AHTC trial: ‘Disingenuous’ for defendants to draw parallel between CPG MD, FMSS owners as ‘conflicted persons’, says lawyer

SINGAPORE — Countering what he called the defendants’ “best legal find”, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh said the attempt to draw a parallel between the non-disclosure of the interests of shareholders of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) and CPG Facilities Management is “disingenuous”.

This is because Mr Jeffrey Chua — who was the managing director of CPG, the managing agent for Aljunied Town Council when it was run by the People’s Action Party (PAP) — declared his interest in a town council meeting on June 2, 2010 in his capacity as its secretary and general manager, said the lawyer for Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC).

Furthermore, Mr Singh disclosed that Mr Chua’s shareholding options amounted to only 0.0015 per cent. In stark contrast, FMSS owners How Weng Fan and Danny Loh held a combined majority 70 per cent stake when their firm was awarded two managing agent contracts in 2011 and 2012, even as they were office holders at the Workers’ Party (WP)-run Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

Ms How was AHTC’s deputy secretary and general manager, while her husband Loh, who died in an accident in 2015, was its secretary.

Putting it to former AHTC chairman Sylvia Lim as he cross-examined her for the fifth day on Wednesday (Oct 24), Mr Singh said: “Do you know that the net amount of that option — not even talking about shares — was 0.0015 per cent? … Did you check if those options were exercised? I am telling you, on my instructions, that they weren’t!

“And if they weren’t, isn’t it a matter that should have been checked by you?”

Ms Lim, who is the WP chairman, is one of eight defendants in a high-profile trial that came as a result of two lawsuits brought by PRPTC and an independent panel acting on behalf of AHTC, which wanted the parties to account for alleged improper payments made to FMSS and third-party service providers.

Mr Singh was challenging Ms Lim’s lawyer Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah’s defence that Mr Chua should also be considered a “conflicted person” if Loh and Ms How were framed as such.

In his earlier cross-examination of KPMG forensics partner Owen Hawkes, who in 2016 audited and put together a report on AHTC’s improper payments, Mr Rajah pointed out that Mr Chua too has a “profit motive” as he similarly held options for more than 600 shares and rights for more than 200 shares in Downer EDI, which was the “ultimate shareholder of CPG”.

In her immediate reply to Mr Singh on Wednesday — Day 14 of the month-long trial — Ms Lim said she could not remember the exact question that was put to Mr Hawkes on the third day of the trial.

Mr Singh then charged: “What the defendants have sought to do is to disingenuously draw a parallel between Jeffrey Chua, yet, as plain from the documents, there is a disclosure of interest when there was none in the case of FMSS.”

Ms Lim protested, saying that the documents declaring the shareholdings of FMSS were submitted before it was appointed the second managing agent contract in 2012, a year after its initial appointment following a waiver of tender in 2011.

Mr Singh corrected her, pointing out that the documents were submitted only to the tenders and contracts committee, but not to the main town councillors with the final say.

“That attempt to draw that parallel was made in circumstances where there was a disclosure of interest by Jeffrey Chua to the town council, but there was no disclosure of Mr Loh, Ms How, and the others’ ownership interest to the town council, correct?” he asked Ms Lim.

Ms Lim then admitted that there was no written or oral disclosure made, but pointed out that the town councillors by that point already had “knowledge” of the shareholding interest in FMSS.

With this, Mr Singh turned to Justice Kannan Ramesh and said: “Your honour, this witness will try her luck and push it to the boundaries. Can I request for your honour’s intervention?”

At the judge’s prompting, Ms Lim subsequently accepted that there was no disclosure.

Mr Singh then said: “Ms Lim, if that disclosure of interest was of all of his interest, then the attempt to draw the parallel is disingenuous.”

Ms Lim stressed the word “if” before agreeing.

“So you see, Ms Lim, as you have been giving evidence to this court in your defence, in Parliament, in your media statements, you have no qualms lying,” Mr Singh concluded.

Ms Lim shot back: “I reject that.”

Mr Singh ended his cross-examination of Ms Lim before the hearing was adjourned for lunch.

In the afternoon, Mr Rajah will conduct a re-examination of Ms Lim, following which, WP chief Pritam Singh, the third defendant in the lawsuits, is expected to take the stand.