SINGAPORE: Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen and Malaysian Minister of Defence Mohamad Sabu on Thursday (Oct 18) reaffirmed longstanding bilateral defence ties during the Malaysian minister’s introductory visit to Singapore.
Mr Mohamad, who is in Singapore from Thursday to Saturday, called on Dr Ng at the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) on Thursday morning and reviewed a guard of honour as part of his visit, said MINDEF in a press release.
The two ministers noted the “positive trajectory” in bilateral defence relations, and affirmed both countries’ cooperation on various regional multilateral platforms such as the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM) and the ADMM-Plus, as well as the Five Power Defence Arrangements.
Mr Mohamad also visited the Information Fusion Centre at Changi Naval Base where he interacted with Malaysian troops participating in Exercise Bersama Lima.
In the afternoon, he visited the 3rd Singapore Division, where he received a brief on the Singapore Army, viewed a static display of army assets and weapon systems and took on a familiarisation ride on the Light Strike Vehicle Mark II.
Malaysia Defence Minister Mohamad Sabu takes a familiarisation ride on the Light Strike Vehicle Mark II during his visit to 3rd Singapore Division. (Photo: MINDEF)
The minister will also call on Acting Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on Saturday.
DEFENCE MINISTERS MEET
He will be attending the 12th ADMM and the 5th ADMM-Plus which Singapore is hosting on Friday and Saturday respectively.
Dr Ng will host defence ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and eight partner countries – Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States – for the 12th ADMM and 5th ADMM-Plus.
In addition to the Malaysian defence minister, Dr Ng also welcomed officials from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam on Thursday.
He thanked the ministers for their strong support for Singapore’s 2018 ADMM chairmanship, and reaffirmed Singapore’s friendly defence relationships with their countries.
In the morning Dr Ng had a bilateral call with and hosted lunch for Chinese State Councillor and Minister of National Defence General Wei Fenghe, during which both sides talked about the importance of China’s continued engagement in the region.
General Wei also welcomed Dr Ng’s upcoming visit to China for the ASEAN-China Maritime Exercise and the 8th Beijing Xiangshan Forum.
In addition, Dr Ng met US Secretary of Defence James Mattis.
The two discussed ways to strengthen bilateral relations, including cooperation to enhance regional counter-terrorism intelligence sharing.
This is the second time that Singapore is chairing the ADMM since its establishment in 2006 and the first time that Singapore is chairing the ADMM-Plus since its establishment in 2010.
SINGAPORE: Japan’s largest warship since World War II docked in Singapore on Thursday (Oct 18) as part of its two-month-long deployment to boost maritime security in the Indo-Pacific.
At 250m long, JS Kaga is the length of five Olympic-sized swimming pools, and it can carry up to 14 helicopters.
The warship is reportedly designed to carry fighter jets too, but Japanese navy officials are careful to describe the ship in more benign terms, in line with the country’s pacifist constitution.
The JS Kaga can carry up to 14 helicopters.
“This deployment is in line with free and open Indo-Pacific strategy promoted by the government of Japan. The JMSDF (Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force) is seeking active contribution for maritime security on the Indo-Pacific region through strengthening relationships with our partner navies in the region,” said Rear Admiral Tatsuya Fukuda.
JS Kaga’s arrival coincides with the 12th ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting in Singapore. Freedom of navigation in the South China Sea is expected to be one area of focus during the meeting, especially for defence chiefs from the United States and Vietnam.
“Regarding the military build-up in the South China Sea, I would say the US would most likely bring it up and will probably have support from Vietnam, but I do not believe the majority of ASEAN participants will make that a focal point of the meeting,” said Yang Zi, a senior analyst at the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
“When it comes to ASEAN countries, most have opted for economic growth with Chinese investment and the Belt and Road Initiative, while they are taking a less vocal stance publicly against China’s build-up in the South China Sea,” he added.
JS Kaga is Japan’s largest warship since World War II.
Tensions have lingered in the South China Sea over the past year, with US, British, and French ships conducting so-called freedom of navigation operations in disputed territories, in response to China’s build-up of military assets on islands there.
