Leon Perera's false allegation

On Tuesday’s Parliament Sitting (Nov 7), Mr Leon Perera alleged that Mediacorp had edited a video from the debate on the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill in Feb this year, with “certain bits removed”. 

He claimed that after his intervention, #MediaCorp“made a rectification and put up a different clip”.

He was clearly implying that MediaCorp had edited Parliamentary footages in a partisan manner.

This was a serious accusation. But it was false, and unfair to MediaCorp who work very hard to prepare footages after every Parliament Sitting.

I raised this with Mr Perera in Parliament on Tuesday (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/…/chee-hong-tat-on-video-rec…).

Confronted, he was forced to acknowledge the following facts:

(a) On 20 Feb 2017, Mr Perera emailed MediaCorp to ask why a particular video clip had been truncated.

(b) MediaCorp replied to him on the same day, explaining that a technical glitch had affected the recording, and that it had been rectified and the full clip made available online on 18 Feb – TWO days before Mr Perera’s email query.

So Mr Perera had known this for several months. Yet when I asked him, he at first repeated the false claim. He said, “as a result of that exchange I had with MediaCorp, they removed the video with the truncations and then they uploaded a new video without the truncations”.

I had to reiterate the facts and remind him what actually happened, before he grudgingly conceded the point.

It is surprising that Mr Perera remembered the original ‘editing’ and that he had asked MediaCorp, but ‘forgot’ that MediaCorp told him it was an error which had already been rectified.

It is part of debate to criticize and present different views.

But it is unethical and wrong to tell untruths to score political points. This is not what Singaporeans want to see in Parliament.

- SMS Chee Hong Tat

https://www.facebook.com/hongtat.chee/posts/1101168040019616

Staying true to her colours. Sylvia Lim did the 'suppressio veri suggestio falsi' again.

In her adjournment motion speech in Parliament, Sylvia Lim quoted the advice of a “prominent” Queens Counsel filed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock in Court, that the Art was unconstitutional. 

But she did not disclose that Tan Cheng Bock also withdrew the QC’s advice. 

Clearly the advice had no merit or Tan Cheng Bock would not have withdrawn it. 

By suppressing the fact that Tan Cheng Bock had withdrawn the QC's advice, Sylvia Lim intended to mislead Singaporeans.

In legal language, such behaviour is described as:

"suppressio veri suggestio falsi" - suppressing the truth to suggest something that is false.

In 2015, the High Court judge, Quentin Loh described one of Sylvia Lim’s Parliamentary speeches as an exercise of “suppresio veri, suggestio falsi”.

What Sylvia Lim has succeeded in her adjournment motion is to further discredit her credibility. 

Invited but declined invitation. So who is not upfront?

Was the Government upfront about their intention?

Right from the beginning, minority representation was their concern.

When the Constitutional Commission Committee was set up in February 2016, one of the TERMS OF REFERENCE was to 'consider and recommend what provisions should be made to safeguard minority representation in the Presidency'. 

So why is WP surprised that the reserved election has taken place now rather than later?

DURING THE REVIEW by the Constitutional Commission, over 100 people and organisations submitted their views to the Constitutional Commission Committee, including WP.

The WP were invited to present their views publicly, and make their case before the Constitutional Commission.

But they chose not to do so.

20 contributors were invited to give their views to the Constitutional Commission and the WP was the only one that declined the invitation.

Why did WP choose not to give their views publicly to the Constitutional Commission on a matter that concerned the highest office in the land?

UPFRONT OF NOT?

1. Safeguarding minority representation was one of the terms of reference for the Constitutional Commission during the review.

2. Law Minister Shanmugam said in a townhall dialogue on 15 September 2016 that the reserved election was a policy decision.

3. PM Lee said in Parliament on 8 November 2016 that the GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE how the count would start.

Quote:
When should the racial provision start counting? The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

Whether in Parliament or outside Parliament, the Government had made clear their intention right from the beginning.

Guess who is misleading people?

POLICY DECISION, said Mr Shanmugam In the first townhall dialogue in September 2016. (http://bit.ly/2xTDL5C)

PM LEE indicated the same when he spoke in Parliament in November 2016 during the debate.

PM Lee said:
"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year."

