Cross Examination of Sylvia Lim
Day 13 – Cross-Examination of Sylvia Lim
(1) SL admits that she lied to Singaporeans.
The TC was paying more to FMSS. But she told Singaporeans that FMSS was not
more expensive.
SL repeated
these untruths various times, including in court documents.
TC was paying more, but SL told Singaporeans FMSS
was not more expensive
Q: In the media release
that was issued the day after the approval by the town council …
A: M’mm-hmm.
Q: You drafted this, right?
A: Yes.
…
Q: … Look at the paragraph which follows:
“AHTC does
not incur additional MA fees from appointing FMSS, as FMSS has agreed to assume
the scope of works and pricing of the former MA for [ATC], with only necessary
adjustments made due to the electoral boundary changes … ”
Do you see
that?
A: Yes.
Q: Was
that a true statement?
…
A: Yes, yes. Okay, I’ll
answer it. There was an additional one-off expense for additional staff during
that – to prepare for the handover, and well, I agree that I could have added that in as an additional sentence.
But at the point in time, I didn’t think it was material because that was just
a one-time expense.
…
Q: And therefore this
statement, that AHTC does not incur additional MA fees from appointing FMSS
was, to your knowledge, false?
Ms Lim, please
answer.
A: It is correct it is inaccurate.
…
Q: My
question is: that statement is untrue. Do you agree?
A: I can accept that it’s not accurate.
Q: I
didn’t ask you that question.
Do
you agree it was untrue?
Ms
Lim?
Ms
Lim, minutes have passed.
A: Yes, it’s not true.
Q: Thank
you. And you knew it was not true?
A: I would have known, yes.
…
Q: … To knowingly state
an untruth is to lie. Ms Lim, you are fencing, you are evading, but you have to
answer.
As I said, the Court
has asked you to answer.
Please, show some respect.
Do you agree with my question? Do you agree with me that to knowingly
state an untruth is to lie?
It’s been 10 minutes
now, I’m told by my colleague.
A: Yes.
Q: Thank you. This statement was made by you to all the
main newspapers in Singapore: English, Chinese. Correct?
A: Yes.
Q: It was also sent by you to the social media, correct?
A: There’s
at least one.
Q: Yes. It was meant for publication and dissemination to
Singaporeans, correct?
A: Correct.
Q: Which included the residents of AHTC, yes?
A: Yes.
Repeated untruths, including in Court documents
Q: And then at 102, you
said …
“It was
therefore AHTC’s publicly stated position, which was well-known to all
concerned from at least 5 August 2011 that:
…
(f) AHTC [did] not incur
any additional MA fees from appointing FMSS”
So even on oath in this affidavit, affirmed
and sworn by you when you took the stand, you continued to maintain the position
at 101 and 102, correct?
A: Yes.
I was stating what had happened.
…
Q: So, Ms
Lim, you lied.
…
Q: You’ve already said you knowingly stated an untruth. You said it was to
the entire country, including your residents. It was about the amount of money
that was to be spent. You’ve already confirmed that the elected MPs who knew
about the untruth did nothing to correct the position. And you’ve repeated and
reiterated that position in your affidavit, correct?
…
Q: Do you agree?
Ms Lim?
Ms Lim, please.
It’s been a few minutes.
A: Yes.
(2) SL concedes all the town councillors breached
the Town Council Financial Rules by failing to enter into a written agreement
with FMSS, on the 1st EMSU Contract.
Q: … Could you turn to rule 81 of the Town
Council Financial Rules … go to (6) ...:
“For works,
period quotations and contracts, there shall be a written agreement before the
works or supply of services begin”
For these
works, i.e. the EMSU first contract, there was no written agreement, correct?
A: There was no written agreement, in the sense that the terms were in
the agreement and it was signed by both parties, agreed. But we were advised of
this later on, that we should have put in the written agreement.
…
Q: But if you were
familiar with these rules, even if they weren’t at the forefront of your mind
on the 17th or 18th, you had ample opportunity to check
the rules, correct?
There was nothing to stop you from checking the rules?
A: I could have, yes.
…
Q: So you accept there
was a breach of 81(6) in connection with
the first EMSU contract?
A: Yes. It was pointed out to us.
Q: And it was a breach on the part of the entire town council, correct?
…
All the members of
the town council have to ensure compliance with the rules. Do you agree?
A: It was a breach by the TC, yes.