Japan’s Rear Admiral Fukuda said that while he saw “many Chinese ships” during JS Kaga’s deployment in the region, he had not encountered any kind of threat.
Japanese warship JS Kaga (right) and escort ship JS Inazuma (left).
Over the next six days, the Japanese crew of JS Kaga and its escort ship JS Inazuma will engage in talks and social events with their Singapore counterparts.
Singapore is JS Kaga’s last port of call, after it stopped in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India and Indonesia. Its deployment ends on Oct 23, when it will leave Singapore and head back to Japan.
SINGAPORE: A 31-year-old Malaysian man was found with a pair of live leopard geckos in his car at the Woodlands Checkpoint on Tuesday (Oct 16), the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) said on Thursday.
The geckos were found in two separate container boxes that had been wrapped in a towel and placed in a bag in the driver’s Malaysian-registered car, ICA said in a Facebook post.
Alongside the geckos were a bottle of lizard food and a lizard thermometer, ICA said.
The lizards, in separate container boxes, were wrapped in a towel and placed inside a bag. (Photo: Immigration & Checkpoints Authority)
The man has been referred to the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority of Singapore for investigation.
“The leopard geckos are currently under the care of Wildlife Reserves Singapore,” said ICA.
The geckos were found alongside a bottle of lizard food and a lizard thermometer (Photo: Immigration & Checkpoints Authority)
BEIJING: Singapore and China have agreed to boost cooperation in the areas of finance, regional infrastructure development, education, as well as science and technology.
This came out of a meeting on Thursday (Oct 18) between Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He in Beijing.
Both sides also affirmed the “excellent state of bilateral relations” between Singapore and China.
Mr Liu and Mr Tharman, who is also Coordinating Minister for Economic and Social Policies, exchanged views on the global economic situation, as well as other geo-strategic issues of mutual concern, said Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office in a press statement.
Mr Liu is Beijing’s top economic adviser. Both sides also discussed the economic and social priorities and strategies of their respective countries.
Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam (left) and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He sharing a handshake on Oct 18. (Photo: Singapore Embassy in Beijing)
Apart from meeting leading officials, Mr Tharman is in Beijing to officiate celebrations for Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC’s 20th anniversary in China.
He noted that GIC was one of the early, major investors in China.
“It has been a good experience – continually growing, moving into more sectors and building very good relationships,” said Mr Tharman.
“It’s a good occasion to commemorate one facet of our relationship between our two countries.”
Mr Tharman is scheduled to visit Copenhagen and Helsinki next.
SINGAPORE: An old professor of mine once taught me that research methodologies are like torchlights we use to illuminate a certain part of the room.
If we use only one torchlight, we run the risk of only being able to see one part of the picture at any point in time.
But if we use more torchlights or, better yet, switch on all the lights, we can gain a much more holistic understanding of any policy issue.
This analogy can be applied to the recently released Commitment to Reducing Inequality (CRI) Index 2018 by Oxfam, which had ranked Singapore 149 out of 157 countries in its efforts to tackle the rich-poor gap.
WHAT ARE WE REALLY MEASURING?
At the heart of the debates over the Oxfam rankings is the question: How do we measure inequality? And do such international measures provide a valid representation of the extent of inequality in Singapore?
The Oxfam rankings focuses on input measures, with Singapore’s low rankings attributed to its relatively low level of public social spending. According to Oxfam, only 39 per cent of the national budget goes to education, health and social protection.
While such input measures can provide a useful indication of a country’s commitment to social spending, they do not necessarily provide a complete picture of the ways in which inequality should be managed or evaluated.
Crowds in the Central Business District. (File photo: Reuters)
As Minister for Social and Family Development Desmond Lee has recently argued, Singapore has achieved a set of positive outcomes in health, education, jobs and housing that are redistributive in nature and have a progressive effect on those in the lower-income brackets – outcomes that most inequality indicators fail to capture.
Minister for Finance Heng Swee Keat has also similarly pointed out that the Oxfam report’s focus on input measures may have painted an inaccurate picture.
The Oxfam report suggests that there is one approach for countries to redistribute income – that is through government taxation of the rich and public expenditure in specific areas but is that really so?
When we place different sets of rankings side-by-side, we get a conflicted picture.
