Key points from Cross Examination of Sylvia Lim


Day 12 – Key points from Cross Examination of Sylvia Lim
(1)   SL admitted that:

·       She (as Chairman) and the other MPs knew the rates being charged by FMSS, but did not disclose them to the other Town Councillors.

o   She admitted that she was in breach of her duty, in not disclosing the rates to the other Town Councillors

o   She didn’t answer the question for 32 minutes. The Court directed her to answer the question. She then admitted that the other MPs were similarly in breach of their duties.

o   [Info: FMSS’ MA rates and charges, were not disclosed to the other Town Councillors at the 4 Aug meeting]

·       She also admitted that there was a breach of the law, as there was no waiver of tender for the appointment of FMSS from 15 June.

·       The Town Council was not informed of, and did not approve, the money spent under the Letter of Intent to reimburse the salary cost of HTC staff and to engage new staff.

·       The details of FMSS shareholding was not disclosed to the Town Councillors. This was also a breach.

Q:         Do you agree that it is the responsible thing for the Chairman to disclose the rates to the rest of the Town Council, for the Town Council to make a decision on?
            A:         Yes.
Q:         Thank you. Do you agree with me that it was the duty of the Chairman and the others who knew the rates to disclose them to the other town councillors so that they would know the rates before deciding?
            A:         Agree.
            Q:         Thank you. Do you agree that that duty was breached by you and the other elected                   members?
            A:         In the sense that I should have included the rates in my report, I agree.
            Q:         And the other elected MPs as well?
            A:         I think they left it to me, yeah.
            Q:         But who had seen the letter of intent and knew the rates, correct?
            A:         Yes.
         [For 32 minutes, SL refuses to answer the question directly, despite being directed by the Court to answer it ]
            Q:         Well, you say they [i.e., the other MPs] should have disclosed the rates.
You’ve agreed with me that they didn’t disclose the rates. So they should have complied with their duties, but didn’t, yes Ms Lim? Having agreed that they should have disclosed the rates, and we know they didn’t, it follows, doesn’t it, that they didn’t comply with their duties?
            A:         Yes, your Honour.
Breach of the Town Council Financial Rules – no waiver of tender for the appointment of FMSS from 15 June 
Q:         You agree with me that the town council did not approve what happened from 15 June to 14 July?
            A:         There’s no approval recorded, yes.
            Q:         But there is no approval at all, yes? 
           
And that approval did not extend to what they had been told about what happened between 15 June and 14 July, correct?
            A:         Yes.
Q:         Thank you. So it must follow that they didn’t waive the need for a tender for what happened in that period?
            A:         Yes.
            Q:         And that was another breach of the Town Council Financial Rules?
            A:        
If you say breach, I agree I should have recorded my reasons. I didn’t record it at the time, so I have to agree. 
Q:         Yes, but you brought it now to the town council itself.
A:         Yes.
Q:         And to the extent that it was for the town council to waive the calling of the tender, that waiver did not extend to the period before 15 July?
A:         Yes, I agree.
Q:         And therefore to that extent, there was a breach again of the law?
A:         For that period, I have to agree, yes.
Town Council not informed of, and did not approve, the amount paid to FMSS (for reimbursement of HTC staff costs, and costs of engaging other staff)
Q:         And so, as I earlier asked you … the amount of money which was spent on account of the letter of intent was not communicated to the town council?
            A:         Not the specific number.
            Q:         Thank you. Nor indeed any number for the additional staff hires, yes?
            A:         … It was not told to the council then, yes.
Q:         Right. Not only was that number not communicated … it wasn’t approved, yes, because it was not tabled for approval?
A:         I have to agree the approval started – I mean, the date is 15 July 2011 to 14 July 2012.
Q:         And therefore, just like the rates, you would agree with me that these were numbers that ought to have been communicated to the town council? This is not small change.
A:         I agree that they could have given the council an update on the additional staff at the handover that was incurred in the month of June.
Q:         You should have, not could have?
Q:         … That means you should have given them information because you accept that it would have been relevant for them to know?
A:         Yes, relevant.
Q:         Thank you. Why did you withhold that information?
 A:        As I said, it didn’t occur to me at the time that I should inform them of the figure. It just didn’t occur to me at the time.
Q:         It didn’t occur to you to produce the ACRA search
            It didn’t occur to you to tell them about this figure.
            It didn’t occur to you to put the Letter of Intent on the table.
            Ms Lim, this was a very carefully thought-through meeting. There were emails leading up to the meeting about when should it be called, should it be postponed, what should be disclosed; ACRA search on shareholdings, what should go into the report. You amended it. And you want this Court to believe that all these relevant matters didn’t occur to you?
ACRA search of FMSS was not disclosed
Q:         … If, as you have said, it was relevant and would have made the records more robust, the relevance lies in the ownership, correct?
A:         The relevance of the ACRA search?
Q:         Yes.
A:         Lies in the ownership? Yes, I can agree.
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.
           