In other words, it is a GOVERNMENT DECISION when the counting would start.

So who is misleading people?

Sylvia Lim has conveniently chosen to focus people on her own misinterpretation of "we have taken the Attorney-General’s advice" and ignored all that was said by PM Lee just before this.

This isn't the first time she has misled in Parliament. She is the only one with the distinction of being called out by Justice Quentin Loh for misleading Parliament.

Parliament is supreme. Parliament is where policy decisions are made. The role of the AG is to advise the Government on the legal aspects of the decisions they make, the legitimacy of their policy decisions.

As a Parliamentarian and a lawyer by training, Sylvia Lim should know the role of the AG to government.

In her adjournment motion speech, she quoted various 'who said what' EXCEPT from the 68-page judgement delivered by the appeal court.

If Sylvia Lim is a serious seeker of answer she would have read the judgement for therein lies the answer to her question, addressed in great detail.

Instead she chose to mislead in order to insinuate in Parliament.

Chief Jusice Menon, in his judgement, wrote that Constitution mandates that Parliament should decide on how the count would start. He also said that Constitution allows the Government to choose any of the 5 terms preceding 2017 as the first term. (http://bit.ly/2yJ5J33)

Context and meaning: Taking AG's advice

A lesson on context and meaning. No SkillsFuture credit needed. This lesson is free. 😂😂😂

Taking the AG's advice? Meaning is found in the overall context. 

To quote him more fully, this was what PM Lee said in Parliament in November 2016:

"When should the racial provision start counting?
The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point and the Government intends to legislate when we amend the Presidential Elections Act in January next year.
We have taken the Attorney-General’s advice. We will start counting from the first President who exercised the powers of the Elected President, in other words, Dr Wee Kim Wee."

(1) The Constitutional Amendment Bill states that the Government should legislate on this point ...

==> Constitution is clear that the GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEGISLATE. That is, the Government decides (not AGC).

(2) ... and the Government intends to legislate..

==> PM Lee also made it clear that the GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO LEGISLATE. That is, the Government intends to decide.

Thus:
The Government intends to legislate, the Government takes a decision. With that decision, the Government takes advice from AG on all the legal aspects involved in making this legislation. Having taken care of all the legal aspects involved in the legislation, PM Lee informs parliament that they will start the count from President Wee Kim Wee.

Easy to understand?

Sylvia Lim misleading Parliament again!

Why did Sylvia Lim blatantly mislead in Parliament that nobody came out to clarify that it was a policy decision? 

Does she respect the sanctity of the Chamber in which she is privileged to speak? 

Right after the White Paper on the proposed changes to the Elected Presidency was released by the government, in the first townhall dialogue helmed by Law Minister K Shanmugam 15 September, Mr Shanmugam was asked about the 'circuit breaker' that would trigger a reserved election. (http://bit.ly/2xTDL5C)

Mr Shanmugam replied, "The most direct answer is actually, the Government can decide. When we put in the Bill, we can say we want it to start from this period. IT'S A POLICY DECISION." 

In making a policy decision on how the reserved election will be triggered, there will be various legal aspects and questions that need to be considered. On such matters, the government would seek the AG's advice, including how to draft the bill. 

What is so difficult for a lawyer and parliamentarian to understand?

As a parliamentarian, Sylvia Lim should know that the AG does not tell the government what to do. The AG advises the government on the legal aspects of their decisions.

Was Sylvia Lim blocked from speaking on her adjournment motion?

Was there an attempt to prevent Sylvia Lim from speaking on her adjournment motion? The answer is a clear 'NO'. 

LET'S SET THE FACTS RIGHT. 

As the timeline shows, Murali and Vikram first filed their motions in August BEFORE Sylvia Lim. 

They failed in their ballots and their motions were rolled over to September. 

The system is very FAIR AND TRANSPARENT. 

During the ballot for the September sitting, Dennis Tan of Workers' Party was present to witness the balloting.

During the ballot for the October sitting, Sylvia Lim herself was present to witness the balloting. 

That Sylvia Lim missed it twice is the outcome of a fair and transparent balloting process with witnesses present. 

Indeed, PAP's Vikram missed it not just once or twice. He was 3 times unlucky in the ballot.

