SINGAPORE — The appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) as managing agent cost Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) S$89,150 more as additional staff would have to be hired.

But in a media statement sent by AHTC chairman Sylvia Lim on behalf of the town council on Aug 5, 2011, a day after FMSS was formally appointed, she stated that AHTC “does not incur additional MA (managing agent) fees from appointing FMSS”.

Grilled in court by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh on Tuesday (Oct 23), Ms Lim, who was taking the stand for the fourth day, admitted that the statement was inaccurate, and that she had “stated untruth” in the statement, which was sent out to media outlets and put on social media.

Upon further probing by Mr Singh, who represents Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC), Ms Lim also revealed that eight members of the Workers’ Party (WP) council, which she chairs, was sent the media statement four minutes after the press received it at 8.25pm, but no one took any steps to correct it. It was not brought up in court how or if they were aware of the inaccuracies.

The eight WP recipients were former WP chief Low Thia Khiang, current chief Pritam Singh, Mr Png Eng Huat, Mr Gerald Giam, Ms Lee Li Lian, Mr Faisal Manap, Mr Yaw Shin Leong, and Mr Chen Show Mao.

The statement was subsequently reported across the major newspapers and online media in Singapore.

With her admissions, Mr Singh charged: “Ms Lim, you knowingly stated an untruth to the entire country, including your residents, about how much money was going to be spent.

“All the elected MPs (Members of Parliament) of the Workers’ Party knew it was an untruth, but did nothing to correct the position.”

Mr Singh was crossing examining the opposition MP in a month-long trial involving her and two of her fellow parliamentarians, Mr Low and Mr Singh. The trial is into its 13th day.

The trio, along with two town councillors, as well as Ms How Weng Fan and the late Danny Loh — owners of AHTC’s former managing agent FMSS — are facing two lawsuits brought by PRPTC and an independent panel acting on behalf of AHTC. They were asked to account for alleged improper payments paid to FMSS and other third party service providers.

In Mr Singh’s questioning, he also referred to Ms Lim’s affidavit and pointed out that she had similarly stated the same untruth in the statement she had sworn in as truth on the first day of her taking the stand last Thursday.

In the affidavit, she had stated that it was AHTC’s “publicly stated position” that it “does not incur any additional MA fees from appointing FMSS”.

Said Mr Singh: “You reiterated the same position you took when you communicated that untruth.”

In response, she said the additional cost was a “one-time transitional expense”, but accepted that the statement was inaccurate. She added that she “would have known that it is an untruth”.

When Mr Singh pressed her further by asking if she agreed that knowingly stating an untruth is also to lie, Ms Lim said it was not her intention to mislead.

“Mr Singh, my frame of mind when I wrote it was not (to lie) … I would say that I was very careless … I don’t agree insofar as lie means dishonest intention,” she told the court, before she conceded to Mr Singh’s question that “to knowingly state an untruth is to lie”.

‘HALF TRUTH’ TO NOT DECLARE FMSS OWNERSHIP: LAWYER

Zooming in on another sentence in the Aug 5, 2011 media statement, Mr Singh asked why Ms Lim had declared that “no Workers’ Party member has any interest in FMSS”, charging that it was a "half truth”.

This was because she did not disclose that 70 per cent of FMSS is owned collectively by WP supporters, Loh and Ms How who are husband and wife, he pointed out.

“This is how you play with words … This is how you carefully craft matters with respect to give evidence to convey impressions,” said Mr Singh.

Ms Lim said she had chosen only to disclose that no WP members had any ownership in FMSS because there had been “social media chatters” surrounding WP’s involvement.

“The full picture would have been to say that no members, but supporters, yes,” Mr Singh replied, to which Ms Lim in turn responded: “It is a quantum leap!”

Adding that there was “nothing sinister” about her omission, she added: “(It would be) strange (for) … the media release, (which was) to talk about steps taken to ensure a smooth handover, to talk about what you mentioned. To me, it is not appropriate.”

Mr Singh’s cross-examination of Ms Lim continues on Tuesday afternoon and is expected to stretch till Wednesday morning.