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 actually owned substantially by people who were going to be on this side of the fence, the secretary and the deputy secretary and the general manager, correct?
A:         The general manager and the secretary, yes.
Q:         And the deputy secretary? Wasn’t she deputy?
A:         At that point, yes.
Q:         Yes. And because that gives rise to a conflict of interest?
            Ownership on the one hand and share positions on the other?
A:         Yes.

(a)        No disclosure of Loh/How’s shareholdings at 4 Aug meeting
Q:         Thank you. Another matter which would have been relevant, and you’ve heard my questions to Mr Low and Ms Lim about the shareholding of Mr Loh and Ms How. There was no declaration of that either at the … 4 August 2011 or 2 August 2012 [meeting]?
            A:         Yes, you are right.

(c)        Did not know who else owned FMSS on 4 Aug
Q:         Right. And did you know who else owned the company?
A:         No, I did not. At that point, I did not.
(2)        Pritam admitted no independent verification was done before the cheques to the MA (FMSS) were signed. They relied on the MA to verify, and the payments were going to the MA. There was no independent verification.
[Background:  How and Loh (as FMSS directors) were issuing the invoices for FMSS to AHTC. How and Loh (as General Manager and Secretary of the TC) were also the ones who verified the work done on behalf of AHTC.]
Chairman/Vice-Chairman would rely on verification done by conflicted persons
Q:         Yes. And when you get those cheques, you would have to rely on the MA having done a proper job in verifying and calculating?
A:         That is correct.

No independent verification done
Q:         And so because of what I just described, the interests of the secretary and the deputy secretary and general manager both to the fact and the amounts that are paid to FMSS, was it ever discussed that there should be someone independent appointed to oversee this process so that it is not all done on both sides by the same people, excluding the chairman and vice-chairman of course?
A:         I do not believe so, but precisely for that reason, because we operated with the chairman or vice-chairman not being related to FMSS as being that insurance, if I can put it that way.

Chairman/Vice-Chairman aware that payments made to FMSS were going to How and Loh
Q:         Yes. And where invoices come from FMSS, then whoever is signing the cheques … would have known that whatever is paid to FMSS clearly would, if there’s a profit on the FMSS side, be to the benefit of the shareholders, yes?
A:         It follows, yes.




Day 15 – Cross Examination of Kenneth Foo
(1)        Kenneth Foo agreed that:
(a)        He did not know FMSS had been appointed, until the 4 Aug TC meeting
(b)        He did not think the TC had to approve the appointment of FMSS – instead, the item was for “information” and “clarification”.
(c)        He did not recall anyone asking questions on the appointment of FMSS, at the 4 Aug TC meeting.
            (a)        Did not know FMSS was appointed until 4 Aug
Q:         … Did anyone tell you that actually a new managing agent had been engaged? And I’m still on 3 August.
A:         No, not that I recall of.
Q:         Thank you. Would it be right that the first time you came to learn about a new managing agent was on 4 August?
A:         Yes, if I remember correctly.

(b)        Tabled at 4 Aug meeting for “information” and “clarification”
Q:         Did you understand that the town council’s approval was needed for FMSS to start work?
A:         No, I don’t think so. As I refer back to the earlier statement that I made, the authority was already delegated to Sylvia in June.
Q:         Right.
A:         So I believe that this is coming to us for our information to know who had been appointed to manage the town.
Q:        So it was an information item?
A:         Yes, I would think so.
…
A:         I think it’s for information and for clarification, if any.

(c)        Nobody asked questions on appointment of FMSS
            Court:   The question is whether you remember anyone else asking questions.
            A:         To the best of my memory, I don’t recall.

           

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

Background on AIM

Background on AIM The WP has been saying all along that they were forced to change their software system because AIM pulled its system, that this was done to hobble the new TC in Aljunied, and this was also why they had to choose FMSS to help them as MA and to develop a new software system to manage the TC. See, for example: ·       AHTC’s 14 Dec 2012 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “After the GE in May 2011, the Town Council was served with a notice that the Town Council’s Computer and Financial Systems will be terminated with effect from 1 August 2011 due to material changes to the membership of the Town Council…. This effectively meant that the AHTC had to develop its own equivalent systems… within a 2 months’ time frame. Given this near impossible task…” ·       AHTC’s 28 Dec 2012 Media Release (signed off by Sylvia Lim) – “AIM had issued notice of termination of the systems, effective 1 August 2011.” ·       AHTC’s 5 Jan 2013 Media R
Read more