Who sues who in this long-running AHTC saga?

Confused over the long-drawn 'AHPETC to AHTC' saga? 

1. FMSS vs AHTC: Why there is an arbitration process

A few days after WP won Aljunied GRC in 2011, FMSS was incorporated to manage WP-run town council.

Relationship between WP-run town council and FMSS soured after the damning AGO Report on AHPETC in February 2015.

Shortly after FMSS' contract with AHPETC expired in 2015, FMSS issued a legal letter of demand for payment of $3.5 million.

Other than saying that FMSS and AHTC would resolve the issue through mediation, WP has kept mum about its progress. But we now know that they have not managed to resolve this and arbitration was still ongoing. 

2. INDEPENDENT PANEL
After many years of pushing the blame everywhere except themselves, and one damning report after another (own auditors, AGO, KPMG, PwC), WP finally appointed an independent panel (at the insistence of HDB) to look into improper and over payments and and to recover money improperly paid.

The three eminent persons appointed by WP to the panel are: Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, Senior Counsel N Sreenivasan and Mr Ong Pang Thye, a managing partner of KPMG.

The independent panel will act on behalf of the town council.

3. AHTC vs Town Councillors

The independent panel filed a lawsuit on behalf of AHTC against their own town councillors, namely, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh.

Also being sued are Chua Zhi Hon and Kenneth Foo, both WP members, and How Weng Fan, owner of FMSS.

The independent panel is asking to rescind the contracts with FMSS and FMSI, and is seeking compensation of more than S$33 million which it said was wrongfully paid out to the companies – subject to Ms Lim, Mr Low, FMSS, FMSI or Ms How showing which payments were lawful. 

4. PRPTC vs AHTC's town councilors

Following the lawsuit brought by the independent panel against AHTC's town councillors and related parties, Pasir Ris Punggol Town Council is suing the same people to recover $479,000 for Punggol East SMC when it was under WP's management.

5. Why arbitration process is suspended.

This is no need for any arbitration process over how much is owed to FMSS since the lawsuit brought by the independent panel on behalf of AHTC is seeking to void all payments to FMSS.

"Ownself fix ownself". WP is in this predicament because of themselves.

It is a predicament they could have avoided but they chose to blame others, play victim, play political persecution, and they chose to deny that there was anything wrong.

WP SET UP A FLAWED SYSTEM THAT ALLOWED THEIR FRIENDS TO TAKE MONEY FROM THE FRONT DOOR IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.

Their friends sat at the gateway awarding contracts to themselves, and making payments to themselves. All these with the blessings of WP.

When the whistle was first blown on them, they could have put a stop to the flawed system and set right what was wrong. WP chose to let the flawed system persist.

THEY DISREGARDED the duties and obligations imposed on them by the Town Council Act and Town Council Financial Rules.

Indeed their lawyer had argued in court that even if there was mismanagement of funds, nothing could be done except at the ballot box.

IS THAT WHY THEY NEVER BOTHERED to set things right? Because nothing could be done EXCEPT AT THE BALLOT BOX? And they know they can always trust their supporters to vote for them again regardless of anything?

In May 2015, JUSTICE QUENTIN LOH said to them:

"It is clear that there are grave and serious questions that have been raised regarding the state of AHPETC's accounts. If AHPETC were a managing corporation ... I have no doubt that AHPETC or its officers will be exposed to the possibility of civil liability ... or in an extreme scenario, criminal liability. I can only say it is a travesty for AHPETC to have ignored their duties and obligations imposed on them by the Town Council Act and Town Council Financial Rules.They owe a duty and a heavy responsibility to their constituents to run AHPETC properly and it is incumbent on them to put their house and finances in order."

GRAVE WORDS. BUT THEY FELL ON DEAF EARS.
Their own appointed independent auditors blew the whistle on them.

Then AGO raised many serious red flags about their accounts.

Next, KPMG said the failures at AHPETC were systemic and pervasive and included leadership failure at the top.

KPMG also raised the real possibilities of civil and criminal liabilities.

PwC which audited Punggol East accounts when it was under AHPETC came to similar conclusions.

AT EACH STAGE was a chance to put things right.

AT EACH STAGE, WP chose ro deny all allegations.

