Cross -Examination of Sylvia Lim - Continuation
Day 14 – Cross -Examination of Sylvia Lim
(1) Sylvia admits tipping off Danny Loh
(from FMSS) that the Tender Committee for the 2nd MA contract was
likely to raise questions about price – and did so without informing the Tender
Committee.
Q: Look at your e-mail of
19 June 2012 at 4.37pm … which you sent to Danny Loh and Ms How:
Subject:
MA/EMSU tender interview on Thu 8 pm @ Hougang Central Office
Dear
Danny and Ms How
To give you a heads
up, the tender interview comm is likely to ask for some explanation as to the
pricing difference from current to the proposed.
I have done a
preliminary analysis, pls correct me if I’m wrong – as attached.
According to info I
have from one of the PAP TC Chairman, the going rate for MA tenders is
currently $6+ to $7. Since FMSS’ tender is at the higher end, some explanation
would be most useful.”
…
Q: That email was not copied to the other
tender committee members?
A: Yeah, I don’t think it was.
Q: It wasn’t. Do you agree?
A: I don’t recall copying them, yes.
Q: Look at it. It’s there, staring you in
the face, Ms Lim.
A: Yeah, I don’t remember whether I
forwarded it, but maybe not, yes.
Q: You did not, correct??
A: I have to check, but I can accept that I didn’t.
…
Q: … Did you show that exchange of emails to your other tender committee
members?
Ms Lim?
…
A: I may not have. I
can’t find whether I did or not, but I
may not have.
Q: Thank you. And so when
that meeting was held and Danny Loh was present, only you and Danny Loh knew about these communications you had on 19
June, correct?
…
Court: The communications on 19
June.
A: On 19 June?
Court: Yes.
Q: Ms Lim, please.
A: I think it may be so, yes.
…
Q: Ms Lim, I suggest to you that far from the process leading up to the
second MA and the second EMSU being one with integrity, it was tainted, it was
flawed, and you colluded with FMSS to make sure that FMSS would come prepared
with everything that was needed to secure that bid.
A: I disagree.
(2) Sylvia admits there was no written or
oral disclosure of How/Loh’s ownership interest in FMSS to the Town Council,
for the 2nd MA contract
Q: … That attempt to draw
that parallel was made in circumstances where there was a disclosure of
interest by Mr Jeffrey Chua to the town council, but there was no disclosure of
Mr Loh, Ms How’s and the others’ ownership interest in FMSS to the town
council, correct?
A: There was written disclosure to the
committee evaluating the tender.
Q: Answer my question. I’m talking about the town council.
A: The town council meeting? No written disclosure, yes.
Q: And no oral disclosure?
A: There was knowledge.
Q: You see, your Honour,
this is what I was concerned about, and I didn’t want to test your Honour’s
patience. But this witness will try her luck and push it to the boundaries, so
can I ask for your Honour’s intervention to request for an answer from this
witness?
Court: … Ms Lim, the question is whether there was
disclosure, written or oral, and I think that’s what the question is.
A: So whether there was
disclosure at the town council meeting of the ownership?
Court: Whether in writing or orally. And I think you have previously said
“no”.
A: Yes.
Q: So the answer is “no”,
right?
A: Not at the town council meeting, the ownership, yes.
(3) Mr Singh charged Sylvia with lying to
and misleading Parliament by giving Parliament the impression that
How/Loh’s ownership interest in FMSS was disclosed in 2011 and 2012, when she
admitted no such disclosure had been made to the Town Council.
Q: Can I show you … how you hide things,
Ms Lim?
…
Q: This is an extract
from Hansard of a Parliamentary debate of February 2015, and you were present.
…
Q: This is Mr Shanmugam
speaking …
“Now let us
turn to Ms Sylvia Lim. You are the chairperson/lawyer. You obviously must have
known from the beginning that Loh, Ms How and Yeo owned FMSS and FMSI. And you
approved the system that was set up. And you rubber-stamped their actions by
countersigning the cheques. You do not seem to have ensured that all relevant
facts were made known to all the town councillors. No discussion on how the
serious financial conflicts were going to be handled. No discussions on how
residents' monies will be protected. Nothing.”
Can
you turn to your response to that?
…
“So, Madam,
the final point…. The fact is, as we have stated to the auditors, the ACRA
company profiles were submitted for evaluation. So, that was disclosure on that
aspect specifically.”
A: M’mm-hmm
Q: This is a classic example of you lying, which you have done in Court.
It’s a classic example of you misleading, which
you have done to some of your own town council members. Do you agree?
A: What do you mean by that?
Q: You mean you cannot
see what you are saying, that in response to Mr Shanmugam’s assertion … that you would have known from the
beginning that Mr Loh and Ms How owned FMSS, but did you not disclose it … you
gave Parliament the impression that the ACRA company profile was submitted for
evaluation, so that was disclosure on that aspect specifically?
A: It was submitted, the
ACRA profile.
Q: Exactly my point. You
see how you play with words?
You know there was no disclosure at the town council
meeting of 4 August. You know Mr Shanmugam was talking about at the beginning.
A: I don’t know –
Q: You know that even the second MA contract, the ACRA search did not go
to the town council. But in Parliament, you said there was disclosure?
A: Yes, that ACRA profile
was submitted for evaluation, yes.
Q: To whom, you didn’t
say, giving the impression.
A: Yes, I didn’t state – say that. Yes.
Q: You see, Ms Lim, I
suggest to you someone as artful as you knowingly breached your fiduciary
duties, your duties as a trustee, your duties under the law just to get your
way.
A: I acted in good faith
at all times, Mr Singh.
Q: If this is good faith, then all of us in Singapore are in big trouble.
Now, let’s move on.
No
disclosure of Loh/How’s interest to Town Council in 2011, for 1st MA Contract
[Evidence of 22 Oct]
Q: Thank you. Was that ACRA search
disclosed at that town council meeting of 4 August?
A: To
my memory, it was not.
Q: Were the shareholdings
reflected in the ACRA search disclosed at that meeting of 4 August?
A: I
don’t believe so.
Q: So, on 3 August at
4pm, you believed that it was relevant and would make the records more robust
to disclose the ACRA search. Slightly more than 24 hours later, you did not
make that disclosure?
A: It
was not disclosed, yes.
No
disclosure of Loh/How’s interest to Town Council in 2012, for 2nd MA
Contract
[See S/N 2 above]
(4) Mr Singh further charges Sylvia with
having “no qualms” about lying to Parliament, the Court, and the media.
Q: Ms Lim, if that
disclosure of interest by Mr Jeffrey Chua was of all his interests, then the
attempt to draw the parallel was disingenuous?
…
A: Yes. You said “if”.
Q: Yes. So is the answer
“Yes”?
A: “If”, yes.
Q: Thank you. Is there
anything in the minutes that I showed you which suggests that the declaration
of the interest by Mr Jeffrey Chua was a limited declaration?
…
A: Nothing in the
minutes.
Q: Thank you very much. So, you see, Ms Lim, as you have been in
giving evidence to this Court, in your defence, in Parliament, in your media
statements, you have no qualms lying.
A: I reject that.
