Senior Counsel Davinder Singh took a walk down memory lane during the final day of his cross-examination of Worker's Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim on Oct. 24.

Davinder referred to a debate that Lim took part in Parliament three years ago, on Feb. 12, 2015.

This debate was on the Auditor-General's report of the audit performed on Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).

Minister Shanmugam debated Sylvia Lim on FMSS

Various MPs from both sides of the political aisle were involved. At one point, Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam said:

"Now, let us turn to Ms Sylvia Lim. You are the Chairperson, lawyer. You obviously must have known from the beginning that Loh, Ms How and Yeo owned FMSS and FMSI. And you approved the system that was set up. And you rubber stamped their actions by countersigning the cheques."

He added that Lim did not seem to have ensured that all relevant facts were made known to all the town councillors, and that there was no discussion on how financial conflicts were going to be handled.

Lim said she "utterly rejected" those assertions. In reply, she said:

"(The) Minister may not have noticed that when we looked through the award of the MA tender in 2012, we actually engaged an audit firm to do an audit of our process.

What our auditors noted was the disclosures made by the MA to us at the time, including the fact that 80%-over of the MA fee was salary of the staff and revealing to us their cost structure and so on. On that basis, we were awarded an "A" during that audit, because of the way that tender was assessed."

Lim was referring to RSM Ethos, an external audit firm that reviewed the award of the second Managing Agent contract, which was awarded to FM Solutions & Services (FMSS).

FMSS profile disclosed in different circumstances

Davinder referred to another quote from Lim during the Parliamentary debate, where she said:

"(Minister Shanmugam) was asking whether the town councillors knew of the ownership interest of the various directors of the FMSS when they approved the contract. The fact is, as we have stated to the auditors, the ACRA company profiles were submitted for evaluation. So, that was disclosure on that aspect specifically."

However, Davinder contended that Lim had misled the Minister by giving Parliament the impression that the company profile of FMSS was fully disclosed to the town council.

Davinder said that during a previous day of the trial, Lim had agreed the ACRA company profiles were not submitted to the town council during a meeting on Aug. 4, 2011, when the approval for FMSS's appointment was sought.

In reply, Lim said:

"I did it in good faith at all times, Mr Singh."

Davinder said:

"If this is in good faith, then all of us in Singapore are in big trouble. Now let’s move on."

Heads-up given to FMSS

Davinder went over a series of email exchanges involving Lim in June 2012.

At the time, Lim was a member of the Tender Evaluation Committee that would assess bids for the second Managing Agent contract for Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).

A meeting was set for June 21, 2011 between the committee and FMSS, who had put in a bid. This meeting was to evaluate FMSS's tender, and decide if it was in the best interests of the residents.

Davinder pointed to an email sent by Lim to the other members of the committee on June 19, 2012, to draw their attention to FMSS's pricing structure.

Lim also included a comparison to what the town council was paying at the time, and a comparison with other PAP-run town councils.

Email to FMSS

However, Davinder produced another email, also sent by Lim on June 19, 2012. It was addressed to Danny Loh and How Weng Fan, majority owners of FMSS.

This email gave FMSS a "heads-up" that the tender committee would likely ask for an explanation on the pricing structure.

Davinder pointed out that Lim had said to FMSS that since their pricing was at a higher end, some explanation would be "useful".

Loh replied to say that he "appreciated" the heads-up. The other committee members were not copied in this exchange.

Said Davinder:

"And so when that meeting was held and Danny Loh was present, only you and Loh knew about the communications you had on 19 June. Correct?"

Lim replied:

"I think it may be so, yes."

Davinder noted from the minutes of the meeting that Loh had prepared slides to explain FMSS's pricing structure. He said:

"It was all a set up between you and Danny Loh and Ms How. It was a charade. These people had been given a tip-off..."

Lim replied:

"Mr Singh, I disagree. It's the sole tenderer."

Sole tenderer

Davinder then asked:

"Are you saying there is a difference in treatment between a number of tenderers and a sole tenderer?"

Lim replied:

"No additional information (was) being given to one tenderer over the others. I wanted them to come prepared so that the meeting would be productive."

Davinder contended that Lim had given FMSS an advantage to come prepared to discuss their pricing structure.

But Lim replied that it was a practical matter as FMSS was the sole tenderer. Without the heads-up, the meeting would have to be quickly adjourned and re-scheduled as FMSS would not have prepared the answers.

Davinder asked:

"You earlier said just because it was a sole tenderer. If it was a competitive tender, is it your evidence you would have given all of them a heads-up?"

Lim replied:

"It’s hypothetical, but it’s possible. We would have treated all of them on an even keel, yes."

RSM Ethos were not in the loop

By this time in June 2012, RSM Ethos had already been engaged to review the tender award process.

On the same day of June 19, 2012, Lim also sent yet another email to RSM Ethos, informing them that the committee was going to meet with and question FMSS.

Besides getting justification for pricing, Lim asked if there was anything else she could ask FMSS.

RSM Ethos replied on June 26 to say that the main purpose of the interview was to clarify terms that were unclear, and provided some information on extension clauses.

Davinder referred to this exchange, and said:

"On one hand you are corresponding with tender committee, the other RSM Ethos, and the third track, Danny Loh and Ms How.

Insofar as RSM Ethos was concerned, and as you’ve told us today, in circumstances where they were appointed to review the integrity of the process, you did not show them the email chain with Loh and How. Correct?"

Lim said she accepted that she did not share this email chain with RSM Ethos.

Davinder said:

"Would it not be relevant to show it to RSM if they were involved in reviewing the integrity of the process?"

Lim replied:

"I did not think it was material because they were the sole tenderer."

Davinder said that RSM Ethos was appointed to check on the integrity of the sole tender, but pointed out that Lim said she didn't share the emails with RSM Ethos because FMSS were the sole tenderer.

Lim replied that they were not giving FMSS any unfair advantage, and she thought there was nothing wrong with what she was doing.

The trial is expected to continue on Oct. 24.

[related_story]

Top image adapted from Gov.sg on YouTube.

Content that keeps Mothership.sg going

?
This is what it feels like to have your hair removed by intense bursts of light.

? vs ?
You're on the MRT. Do you read or surf?
Why not both??