SINGAPORE — The motion to recuse Workers’ Party (WP) leaders Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang from being involved in financial matters at Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) was “hurried” and “premature”, WP chief Pritam Singh said on Tuesday (Nov 5).

Speaking on the motion tabled by Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat, Mr Singh said: “There is no reason for Parliament to be prematurely hijacked as a substitute for the judicial process when the window for appeal on the judgement has not closed.”

On Oct 11, three Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Members of Parliament — Mr Singh, Ms Lim and Mr Low — were found liable for damages suffered by the AHTC and the Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC). In particular, the judge found that Ms Lim and Mr Low had breached their fiduciary duties to the AHTC, “as they had failed to act in AHTC’s best interests and had acted for extraneous purposes”.

Join our Telegram channel to get TODAY's top stories on mobile:

*TODAY's WhatsApp news service will cease from November 30, 2019.

They could now owe part of the S$33.7 million in claims by AHTC and PRPTC, which will be decided at a later date.

But Ms Lim pointed out during the debate on the motion that the parties involved in the civil lawsuit has up until Nov 11 — a month after the High Court released its findings — to file an appeal. The WP MPs will be filing an appeal, Ms Lim told the House.

Earlier, Mr Heng had called on Ms Lim and Mr Low to “recuse themselves” from handling financial matters due to their conflicted interests. The court case has shown that their friends were allowed to manage the town council, contracted as agents and service providers, and WP had thus sacrificed their residents’ interests to favour these friends, not to mention that there was an abuse of public funds.

Responding to Mr Heng, Mr Singh said that the timing of his motion is “highly unusual for a legal system that places an exacting premium on the rule of law as a defining characteristic of the country”.

With this in mind, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) must then “explain truthfully” what its motive was in filing this motion before the case is concluded, he added.

‘TOWN COUNCILLORS STILL HAVE TO VOTE’

Ms Lim, who is vice-chairman of AHTC, chairs the finance and investment committee of the town council. Mr Low, on the other hand, is a member of AHTC’s estate and community liaison committee, which approves expenditure for estate-related work.

If WP were to have it, Mr Singh said that “natural justice dictates” that any question of a recusal of Ms Lim and Ms Low from these roles “must surely be considered after the case is concluded”.

However, if Parliament were to pass the motion, individual town councillors at AHTC would have to make a decision by taking an internal vote should anyone among them bring up the question of recusal, Mr Singh said.

AHTC’s next quarterly meeting should take place later this month and if they determined that a recusal is in order, Mr Low and Ms Lim would be recused. “That must be how the system works,” he added.

There are now 20 town councillors excluding Ms Low and Ms Lim, who would have to be excused during internal voting.

Mr Singh said that he will not be voting for them to be recused from financial matters “even if this motion passes”.

His reasons? Ms Lim had led AHTC as chairman between 2011 and 2015 and managed the estate “without the major disruption of service affecting the lives of residents” despite “challenging circumstances” and “tremendous pressure”.

And in her current capacity as vice-chair, Ms Lim had contributed to the “positive transformation” of AHTC, he added, saying that the town council’s auditors had submitted an unqualified audited report of its annual report for its last financial year.

As for Mr Low, the existing town councillors could use his depth of town council experience and perspective as a long-standing opposition town councillor on estate matters, Mr Singh said.

“Once again, it is only appropriate for council to take a collective decision on any recusal if it decides to do so, and AHTC will act according to council’s decisions.”

‘CURTAILING’ THEM FROM THEIR DUTIES

While Mr Low did not speak in Parliament on Tuesday, Ms Lim was the first to speak after Mr Heng opened the debate with an hour-long speech.

She stated WP’s position on Mr Heng’s motion, saying it was “telling but premature”.

Noting that the PAP Government was “clearly excited” about findings and comments contained in the judgement, Ms Lim said: “The DPM acted prematurely in his decision to file the motion, and I ask the House to reject it. Whatever the trial judge has decided is subject to review by the Court of Appeal.”

Ms Lim then stressed that the matter at hand is a civil proceeding involving “novel points of law” in which any loss caused to AHTC had not been made out.

“As Members of Parliament, Mr Low Thia Khiang and I have duties to discharge, and this motion appears to be aimed at curtailing us from discharging our duties while the case is still pending for final adjudication,” she said.

DEFENDING WP’S ‘MORAL AUTHORITY’

On the point of the appeal not being heard yet, Ms Indranee Rajah, who is Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, said: “When you have somebody in a public position, if a court has found that they have done something wrong — there has been a breach of fiduciary duty, lack of integrity, that they have not acted with appropriate candour — should that person remain in position while those findings are there… whether or not an appeal is pending?

“It's a question of what is the standard of governance and what is the appropriate conduct. And what is very clear is that the WP standard of governance and conduct is very different from that of this Government's. That much is clear.”

Should things remain as they were, Ms Indranee said that WP would have “no moral authority” in the future to ask for any government official to stand down or stand aside if there is a similar case being heard.

Mr Singh then questioned how could it be that WP MPs would have no moral authority to file any question on such matters when “not a single” PAP MP had filed a parliamentary question when it came to be known that Keppel Corporation’s offshore and marine unit would pay US$422 million (S$570 million) to end its bribery probe near Christmas in 2017.

Singapore’s largest oil-rig builder, Keppel Offshore & Marine, paid the fine as part of a global resolution with authorities in three countries — Brazil, Singapore and the United States — over corrupt payments made by a former agent in Brazil.

After the matter came to light, Mr Singh claimed that PAP MPs had slightly less than 48 hours to file questions on the issue, but not a single MP did that for what he described as “one of the most serious corporate scandals” that had hit a government-linked firm.

He added: “I reject any suggestion that the Workers’ Party will not have any moral authority to question an issue like that when it comes up.”

At the end of the debate, the motion was passed 52-9, with all nine WP MPs voting against it.

Two Nominated MPs abstained from voting.