You can say that for WP, it is a case of "OWNSELF FIX OWNSELF".

WP can certainly thank their ardent supporters for allowing them to fall into this state. They have SUPPORTERS who DO NOT HOLD THEM TO ANY STANDARD OF ACCOUNTABILITY. None. Not even a low standard of accountability. Not one of them questioned WP.

Instead, they were ever ready to deflect from the issues and point fingers at the government, at the PAP. They would bring in Lehman brothers and AIM, talk about the manager from Ang Mo Kio TC (who is already under CPIB investigation), or direct attention to the transport woes and ask when the transport minister was going to commit harakiri. They still do these.

And then they will cheer WP and urge them on in their flawed system with their rousing "jia you!"

AHTC claiming $33 million against Town Councillors for actingin breach of fiduciary duties

Wow, $33 million. That's a huge sum of money.

AHTC has alleged that ALL PAYMENTS IT MADE TO FMSS (its then managing agent) ARE NULL AND VOID because its town councilors had acted in breach of their fiduciary duties.

The town council is claiming up to $33,717,535 against WP chief Low Thia Khiang; town council vice-chairman Sylvia Lim; Ms How Weng Fan, owner of FMSS, for payments made from July... 15, 2011 to July 14, 2015.

The Statement of Claim, filed in the High Court under the direction of the independent panel, alleges that Ms Lim and Mr Low "set up and/or allowed" such a system at the town council, which effectively enabled Ms How and her late husband Mr Danny Loh to be responsible for certifying work done, approving payments and/or signing cheques to FMSS and FMSI to benefit themselves.

In the statement, the town council said Mr Low and Ms Lim had, on or before May 15, 2011, decided purportedly on behalf of AHTC, that Ms How and her late husband Danny Loh would be instructed to set up and incorporate FMSS, which would be appointed as managing agent of AHTC without a tender being called. The decision followed the WP winning Aljunied GRC from the People's Action Party(PAP) in the May 7, 2011 general election.

Besides Mr Low, Ms Lim, and Ms How, other defendants named are WP MP and current town council chairman Pritam Singh; Mr Chua Zhi Hon, a former member of the WP Youth Wing executive committee; and Mr Kenneth Foo, deputy organising secretary of the WP and WP candidate in Nee Soon GRC in the 2015 general election

Ms Lim, Mr Chua and Mr Foo were members of the tenders and contracts committee of AHTC, which was chaired by Mr Singh.

The independent panel appointed in February to recover improper payments is chaired by Senior Counsel Philip Jeyaretnam. Its other members are Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan and KPMG managing partner Ong Pang Thye.

The panel has the power to commence legal action on behalf of the town council for overpayments and payments without proper certification of work being done, among others. This can include mediation, arbitration and other court proceedings.

Its other powers include making demands and coming to settlements on behalf of AHTC.

The Housing Board had asked AHTC to appoint a third party to recover the improper payments made from town council funds.

A pre-trial conference date of Aug 31 has been listed.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ahtc-alleges-that-all-payments-totalling-33-million-made-to-ex-managing-agent-are-void?xtor=CS1-10

Independent Panel initiates legal action against Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh

The independent panel, tasked with looking into improper payments made by AHTC has taken legal action against WP's chief Low Thia Khiang, chairman of AHTC Pritam Singh and vice-chairman Sylvia Lim.

The writ of summons was filed last Friday by the town council in the High Court, over a breach of fiduciary duties.

Besides the three Aljunied GRC MPs, other defendants named are: Mr Chua Zhi Hon, a former member of the WP Youth Wing executive committee; Mr Kenneth Foo, deputy organising secretary of the WP and WP candidate in Nee Soon GRC in the 2015 General Election; Ms How Weng Fan, owner of the town council's former managing agent firm FM Solutions and Services (FMSS); and FMSS.

A pre-trial conference date of Aug 31 has been listed.

Last year, the Housing Board had asked AHTC to appoint a third party to recover the improper payments made from town council funds.

The independent panel, appointed in February this year, is chaired by senior counsel Philip Jeyaretnam, and comprises senior counsel N. Sreenivasan and KPMG managing partner Ong Pang Thye.

The independent panel has the power to commence legal action on behalf of the town council for overpayments and payments without proper certification of work being done, among others. This can include mediation, arbitration and other court proceedings.

