, at that time.
Q: It's four months.
…
Q: Right. And EMSU, as I understand it, is a very
critical service. Right? By definition, it's emergency; right?
A: Essential,
I think.
Q: Yes, essential. Mr
Low, I think, very graphically said that he didn't want to have sleepless
nights thinking that people might be stuck in the lifts. Right?
A: That's one of the areas of coverage of
EMSU, yes.
Q: So you needed someone reliable, trustworthy and very good to be on
their toes to look after this service; yes?
A: It
is a critical service, I agree.
…
Q: My question is: You needed someone reliable, trustworthy and
very good to be on their toes to look after this service; yes?
A: Reliable,
yes. …
…
Q: Ms Lim, don't rush. EMSU, you've agreed, is essential; right?
A: Agree.
Q: Mr Low said it keeps him up nights;
right?
A: It did.
Q: So you needed someone
who you believe could be relied on and trusted to look after the residents in
that situation which might arise; correct?
A: Agree.
Q And in this case, it was CPG; yes?
…
A: Yes. For EMSU, yes.
(8) Mr Singh charges that Ms Lim did not
disclose the FMSS proposal to other AHTC town councillors was because it was a
“dodgy deal: no tender, no basis to waive, passing the profit to a new company,
helping Workers’ Party supporters, all with residents’ monies”.
Q: … And then you say,
"Oh, but it was superseded because they delegated the authority to
me." But when they delegated that
authority to you, did they know about these slides?
A: They may not have known.
Q: When they delegated this authority to
you, did they know about this proposal?
A: The appointed councillors?
Q: Yes.
A: They may not have known.
Q: They did not know, Ms Lim.
A: All right. I can accept that.
Q: So you got a
delegation of authority on the basis of concealed matters. You got them to delegate authority to you in
relation to a proposal without coming clean to them on that proposal.
…
Q: Ms
Lim … You did a dirty on your own town councillors.
A: I don't agree, Mr Singh. I disagree totally.
Q: In fact, you and the elected members, on 9 June, decided to withhold
material information, on that basis got them to give you authority, which you
then used for the undisclosed purpose.
A. I disagree.
Q: If
there was nothing wrong with the transaction, you would not have done that.
A: I disagree.
Q: The reason you and the elected members did that is you were all aware
that this was a dodgy deal; no tender, no basis to waive, passing the profit to
a new company, helping Workers' Party supporters, all with the residents'
monies.
A: I reject that entirely.
Q: The
documents, fortunately, Ms Lim, speak for themselves.
(9) Sylvia Lim refused to answer Mr Singh’s
question as to whether she had disclosed all relevant information to the town
councillors, despite eight attempts from Mr Singh.
As Mr
Singh observed: “If you were an honest person, you would answer straight away”
Q: … Is it your evidence that
at all the town council meetings that were held in relation to the contracts
that this case is concerned about - … all of the circumstances leading up to these
contracts were, where relevant, fully
disclosed by you?
Ms Lim, it's a very simple question.
A: No, it's not, because
from what I know from your question, you say is it my evidence that for all the
contracts that this case is concerned about, which I would appreciate if you
could identify which ones, and you say the circumstances leading were relevant
and fully disclosed by me, so I think it would be helpful if you could ask me
for the specific contracts and then I can answer that specifically.
Q: Did you fully disclose all relevant matters concerning the tender
and the waiver of the tender of the first MA contract?
…
A: What I disclosed was in the report,
yes.
Q: You see, Ms Lim, you
know what I'm asking you, and you're playing for time to get more time to think
of an answer. If you were an honest person, you would answer straight away. I'm giving you time to think now.
A: Okay.
Q: Did you, in connection
with the first MA contract, disclose all
relevant matters; yes or no?
A: I believe I disclosed the essential
matters that would be relevant to the decision.
Q: What is the answer to
my question? Did you disclose all relevant matters relating to the first MA
contract; yes or no?
A: I didn't withhold anything.
Q: For the fifth
time: Did you disclose all relevant matters relating to the first MA contract? Why are you having such trouble with this
simple question?
A: Because, I'm sorry, I
am anticipating what you're asking. And
the fact is that we have already said it many times that the councillors were
aware of the circumstances of the setup of FMSS, and therefore the relevant
matters have been disclosed.
Q: So
is the answer to my question "yes"?
A: I disclosed what I felt was necessary
for the meeting.
Q: Again, did you disclose all relevant matters relating to the first MA
contract?
A: We disclosed the necessity to appoint a
managing agent in the circumstances.
Q: I didn't ask you what
you disclosed. It will do you a lot of
good to answer the question.
Did you disclose all relevant
matters relating to the first MA contract?
A: We disclosed what we thought was relevant
--- and needed, yeah.
