Ms Sylvia Lim admits that her evidence attacking AIM is untrue
(1) Ms Sylvia Lim admits that her evidence
attacking AIM is untrue.
Ms Sylvia Lim had
said in evidence that the WP started preparing to change the software
management system for AHTC, after getting a tip-off that AIM, the software
provider for ATC, was going to terminate the contract. [AIM was controlled by
the PAP Town Councils.]
Under cross
examination, she admitted that this was untrue.
She admitted that the
new MA they had chosen was instructed to change the software system before they
spoke with AIM:
Q: In other words, before
13 May, when this letter was sent out, it
had already been decided that the Hougang Town Council computer vendor would be
asked to upscale the computer system [for Aljunied], right?
A: It would have been on
the 13th itself, but I agree
it would have had to happen before the letter went out.
…
Q: In
these circumstances, you would agree with me … that the decision to upscale the
software [for Aljunied] was not based on anything that AIMS or NCS had said to
you?
A: I agree that they had not said anything to
us at that time.
And she
expressly admitted that her earlier evidence was untrue.
Q: My question, Ms Lim,
is the suggestion at para 114 that AHTC started urgent preparations for the
withdrawal of TCMS by upscaling the software after the tip-off is untrue,
correct?
…
So I am asking you
now again. The suggestion in para 114 that the preparations for upscaling
commenced after Mr Jeffrey Chua gave Ms How the tip-off is untrue. Do you
agree?
A: I
can accept that.
Q: Thank you.
…
Ms Lim also
made other related admissions:
(a)
Ms Lim agreed that the contract would have been checked
first, by someone who was genuinely concerned that AIM would terminate the
contract.
Q: Well,
you knew in May 2011, that contracts may have provisions about how long they
are to run and under what circumstances they can be terminated, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And so, would it not be
reasonable for someone, if he were truly concerned about whether that contract
can be terminated, to check their contract, yes or no?
A: I have to agree, yes.
(b)
However, WP did not ask to even see the contract with
AIM, before it started work to ready its own computer system.
Q: My question was: What
was to prevent you? Was there anything to prevent you from asking for that
contract, yes or no?
A: I suppose not.
…
Q: …
Did you, or did you not, on 27 May, ask for a copy of the AIM contract?
A: I didn’t.
…
(c)
Ms Lim agreed that AIM had been helpful during the
transition period.
Q: Answer my question, Ms
Lim. Yet, they did so, correct?
A: I can accept Jeffrey’s
letter or email letter here that they did assist in some way, but the details I
am not able to confirm.
Q: Thank you. So you accept that AIMS assisted in circumstances
where they did not have to, correct?
A: Yes.
(d)
Ms Lim also agreed that AIM also gave assistance, even
though it did not have to.
Q: If he had given one
month’s notice, if AIMS had given one month’s notice on 10 June, that one-month
notice would have expired on 10 or 11 July?
A: If they had done so, yes.
Q: Instead of doing that,
they gave a notice on 22 June, expiring on 1 August, correct?
A: CPG needed to use the system.
Q: Ms Lim.
A: It’s correct, but CPG needed to use the
system.
Q: So
AIM was giving AHTC more time than it was obliged to, correct?
A: In
terms of the parallel run to the end of August, yes.
(2) Mr Davinder Singh charges Ms Sylvia Lim with
lying in Parliament, lying to AHTC Town Councillors, lying to the public, and
lying in Court
Mr Davinder
Singh show Ms Lim documents which showed that the TC had started upscaling,
well before the Town Council had any discussion with AIM (the service provider
for its management systems) on termination of the contract.
He said the
documents showed that the TC had decided to use its own MA and have its MA set
up a computer system.
Ms Lim agreed
that the Town Council had started preparatory work to upscale the computer
system, with its own appointed contractor.
Mr Singh then
referred to Ms Lim’s statements in Parliament, to AHTC town councillors, to the
public, and her evidence in Court where she said that the Town Council decided
to use its own system because AIM, the
service provider, had wanted to terminate the software contract. And he
charged her with lying to Parliament, to her own Town Councillors, to the
public, and in Court:
Q: Ms Lim, in your
defence you gave the impression that it was because AIM had terminated that
AHTC had to upscale its computer system.
In para 114 of your
affidavit, you give the same impression.
In Parliament, you
gave that very same impression.
To your own town
council members, both in the report and in what was discussed, you gave that
impression as well.
In all the instances
I have shown you, you led the town councillors, the court, Parliament and the
public to believe that it was because AIM had terminated that AHTC had no
choice but to upscale and therefore was put in a difficult position as far its
collections were concerned, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And as we know from
the documents, that was a false impression that was knowingly and deliberately
perpetuated by you, because you knew the facts?
A: I disagree.
Q: The facts were, as we
now know when all the documents have surfaced, that the upscaling was already
decided on and AIM, far from causing the upscaling, was giving AHTC all the
time it needed for the parallel run and the transition, right?
…
A: I disagree.
Q: But you agreed with me
earlier that the upscaling commenced in May, correct?
A: Preparatory works,
yes.
Q: You agreed with me
that it was before the tip-off from Jeffrey Chua, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: You agreed with me
that when you wanted until 31 August, AIM gave you until 31 August, correct?
A: Yes.
….
Q: Right. Despite all of
this, you misled everyone. You gave
them the false impression, including in Parliament in this passage I have read,
that AIM terminated and “therefore we had to upscale”. You lied.
A: I disagree.
Q: You lied to your town council members. You lied to Parliament. You lied
to this Court in your defence.
A: I disagree.
Q: And even now, you don’t have the honour to accept that
what you did was wrong.
A: I
disagree, Mr Singh.
Comments
Post a Comment