Take for example a comparison of social outcomes with tax rates, illustrated in the table below.
A comparison table of social outcomes, tax rates and world rankings. (Graphic: Author provided. Sources: Economist Intelligence Unit (2014), the Programme for International Student Assessment (2016), the Central Intelligence Agency’s The World Factbook, and World Happiness Report 2018.)
As the table shows, Singapore’s Gini coefficient (after taxes and transfers) juxtaposes with strong performance on rankings of education and healthcare measures. This presents a paradox and suggests that countries pursue very different strategies in tackling inequality such that one model of success cannot be applied to the others to gauge commitment to tackling inequality.
To give another example, Israel was ranked 25th on the Oxfam rankings, even though its Gini coefficient is ranked 47th highest in the world and 22 per cent of its population lives below the poverty line.
Let me reiterate this: More than one-fifth of Israeli society is living below the poverty line. Yet it has fared well on the Oxfam rankings.
Perhaps an important lesson to be learnt is that we need to take these rankings, with their differing methodologies and assumptions, with a heavy pinch of salt. An over-reliance on rankings can give rise to skewed policy outcomes, when national peculiarities that give rise to inequality in the first place are not accounted for.
One of the most glaring omissions of the Oxfam report is the role the grassroots sector, non-government organisations (NGOs) and other ground-up civic organisations play in ameliorating inequality in Singapore.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has argued that social capital derives from the presence of civic organisations as well as their roles in providing basic public and social services.
The Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Singapore 2nd in the world for healthcare outcomes. (Photo: SGH)
For instance, Singapore’s “many helping hands” approach to social policy involves partnering Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) ranging from civic and religious groups, corporations, community organisations and concerned citizens, with these VWOs playing the actual role of serving beneficiaries and communities.
The resources and efforts that these VWOs expend in aiding the needy are not reflected in the Oxfam rankings, which only measure state social spending. Furthermore, the presence of these organisations can also be seen as a positive social policy outcome, since they represent the proliferation of a culture of giving and helping those in need.
Seen in this light, a city or country that manages to establish a high level of social capital may paradoxically give rise to lower levels of social spending by the state. Such a situation would be ideal for most policymakers.
WE HAVE NOT ARRIVED
This is not to say that Singapore’s approach to managing inequality is perfect. Far from it.
There are various policy levers that have yet been tapped on to further reduce inequality in Singapore, such as estate taxes, universal early childhood education or minimum wages across all sectors. Indeed, inequality remains a reality for many Singaporean families and households.
But knowing the level of state social spending is cold comfort to someone working three jobs to support a family. These issues are not captured in measures of inputs either.
Given the complexity of the issue, how can we measure a country’s efforts at tackling inequality?
Rather than measuring input factors, rankings should also incorporate measures of policy output, as well as less tangible experiences of individuals and families and their levels of assurance and confidence towards the future.
There is a need to take an ethnographic approach that draws on the inputs and experiences of ordinary citizens. This will require taking what we in social science call a “mixed methods” approach.
But before we can get there, it will be useful to step back from these international studies and measures of inequality to gain some perspective.
Woo Jun Jie is an Assistant Professor at the Public Policy & Global Affairs Programme, Nanyang Technological University.
SINGAPORE: The Workers’ Party’s (WP) Low Thia Khiang had “directed” FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) to employ workers from Hougang Town Council (HTC), even before FMSS was appointed as managing agent of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), Senior Counsel Davinder Singh argued on Wednesday (Oct 17).
This meant that FMSS was not the independent party Mr Low had made it out to be, said Mr Singh on the ninth day of the trial.
He referred to a May 28, 2011, email that Mr Low had sent to Ms How Weng Fan whose late husband Danny Loh started FMSS. Ms How was also secretary of HTC and had worked with Mr Low for many years.
In the email, Mr Low wrote that the managing agent of AHTC should employ existing employees of HTC, at least for a start.
“You would not have been giving these instructions to Ms How for FMSS to engage the Hougang staff unless their position was already confirmed?” asked Mr Singh.
“No,” Mr Low replied. He explained that he was just stating the conditions that FMSS would have to meet if they were to be appointed, as he regarded the employees of Hougang to be an asset to FMSS.
