Five things that surfaced on the first day of Low’s Cross-Examination


Five things that surfaced on the first day of Low’s Cross-Examination
Five things that surfaced during the first day of Low Thia Khiang’s cross-examination – on the appointment of FMSS.

First, they rushed to install their supporters as the managing agent of AHTC. Merely two days after the GE on 9 May, Low wrote an e-mail to the other WP MPs to say that he had communicated to Ms How that they would appoint a managing agent for AHTC. This could not refer to CPG, since they were already appointed. And shortly after, on 12 May, steps were taken by How/Loh to incorporate FMSS. Why the big rush? The next few points will help explain.

Second, the e-mails penned by the defendants show that they intended FMSS to take over from CPG, from the beginning. On 14 May, Low informed the WP MPs that “We will not extend the managing agent agreement”. But they did not tell CPG directly – perhaps because this would mean AHTC needed to call a tender, which would risk FMSS’s appointment. So they went about doing so by taking indirect steps – by having HTC write to CPG to inform that they “have been instructed by the Elected Members of Parliament” to take over ATC, and to ask for the contact details of ATC staff so that HTC could liaise with them directly – so that CPG would know that they were unwanted.

Third, Low knew that by engaging FMSS, instead of employing Loh/How, FMSS stood to earn an additional profit element – meaning Loh/How would receive double payments (salary and profit). Despite that, he admitted he did not check what CPG’s or FMSS’s costs structures were! And this was the case even though he knew that the town council was the custodian of public monies! Of course, we know FMSS profited immensely – making $1.5m in profits in FY 12/13, and $3.18m in profits in FY 13/14, from this arrangement (which Low admitted he did not properly scrutinise).

Fourth, Low admitted two other parties offered to act as AHTC’s MA. But he “rebuffed” them – even though these other parties were in the same position as FMSS (in having no experience running a town council of that size). Why did they do that? 

Fifth, they were so intent on appointing FMSS – that Low admitted he did not bother to check the terms of the CPG contract to see if CPG was entitled to terminate the contract.  Low admitted this was a basic responsibility – a responsibility that he has plainly failed to live up to.

Comments

New comments are not allowed.

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

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 actua
Read more