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.