Cross-Examination of Kenneth Foo - Continuation
Day 16 – Cross-Examination of Kenneth Foo
(1) Kenneth Foo admitted that:
(a) Improper arrangements were entered into
without proper disclosures to the Town Council.
(b) Payments were made to FMSS without
knowledge of the Town Councillors, including himself.
(c) He was not invited to meetings of the
tender evaluation committee despite being a member.
(d) He agrees that looking back, he would
have done things differently.
(e) TC could have considered direct
management for AHTC, but that was not done.
[Background: Kenneth Foo agreed Hougang Town Council was directly
managed with How leading it. Direct
management would have helped saved AHTC money as it would not have to pay FMSS
an additional profit element.]
(f) It was possible to conduct a tender for
the 1st MA contract and 1st EMSU contract, and this
should have been done for Aljunied residents’ benefit.
(g) Giving a contract to a good friend would
affect the market’s confidence.
(a) Improper Payment to FMSS entered into without proper
disclosures to Town Council
Q: … My question was: the transitional arrangement would have
been improper because it had not been tabled before the town council or
approved by it, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You agree with me that
the chairman. the vice-chairman and the
elected members had a duty to disclose that transitional arrangement before it
was entered into, correct?
A: Yes.
[Background: The “transitional
arrangement” refers to the period of time when FMSS continued as MA and EMSU
provider, after the 1st MA and EMSU contracts had expired, but
before the 2nd MA and EMSU contracts were approved.]
(b) Payment to FMSS made without knowledge of all Town
Councillors (including himself)
Q: … Did you know at the 4 August meeting that payments had already been
made to FMSS before 4 August?
A: Not in the report.
Q: Yes. But did you know,
whether from the report or otherwise?
A: No, I don’t recall.
Q: Thank you. Do you
agree with me that if payments had
already been made, that is something that should have been disclosed to the
meeting on 4 August?
A: It should have been reported.
Q: In fact, it was the duty of the chairman, vice-chairman and the
elected members to disclose it, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And that was not done, correct?
A: Yes.
(c) Not
invited to tender evaluation committee even though he was a member
Q: … Earlier you said you
were not a member of the tender committee, so can I just get some clarification
from you?
…
Q: You were a member?
A: On 14 June [2012], I was.
…
Q: Right. So did you
participate in the meetings of 21 June and 21 July?
A: No.
…
Q: So are you saying that
because of a mistake, they didn’t invite
you for the two meetings? Is that right?
A: I
believe so.
(d) Would
have done things differently
Q: Right. But now come
back to my question. We’re now here today, on 29 October, looking back. Now,
when you look back, do you agree with me that if you could do it all again, you
would have done it differently?
A: I would say that I would have done it to make it better.
…
Q: Yes, in other words, done it
differently, right?
…
A: Yes.
(e) Direct management could have been considered for AHTC, but
this was not done
Q: Thank you. So in Hougang, you had direct management
with Ms How at the lead, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And therefore one option that AHTC could adopt was direct
management with Ms How again leading it, correct?
A: Could be.
Q: Yes. Did you suggest
that?
A: No.
(f) Possible to conduct, and should have conducted, tender for 1st
MA and EMSU contracts for residents’ benefit
Q: And you would have
believed, as of 9 June, that there would
have been enough time to call a tender for the provision of EMSU services for
the period 1 Oct 2011 and further?
A: Yes.
…
Q: So having regard to
it, it would have been in the interests
of the residents of AHTC, or Aljunied, to do a tender to get the best value for
money, correct?
A: Yes.
…
Q: As far as the MA contract was concerned, we know that
CPG … said that they wanted to be released on 30 May, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And they wanted to be
released by 1 August, right?
A: Yes.
Q: Just looking at the
time, there was enough time to do a
tender, correct?
A: Yes. In our defence, we said it is two months.
…
Q: … And even if FMSS had
been set up to provide managing agent services, as a consumer, it is always better to have FMSS bid with others,
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Because, that way, you have more leverage
or negotiating power, correct?
A: Yes.
(g) Giving a contract to a good friend would affect the market’s
confidence.
Q: Mr Foo, sorry, maybe I
didn’t give [a] full example. The
contract is given to a best friend who had just incorporated a company a few
days ago. Okay?
A: Okay.
Q: The market can find it out, right?
A: Yes.
Q: And that will affect the market’s confidence in the procurement
practices of this company, correct?
A: Yes.
Cross-Examination of Chua Zhi Hon
(1) Chua
Zhi Hon admitted that:
(a) FMSS was in complete control in
June/July 2012 and could have obtained whatever rates it was asking for.
(b) The MPs should not have ruled out a
tender.
(c) it would have been proper and honest for
the MPs to consider asking CPG to stay on longer.
(a) FMSS
in complete control in June/July 2012
Q: …
Given what you
know today, you would agree with me that in June and July 2012, FMSS was in complete control of the
negotiations?
A: Based on the
information that was told to date, I can
agree with that, but … I don’t think they have full control in the sense
that we still maybe could go to direct management, I guess.
…
Q: If FMSS had said on 21
July, “We are not interested in negotiating, take it or leave it” and if AHTC
had said “Leave it, go away”, the next day someone is stuck in the lift, there
is no one engaged to rescue that person, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: … So I come back to my question.
Given what you know today, FMSS knew or
would have known that it would get away with whatever rates it was asking,
because if it walked, AHTC and its residents would have been in trouble.
A: I
guess so.
(b)/(c) MPs
should not have ruled out a tender, and should have asked CPG to stay on longer
Q: Thank you. It would
also have been proper and honest for the
elected MPs to consider whether they can ask CPG to stay on for a longer time
to enable the tenders to be done, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: In circumstances where
the elected MPs were prepared for CPG to continue their services on project
management and EMSU to beyond 1 August, the elected MPs should have asked CPG
to continue their MA services for a longer period to enable the tender to be
done?
A: I’m not sure whether I
can agree to that, because I believe that there are also a lot of other factors
that come into play.
…
Q: Knowing what you know
today, do you agree with me that the
elected members of Parliament could and should have invited a tender?
A: They could have
invited a tender, yes.
Q: In fact, they should have? If they could have
then, under the rules, they should have, correct?
A: I can agree, yes.
Comments
Post a Comment