SINGAPORE — Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim had “lied” to everyone about the circumstances which led to the expansion of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council’s (AHTC) in-house computer system, charged Senior Counsel Davinder Singh on Thursday (Oct 18) as Ms Lim took the stand for the first time in the high-profile case.

Mr Singh said that Ms Lim had “knowingly (and) deliberately perpetuated” a “false impression” that an “upscale” of the town council’s computer system was needed because IT firm Action Information Management (AIM), which previously managed its IT systems, was going to quit.

The lawyer for Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) — one of the two plaintiffs in the multi-million dollar lawsuit — said Ms Lim “lied” because the process to expand the computer system — which originated from Hougang Town Council —  had already begun before knowledge of AIM’s impending exit.

“You lied. You lied to your town council members, you lied to Parliament, you lied to this court,” he told Ms Lim, who immediately disagreed.

Ms Lim, along with fellow WP Members of Parliament (MPs) Low Thia Khiang and Pritam Singh, two town councillors, as well as Ms How Weng Fan and the late Danny Loh — owners of managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) — are being sued by PRPTC and an independent panel acting on behalf of AHTC over alleged wrongful payments made to FMSS and the town council’s service providers.

The issue of computer systems was raised in the WP MPs’ opening statements, where they said that the “lack of a proper computerised system greatly hampered the management of the town council in its early days”. The cost of upscaling of the system is part of the lawsuit.

Ms Lim testified in her affidavit that AHTC’s interim secretary Jeffrey Chua had informed Ms How and her in early June 2011 about AIM’s intention to withdraw. “My sense was that (Mr Chua) gave us this heads up so that we could make the necessary preparations,” she said.

“In the circumstances, AHTC started urgent preparations for the withdrawal of the (Town Council Management System, which was used to Aljunied Town Council) by upscaling the Hougang SMC (single member constituency) computer software.”

This was a “false impression”, charged Mr Singh.

In his cross-examination of Ms Lim — who was chairperson of AHTC — Mr Singh pointed out that AIM had “bent over backwards” for AHTC. Ms Lim, a lawyer, said the phrase was “loaded”, and that she did not agree with it.

Mr Singh pointed out that AIM had agreed to extend its services from Aug 1, 2011 to Aug 31, 2011, at the request of Mr Chua.

This was to facilitate a parallel running of AIM and AHTC’s computer systems, the court heard.

A further extension was granted till Sept 9 that year, which Ms Lim said was requested by CPG Facilities Management, the former managing agent of AHTC.

“They agreed to give you more time, even though they were not obliged to,” Mr Singh put to Ms Lim.

“Despite all of this, you misled everyone. You gave everyone the false impression that AIM terminated, and so you had to upscale.”

TERSE EXCHANGES, SILENCE IN COURT

The court was told that Ms Lim had not reviewed the contract between AIM and the previous Aljunied Town Council in the immediate aftermath of the May 7 General Election.

When queried, she said that under the Town Councils Act, the tenure of town councillors starts when the town council is gazetted, which was why she did not request for the information then. AHTC was gazetted in June 2011.

However, Mr Singh said the tenure began when MPs were elected, not after the gazetting of the town council.

Ms Lim replied that this was not her understanding of the section of the Town Councils Act, which prompted Mr Singh to ask if her evidence “was wrong”.

There was silence as Ms Lim read the document, and Mr Singh said: “You are not answering the question, Ms Lim, and time is passing.”

“I will ask (again), do you agree that what you told the court about Section 13 of the Town Councils Act (which governs when a town councillor’s tenure begins) was incorrect?”

This was followed by more silence, and Ms Lim later clarified that she was “mistaken”, and had “gotten myself confused”. She then apologised.

But Mr Singh retorted: “What is the confusion? We are talking about your state of mind at the time!”

Ms Lim said she had “read some other document”, and “recollected wrongly”.

The terse exchanges returned to the packed courtroom towards the end of the day’s session, as Mr Singh quizzed Ms Lim on the “false impression” she created.

Noting that she had not answered his questions, Mr Singh said: “The more you avoid the question, the more you give us the chance to submit that you are an evasive witness.”

Ms Lim will continue to take the stand on Friday.

Sign up for TODAY's WhatsApp service. Click here:
 

Sign Up