“Surely you would have known that if FMSS would have engaged the staff as directed by you, that would mean that first they would be engaging staff who had been loyal to you for the last 20 years right?”
“Yes,” Mr Low replied.
“In fact that was one of the reasons you had asked them to be engaged, yes? One of the reasons.”
“Yes,” said Mr Low.
The May 28 email was two days before a meeting with the incumbent managing agent, CPG Facilities Management. It is Mr Low’s assertion that CPG had said during the May 30 meeting that it did not want to continue as AHTC’s managing agent.
CPG managed Aljunied Town Council (ATC) for the People’s Action Party (PAP) until WP won Aljunied GRC in the 2011 General Election.
LAWYER ASKS WHY LOW MOVED BACK MEETING TO “AVOID” CPG
Mr Singh spent much of Wednesday questioning Mr Low on another email trail and why it appeared to show that he and his fellow elected Members of Parliament moved back a meeting so that employees of CPG would not attend it.
The email was sent by WP MP Sylvia Lim to Mr Low and others, asking if they should proceed with the AHTC meeting on Jul 21, 2011, or defer it until after Aug 1. CPG had said they would work for AHTC until Aug 1, 2011.
When Mr Singh pressed Mr Low on why they decided to defer the meeting, the WP MP repeatedly said he was “uncomfortable” having certain discussions with a CPG representative in attendance, and that there was a level of “distrust”.
(From left) Workers’ Party MPs Pritam Singh, Low Thia Khiang and Sylvia Lim leaving the Supreme Court on Oct 8, 2018. (Photo: Koh Mui Fong/TODAY)
Mr Singh charged that Mr Low and his counterparts did not want CPG to find out that they were appointing FMSS as AHTC’s managing agent, as CPG had the impression that AHTC would be managed in-house instead of by a new managing agent.
“It would have crossed your mind that if CPG had found out, CPG at that meeting might say – what are you doing? You have to (put out a) tender,” Mr Singh asserted.
He went on to say that Mr Low and his fellow elected MPs wanted to avoid a tender because they wanted to make sure FMSS was appointed as managing agent. This was tied in to a point Mr Singh made earlier – that one of the reasons Mr Low wanted to appoint FMSS was because they would engage staff “who had been loyal to you for the last 20 years”, a point that Mr Low agreed to.
“You had Hougang staff and you needed to find a home for them,” Mr Singh said. The managing agent, therefore, would comprise “a team of people led by Workers’ Party supporters and a staff including WP members”, Mr Singh asserted.
To this, Mr Low said he could accept that Ms How was a supporter, but he was not sure whether the rest of the HTC employees supported his party, conceding that a number of them were “probably” supporters.
Mr Low, along with MPs Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh and other related parties, are being sued by AHTC and Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
This relates to the appointment of FMSS as AHTC’s managing agent, as well as “improper payments” amounting to more than S$33 million that AHTC allegedly paid, mostly to FMSS.
LOW HAD BEEN TOLD ABOUT TENDER, DESPITE SAYING IT “DID NOT CROSS HIS MIND”: LAWYER
In his cross-examination, Mr Singh, the lead lawyer for PRPTC, asked Mr Low why AHTC did not put out a tender for the first managing agent contract for an agent to handle services for the town council. Mr Low repeatedly said it “did not cross his mind” that they should put out a tender.
After a series of questions to which Mr Low repeated this same answer, Mr Singh produced an email in court from a WP member. The email was sent to Mr Low on May 13, 2011, by a person identified only as T T Tan.
In the email, Mr Tan warned Mr Low about “the ongoings at ATC”, and urged Mr Low to “act now” to take steps needed to take over ATC as WP would be “in a difficult position” if he did not. Among the suggested solutions Mr Tan gave was one where he wrote: “Start employing or ask for tender now. At the last minute when you realise they (ATC) are playing you out, prices are going to shoot up.”
Addressing Mr Low, Mr Singh said: “As early as the 13th of May, 2011, six days after you were elected, you were reminded by a WP member to prepare yourself for a tender because of what he had heard about CPG.”