(3) SL also admitted that she failed to
disclose the owners of FMSS, despite disclosing various other details about
FMSS
Q: In the media release
that was issued the day after the approval by the town council, this is what
you said …:
“FMSS is a
company incorporated in Singapore in May 2011. Its key management and staff are
qualified and experienced in estate and township management, with proven track
records. Its key directors have been in the field for an average of 20 years.
FMSS has re-employed all 22 staff formerly working at Hougang Town Council and
expanded to cater for the increased scope of works at AHTC. In that connection,
it was made known to the incumbent MA that all employees who worked at the
former [ATC] were welcome to apply for positions relating to AHTC.
FMSS
currently has 73 staff. No Workers’ Party member has any interest in FMSS”.
A: Yes.
Q: Why did you talk about
the directorship, or rather, the qualifications of the directors and
management, the number of staff they had, but not about the owners?
A: Well, the purpose of
this media release is to tell the public what had been done vis-à-vis taking
over management of the town council, and my purpose in these two paragraphs was
to explain that, yes, it’s a new company, but it has got people with experience
in HDB town management, and what it has done in terms of staffing. So that is
what I did.
Q: Right, but why not
talk about who owned it? So much information about FMSS, but the ownership is
omitted.
…
Q: You are prepared to give a half-truth, and –
A: In what way is this a
half truth?
Q: Because if, as you,
yourself, said, the social media interest was whether Workers’ Party had any
interest in FMSS, the full picture would
have been to say “No member, but supporters, yes”, don’t you think?
A: I think that is a
quantum leap.
(4) SL admitted some of the Town Councillors
approved the agreement to appoint FMSS as managing agent, without knowing the
terms of FMSS’ appointment:
(a) SL
agreed that the Town Councillors needed to know the key terms of the contract.
(b)
SL agreed termination was a key
term, but was not – and did not need to be – brought to the Town Councillors’
attention.
(c) SL conceded the CPG contract was not
produced at the 4 Aug meeting (where the FMSS MA agreement was approved by the
Town Council), and that nobody had asked for it
·
Some of the Town Councillors did not even know how many
parts there were to that contract.
(d) SL also conceded that despite “uncertainty”
on certain parts of the contract, she was prepared to have the Town Council
approve the FMSS contract
(a) Town Councillors
need to know key terms of contract
Q: … You would agree with
me that it would be the responsible thing for a town councillor, indeed the
entire town council, to know what exactly were the terms and conditions which
govern the relationship between the town council and the FMSS?
A: I would say the key terms, yes. If you’re saying every single
clause, that, you know, that may not be
reasonable as such.
Q: All right … so they would at least know the key terms
which would govern, correct?
A: Agreed.
(b) Termination was a
key clause, but was not and did not need to be brought to the Town Councillors’
attention
Q: You’ve agreed with me
that termination is a key term,
correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You agree with me that
you didn’t talk to them or tell them
about the termination provision, correct?
A: I didn’t.
…
Q: You told us that you
had to inform the town councillors of the key terms. … do you accept that you should have told them about the termination
provision?
A: I didn’t think it was necessary for that meeting.
Q: This was the meeting
at which a decision was going to be made, without a tender, to appoint FMSS.
This was a key term, and we know you didn’t mention it. Do you agree that you should have mentioned it?
A: … I don’t agree.
(c) Some of the Town
Councillors approved the FMSS contract without knowing the CPG contract
Q: Ms Lim, … How would
the others at the meeting know that? How would the others at the meeting know
that “specifications” in the report means, embraces and encompasses the entire
contract as far as possible?
…
A: I believed that they would have
understood it that way.
Q: How? They would have seen the word
“specifications”.
A: But, like you said, I mean, the original contract in its
entirety was not produced at the meeting, or nobody asked for it, so they
wouldn’t have known that there are seven parts and Part 5 is specifications.
So I don’t think they would have been confused about that.
(d) Uncertainty on certain parts of the MA contract – but prepared
to let Town Council approve
Q: So it does not give
certainty?
A: It’s mentioned here as
some specifications cannot be fully
complied, and I agree that there’s not an exhaustive list here, yes.
Q: So it’s uncertain,
correct?
A: There is some measure
of – yes.
Q: So it is uncertain,
correct? Ms Lim – it is uncertain even on –
A: There is some measure of uncertainty, yes.
Q: Thank you. So you were prepared to have the town
council approve a contract when you knew that there was uncertainty, to use
your words, some measure of uncertainty?
A: Yes, but Mr Singh, these are only specific areas you know. It’s not
as if the contract key terms and so on are not fixed.
Comments
Post a Comment