Besides this case, AHTC also filed another writ of summons in the High Court against FMSS last Friday.

This was in relation to an arbitration case over a financial dispute emerging from the lapses at the town council.

In a report last year, audit firm KPMG found that governance lapses at AHTC between 2011 and 2015 had put public funds running into millions of dollars at risk of improper use.

It traced some of the improper payments to AHTC's then managing agent FMSS.

Ms How and her late husband, Mr Danny Loh, were owners of FMSS and held key management and financial control positions in the town council at the same time.

This meant they effectively approved and made payments to themselves when they paid FMSS, the KPMG report found. It also raised the possibility of civil and criminal liabilities.

The report was part of the ongoing audit of AHTC following lapses flagged by its own auditors as well as by the Auditor-General's Office in a special report in February 2015.

No comment from WP on PwC Report

Up till now, it's still 'no comment' from WP to PwC's Past Payment Review Report.

BEFORE MND or HDB received the Report from PwC, before Singaporeans got to hear of this report, Workers' Party's AHTC was given a draft report so that they could read and respond to it with comments or objections.

According to PwC, AHTC "effectively declined to provide any comments to us on our Draft Report".

Will Sylvia Lim see her taunt come true? Investigations into AHTC likely, say observers

Who knows, Sylvia Lim may just have her wish come true. After all, she has been taunting with the line "Report to CPIB if there is any wrongdoing". And she had also confirmed to residents that as then chairman, she co-signed all payments big and small. So she knew every payment made.

Not just one, but two auditors' reports have raised the possibility of criminal conduct.

KPMG had said in its October report last year that AHTC town councillors may be liable for serious offences under the Penal Code, such as criminal breach of trust and abetment.

This is because as custodians of public funds entrusted to the town council, they have a fiduciary duty that entails "personal and collective responsibility''. If the improper payments had been made deliberately, "they could amount to criminal conduct", KPMG said.

Now seven months later, PwC said “Those within AHPETC who brought about this situation, and allowed improper payments, should also be held fully responsible for the losses suffered. The circumstances may also warrant further investigations by the relevant authorities as to potential criminal offences, including criminal breach of trust.”

What experts say

Nanyang Technological University accounting associate professor El'fred Boo said: "Accountants and auditors practise conservatism to a T. For PwC to make such a statement, the implications could be pretty grave for the town council."

"Auditors don't use these words lightly. There must have been compelling evidence for them to bring up the issue of potential criminal breach of trust," said Singapore Management University accounting associate professor Themin Suwardy.

"The key word is 'intentional'," he said. "You can be very dumb, and did something badly, but that does not equate to criminal breach of trust." He added: "Given the significant findings... I cannot see why a criminal investigation would not take place."

PwC said the circumstances around the selection of FMSS as managing agent show it was done by design.

1. FMSS was incorporated on 15 May 2011 just 7 days after GE2011.

2.  It was incorporated even before CPG, the previous managing agent, had expressed any preference to be released.

3. There is documentary evidence suggesting that How Weng Fan and her husband, Danny Loh had been approached to set up a company to manage the new Town Council. 

4. FMSS assured of the job two months before it was formally appointed.

5. FMSS had started charging AHTC in June 2011, before existing managing agent CPG was discharged on 1 August 2011, and before FMSS itself was formally appointed on 4 August.

PwC also found that Punggol East could have saved another $500,000 had proper procedure been followed by the town council..

Punggol East MP Charles Chong said PRPTC is studying the report and seeking legal advice on the matter, but has not made a police report.

The WP said it was studying the report and did not respond to queries for further comment.

Lie after lie after lie

“Our tender exercise was reviewed by three different auditors, our own consultants, AGO, PwC. Nobody made any findings that we did not exercise due diligence in assessing the tender price," Sylvia Lim declared at Workers' Party's first rally for GE 2015.

Anyone who has read the AGO Report on AHPETC knows that's a blatant lie.

How is it that a person who so blatantly lie again and again still enjoys wide support within Workers' Party and is still chairman of WP? WP NCMP Leon Perera even said in Parliament recently in honour of women that Sylvia Lim was one of the women who 'inspires him'.