(2)        DS charges that SL’s actions were “dishonesty at its height”:
·       Gave impression on 4 Aug 2011 that CPG wanted to be released, when she had decided on 9 May that a new MA would be appointed, which was hidden from the Town Council

·       Distorting the facts and giving false information to Town Council that AIM and NCS were pulling out, which required “upscaling” of software.

·       Misleading Town Council on urgency of appointing a new MA

·       Gave the Town Council (on 4 Aug) the impression that there was no time to call a tender when they had already decided to waive in June 2011

·       The deception on FMSS was gross dishonesty
Q:         The impression you gave the town councillors was that it was because CPG had indicated their desire to be released that there arose a chain of events leading to the meeting of the 4th, whereas in truth, the event that triggered the whole process had commenced on 9 May?
A:         That’s not true.
Q:         So you see, Ms Lim, you and the elected MPs all sat there, allowed you to inform the others of these matters, while suppressing the others.
A:         That’s not true, Mr Singh.
False impression that AIM/NCS triggered need to upscale
Q:         Let’s go to (b), “The computer and accounting systems needed to be replaced with the upscaled version of the one used by Hougang …, as the owner/service provider of the existing systems used by Aljunied … had given notice to withdraw them by end July”.
            Again, you distorted the facts, and just as you did for CPG, you gave your fellow town councillors the false impression that it was AIM and NCS which triggered the upscaling of the software?
A:         I disagree with that, Mr Singh.
Misleading on urgency of appointing new MA
Q:         (c). “MND’s deadline for handover of the TC management was 1 August”.
            “There was every likelihood that if a new managing agent was not appointed to prepare the systems and processes as soon as possible, there would be serious disruption to residents’ services on 1 Aug”.
            So there you and the other elected MPs continued to mislead the others by suggesting that the reason to appoint the new managing agent crystallised after and as a result of CPG’s and AIM’s desire to withdraw?
A:         It’s factual.
False impression that no time to call tender
Q:         … If you go to (e):
            “Given the tight timeframe and urgency, there was no time to call any tender for managing agent services which would take several weeks away from critical preparation time.”
            (f): “It was in the public interest that the calling of a tender be waived”
            “FMSS comprised of key staff familiar with estate and township management with proven track records. The terms offered by the company did not put the town council worse off than under the previous MA”
            (e) and (f) were outright false.
A:         No, its true.
Q:         They were false, because you had already decided, as you have told this court, to waive as early as June 2011.
           
            Having already decided to waive in June, you were now giving the impression to the town council that “today, on 4 August, there’s no time to call for a tender because of the position in which CPG and AIM put us in”, correct?
A:         No, I don’t agree with your characterisation.
Saying it was in public interest to waive tender was “dishonesty at its height”
Q:         And then to say it was in the public interest that the calling of a tender be waived was dishonesty at its height. Because you had already decided to waive, the public interest was completely irrelevant.
A:         I decided to waive in the interests of the residents.

(3)        SL further admitted that:
·       Under the Act, the Secretary needed to know that a new MA had been appointed, and that there was no tender called or waived.

o   However, she did not tell the Secretary that no tender was called, nor that tender had been waived.

o   Ms Lim didn’t answer the question despite being asked several times – and was directed by the Court to answer the question directly. She then admitted that the Secretary did not know the full details, as required under the Act, i.e., that this was a breach of the law.

The TC Secretary, Jeffrey Chua did not know the full details of FMSS’ appointment, as required under the Act
            Ms Lim, it’s been a long time. We’re waiting for your answer, and I’m putting that on the record.
            Ms Lim, we’re waiting for an answer.
            Ms Lim, we’re still waiting for an answer.
            I will take it that you have no answer, Ms Lim.
A:         Mr Singh, I would just say that Jeffrey Chua was an outgoing secretary, and he knew what was needed. That’s what I will say.
Q:         I repeat my question, because that’s not an answer.
            Ms Lim, we are waiting.
            Your Honour, can the record reflect that the witness is refusing to answer this question?
Ct:        Ms Lim, do you wish to answer the question? It’s a fairly straightforward question.
A:         Mr Singh is suggesting that I put Mr Chua in a position where he could not exercise his functions as a secretary?
Q:         The question –
Ct:        Discharge his functions as the secretary, and that is the reason for the change in your position?
Q:         Yes, your Honour.
A:         I agree that … Jeffrey Chua did not know the full details … that seemed to be required under section 20.
Q:         Thank you for that, but it’s also not an answer to my question.
            Ms Lim, you’ve now had many chances to answer that question. A lot of time has passed.
Q:         Well, Mr Singh, I have to agree … that what we did was what we felt was necessary to ensure that this handover was smooth and that it was in the interests of the residents.  
           