“Therefore, your entire evidence that you gave today about the tender not having crossed your mind and no one telling you about the tender – is regrettably untrue. Do you agree or disagree?” Mr Singh asked.
“Disagree,” Mr Low answered.
Mr Singh continued: “And because, as I suggested to you yesterday and this morning, you and your colleagues wanted at all cost to avoid a tender, you did not want CPG to learn about FMSS because if CPG had learnt about FMSS, CPG would have raised a red flag about a breach of the law.”
Mr Low replied that that did not cross his mind.
“In fact, it would appear from the documents that there was a concerted attempt to hide this plan so that you can avoid a tender, so that nothing can stop you from engaging FMSS,” Mr Singh charged.
During the course of the proceedings, Mr Singh charged that Mr Low was “not honest”. He did so while questioning the former WP chief whether an email proved that Mr Low and his counterparts had already made a decision to release CPG as its managing agent before meeting the firm on May 30, 2011, when it said it wanted to withdraw from its role.
Mr Singh referred to an email sent on May 27, 2011, by Ms Lim to Mr Low and others, where Ms Lim stated that “the existing management of ATC, CPG, will report to us until we release them at such date not later than Aug 1”.
“That sentence makes it clear that there was already a decision to release CPG,” Mr Singh asserted.
“No, there was no decision,” Mr Low said.
“I’m going to give you another opportunity. I’m reading this sentence again. Please think carefully Mr Low,” Mr Singh said. “The existing management of ATC, CPG, will report to us until we release them at such date not later than Aug 1. Does this not suggest that a decision to release them had already been made and that this sentence is about the timing of the release?”
“Yes, on the assumption that they will not continue (as managing agent),” Mr Low answered.
“Where (exactly) is the assumption stated here?” Mr Singh asked.
“It’s not here lah. But it’s on our mind,” Mr Low replied.
At this, Mr Singh said: “I’m sorry to say you are not honest.”
Mr Low responded: “I’m honest! I’m looking in your eyes and telling you that.”
“Many people have done that and were (not honest),” Mr Singh countered.
“I declare I am honest,” Mr Low pressed.
“Many people have done that too,” Mr Singh said.
To this, Mr Low conceded: “The sentence may appear to be that way. But all this while, our assumption is, they won’t want to continue to manage (AHTC), and they will likely go on Aug 1.”
WHERE WOULD FMSS GET ITS MONEY?
While grilling Mr Low about the tender process for the first managing agent contract, when AHTC took over Aljunied GRC and merged HTC with ATC, Mr Singh also asked about where FMSS got its capital.
“On the 28th of May, 2011, did you know what was FMSS’ capitalisation?” He asked.
“I’m not very sure. Probably S$200,000 or something?” Mr Low replied.
“You knew that, or are you telling us what you know now?” Mr Singh asked.
“At that point, I don’t know,” Mr Low said.
“So if you didn’t know, where did you think FMSS (found) the money?” Mr Singh pressed.
“They go and find lah, it’s their company what,” Mr Low answered.
“And where would they find the money if they were a freshly minted company which was set up only a few days before the 28th of May, you had no idea what its capitalisation was, or whether it had any assets,” Mr Singh continued. “Where did you think they are going to find the money, sir?”
“Well,” Mr Low answered. “The fact that they agreed to set up a company, they must have … a plan for capitalisation.”
Mr Singh countered: “When you say they have their own plan – you were the only one who told Ms How that FMSS should engage Hougang staff and we know that happened later. So when you say ‘their plan’, it was all your plan, sir. It was you who were driving the entire thing at the time.”
He then charged that “it was irrelevant” to Mr Low whether FMSS had money, because the hiring of staff was going to be funded by AHTC.
To this, Mr Low replied: “No.”
Mr Singh then asked him if he knew what the monthly financial obligation of FMSS would have been, to which Mr Low again replied “no”.
The trial resumes on Thursday, with Mr Low again taking the witness stand.
SINGAPORE: None of the elected Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament looked at the terms and conditions of the contract between CPG Facilities Management and Aljunied Town Council (ATC), and asked questions a “responsible town councillor” would before appointing a new managing agent (MA), lawyer Davinder Singh charged on Wednesday (Oct 17).
