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

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