SINGAPORE — Pressed for an answer on the stand, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim on Monday (Oct 22) admitted that through her actions in 2011, the outgoing secretary of Aljunied Town Council was placed in a position where he could not discharge his duties properly.

Section 20 of the Town Councils Act states that the secretary — then Mr Jeffrey Chua, who was also the managing director of the town council’s outgoing managing agent, CPG Facilities Management — is responsible for the proper administration and management of the functions and affairs of the Town Council.

Although Ms Lim had on July 6, 2011 mentioned about the waiver of tender in an email to one of the owners of incoming managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS), Ms How Weng Fan, she did not let Mr Chua know whether a tender for a new managing agent would be called, so he could advise them accordingly.

Asked by Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) lawyer Davinder Singh whether Mr Chua “needed to know” the material facts as a secretary, Ms Lim said: “On hindsight, yes. (But) I didn’t think of it at that time.”

She subsequently conceded that Mr Chua needed to know the grounds for a waiver of tender.

The opposition Member of Parliament (MP) was giving her evidence for the third day as one of the key defence witnesses in an ongoing month-long trial.

Ms Lim, Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Pritam Singh are the three Aljunied Group Representation Constituency MPs being sued by PRPTC and an independent panel acting on behalf of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) over alleged improper payments made to FMSS and the town council’s service providers.

Two other town councillors, as well as Ms How Weng Fan and her late husband Danny Loh — who are WP supporters and owners of FMSS — are also being sued.

‘NEEDLESS’ TO INVOLVE CPG

Cross-examined by Mr Singh on the contents of her email to Ms How which disclosed that she did not want to “needlessly involve CPG” in discussions on the manner they would like to appoint the new managing agent, Ms Lim revealed that she felt it was “needless” as she “did not think CPG was interested” in the terms and conditions of the new managing agent.

She added that it would be “awkward” and “inappropriate” to include Mr Chua, who represented CPG as well, in discussions about a new commitment to FMSS based on a letter of intent, which was inked on July 15, 2011, in a Town Council meeting on July 21.

When Mr Singh asked if there was any “downside” in discussing the terms and conditions in CPG's presence, Ms Lim said the party would be “wasting their time”, adding that CPG was “already in exit mode, with a few more days to run” and “weren’t interested in these details”.

“These matters are for the Town Council to decide. The exiting managing agent had no input or bearing of the matter,” she added.

But when Ms Lim later said Mr Chua had in fact known about the waiver of tender, Mr Singh charged that she “changed (her) evidence”.

“It is now black and white. This morning, you were adamant about (Mr Chua not needing to know about the commitment to FMSS) … now you are saying something completely different. He knew everything except the terms!” Mr Singh said.

He accused her of changing her tune after coming to the realisation that she had “breached” Section 20 of the Town Councils Act.

However, when asked why her evidence is now different, Ms Lim repeated: “We worked with Mr Chua on a weekly basis. He was aware a new managing agent was appointed (and) there was no tender. He must have been aware that there was going to be a waiver.”

Unsatisfied with her answer, Mr Singh pressed again, and Ms Lim replied: “I would have to agree (that Mr Chua had not known the full details as required under Section 20), but what we did was necessary to ensure the handover was smooth and in the interest of the residents.”

SLIPPED HER MIND

On Monday, disagreeing that she had changed her mind about disclosing the shareholdership of FMSS, Ms Lim also testified for the first time that it “slipped my mind” to disclose the information during the Aug 4, 2011 Town Council meeting.

She was responding to Mr Singh’s query why she did not disclose the information, even though she had replied in an email to then Hougang MP Yaw Shin Leong that she thought “we can/should” disclose it less than 24 hours before the the meeting took place.

On this point, Mr Singh said: “That is something I have difficulty with … Since August 2011 until today, a period of more than seven years (had passed), there had been numerous occasions this issue was ventilated in public, in Parliament, in court, in your responses to the KPMG report, in your defence, in your affidavit, nowhere was it said that it slipped your mind.”

Mr Singh then suggested that she “concocted” the new evidence that it had slipped her mind as she had to deal with the issue that there was no disclosure in the Aug 4, 2011 meeting, which was established when Mr Low gave his testimony last week.

Mr Singh had then put it to Mr Low that there was an agreement made after Ms Lim replied to Mr Yaw’s email that the stakeholdership should not be disclosed.

Mr Singh’s cross-examination of Ms Lim continues on Monday afternoon.