(4)        On two occasions, Sylvia Lim refused to answer Mr Singh’s questions for prolonged periods of time, the second time for more than 30 minutes.
Despite being asked by the Court to answer, she persisted in not answering the question.
            First example – Whether Secretary knew full details of the FMSS rates
Q:         The reason you’ve changed your evidence from CPG not needing to know anything to CPG knowing everything except the terms is that you realise that you breach section 20. You caused and created a situation, together with your fellow elected MPs, of putting the secretary in a situation where he could not discharge his functions. Isn’t that the reason for that sudden change in your position?
            Ms Lim, it’s been a long time. We’re waiting for your answer, and I’m putting that on the record.
            Ms Lim, we’re waiting for an answer.
            Ms Lim, we’re still waiting for an answer.
            I will take it that you have no answer, Ms Lim.
A:         Mr Singh, I would just say that Jeffrey Chua was an outgoing secretary, and he knew what was needed. That’s what I will say.
Q:         I repeat my question, because that’s not an answer.
            Ms Lim, we are waiting.
            Your Honour, can the record reflect that the witness is refusing to answer this question?
Court:   Ms Lim, do you wish to answer the question? It’s a fairly straightforward question.
A:         Mr Singh is suggesting that I put Mr Chua in a position where he could not exercise his functions as a secretary?
Q:         The question –
Court:   Discharge his functions as the secretary and that is the reason for the change in your position
Q:         Yes, your Honour.
A:         I agree that … Jeffrey Chua did not know the full details … that seemed to be required under section 20.
Q:         Thank you for that, but it’s also not an answer to my question.
            Ms Lim, you’ve now had many chances to answer that question. A lot of time has passed.
Q:         Well, Mr Singh, I have to agree … that what we did was necessary to ensure that this handover was smooth and that it was in the interests of the residents. 

Second example – whether other MPs breached duty to disclose FMSS’ rates (32 minutes)
            Q:         Do you agree that that duty was breached by you and the other elected members?
            A:         In the sense that I should have included the rates in my report, I agree.
            Q:         And the other elected MPs as well?
            A:         I think they left it to me, yeah.
            Q:         But who had seen the letter of intent and knew the rates, correct?
            A:         Yes.
            Q:         So they too breached their duties, yes?
A:         I think the primary responsibility was on me, because I was presenting the proposal, so I prefer to keep my answer to that.
Q:         But I prefer to ask you about them as well. Do you agree that they too breached their duties?
A:         I think it’s my duties so …
Q:         So you were in breach as Chairman, but they were in breach as town councillors, including as Vice-Chairmen in the plural?
A:         I don’t think it’s fair for me to answer this question because –
Q:         If it wasn’t fair, there would be an objection and his Honour would have stopped me. It’s not for you to decide whether it’s fair, Ms Lim.
            Ms Lim, many more minutes have passed. The answer is “yes”, isn’t it?
A:         No, I can’t agree to that.
Q:         You’ve got to answer my question now.
            Ms Lim, I have to put on record that it’s been 18 minutes since I asked you that question.
A:         They relied on me.
Court:   Ms Lim, the question has been asked several times over quite a few minutes. Could you try and answer it, please?
A:         Your Honour, as I said, I had the primary responsibility of tabling this matter before the town council, and as I said, the elected members relied on me to do what was necessary.
Q:         You’ve said that, and we’re still waiting for an answer
            Can you please answer the question, as His Honour has asked. It’s been 30 minutes.
A:         It’s the rates – the rates that we knew of should have been disclosed to the town councillors.
Q:         They too did not comply with their duties, yes?
Ms Lim, its not just me asking you to answer the question. … It’s the Court. Please show some respect.
They too did not comply with their duty, correct, Ms Lim? Ms Lim?
            A:         I agree, Your Honour, that the town councillors should have been told the rates.
           
            Q:         You’ve said this many times. Now answer the question.
I can understand it if you’re fencing with me, but his Honour is asking you to answer the question.
Do you agree that in failing to disclose the rates, the elected MPs failed to comply with their duties, yes?
A:         They should have disclosed the rates, your Honour.
Q:         Well, you say they should have disclosed the rates. You’ve agreed with me that they didn’t disclose the rates. So they should have complied with their duties but didn’t; yes, Ms Lim? Having agreed that they should have disclosed the rates, and we know they  didn't, it follows, doesn't it, that they didn't comply with their duties?
A:         Yes, your Honour.
[Background: The appointment of FMSS in place of CPG, the terms on which FMSS was appointed, and whether there was full disclosure made of what FMSS was going to charge as fees, whether the rules were followed in the appointment are all crucial questions in the case.

The Plaintiffs say the appointment was made in bad faith, of friends as Managing Agents, at inflated rates, without full disclosure to even the other Town Councillors. And the Plaintiffs allege that the MPs decided to get rid of CPG and appoint their friends, but publicly said that they had no choice and it was urgent because CPG wanted to leave immediately. The Plaintiffs say what the MPs said in public is untrue.]

Popular posts from this blog

FMSS’ PROFITS VS AHTC’S DEFICITS

Cross Examination of Pritam Singh and Kenneth Foo

KEY POINTS MADE BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN CLOSING