On day nine of the civil lawsuit over the WP’s running of the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), Mr Singh, the lead lawyer for Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC), continued his cross-examination of former WP chief Low Thia Khiang by focusing on what he and his other elected MPs for Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) did following their 2011 General Election win.
Specifically, Mr Singh zeroed in on whether Mr Low or his other MPs knew about the terms and conditions of the contract between CPG, then the MA, and Aljunied Town Council (ATC). He also questioned whether they did the “basic” thing of reviewing these terms before seeing which points are applicable to the contract FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) would eventually sign with AHTC later that year.
He referred to the Letter of Intent (LOI) sent by the late Mr Danny Loh, managing director of FMSS and another defendant in the case, to WP chairman Sylvia Lim to be AHTC’s MA on Jun 15, 2011.
In it, one of the clauses was: “Our scope of work for Aljunied-Hougang Town Council shall follow the specifications stipulated under the Managing Agent’s contract with the former Aljunied Town Council.”
Mr Singh said the “specifications” constituted only one of seven parts of the contract between CPG and ATC, and when he asked Mr Low how he construed that line in the LOI to represent the whole CPG-ATC contract, the WP MP said he did not look at the contract when it was circulated to him and the other MPs.
“That is my point, Mr Low. This is, and I think you have now come to understand, the issue of transferring rights and obligations. This is FMSS saying – I will be the MA on certain terms that had been agreed to by CPG. Yes?” Mr Singh asked.
“Yes,” replied Mr Low.
“A responsible town council with responsible town councillors must ask themselves: ‘Ok which part of that CPG contract is now applicable and which part is not applicable’, correct? Very basic (question)?”
“Yes.”
“You didn’t ask the question, correct?”
“Yes. I didn’t ask.”
“As far as you know, none of the elected MPs asked that question, correct?”
“Yes, as far as I know.”
“So it follows doesn’t it? That none of you, as far as you know, conducted yourself responsibly? Correct?”
(Pause)
“I’m waiting for an answer, Mr Low.”
“I think the answer will be yes; specifically, we did not ask for that part of the contract, yes,” the WP MP said.
Mr Singh was cross-examining Mr Low as part of the lawsuit brought by AHTC and PRPTC against WP MPs Low, Sylvia Lim and Pritam Singh; AHTC town councillors Chua Zhi Hon and Kenneth Foo; AHTC’s former MA FMSS; and FMSS employees How Weng Fan and Loh.
They are accused of breaching fiduciary duties and allowing more than S$33 million in “improper” payments made by AHTC to FMSS and others.
Mr Low Thia Khiang walking out of the High Court on Friday (Oct 5). (Photo: Hanidah Amin)
ENGAGING FMSS PUTS AHTC, RESIDENTS IN “VULNERABLE POSITION”: LAWYER
Mr Singh went on to explore the process by which FMSS was eventually appointed as MA by AHTC in 2011 and whether it left the constituency, and by extension its residents, in a “vulnerable position”.
The Drew & Napier lawyer argued that by appointing a company led by WP supporters in FMSS, it would be logical to assume that this would dissuade other parties – particularly the ones Mr Low said was aligned with the People’s Action Party (PAP): CPG, EM Services and Cushman and Wakefield – from participating in the subsequent tender AHTC called in 2012.
Mr Low had said in his affidavit that all three companies had been managing PAP town councils for many years but “none of these companies wanted to manage AHTC”.
“You see Mr Low, the moment you and your colleagues did what you did with FMSS in May … you had effectively put AHTC in a position where it was locked in to FMSS going forward,” Mr Singh said.
The WP MP disagreed, saying: “I don’t think that because FMSS is appointed (and) it has WP supporters, that when you call for an open tender, no company will tender because of that.
“I don’t think that is logical because if it’s an open tender, anyone can tender, and I won’t rule out the possibility of other big companies. Or these big companies (the three mentioned above) may split up and they (may) want to tender.”
The PRPTC lawyer went on to posit that in April 2012, when AHTC called for the second MA tender, it was in “no negotiating power” given that the only party it dealt with was FMSS. Mr Low disagreed.
Mr Singh then asked where was AHTC’s negotiating power if all the staff who previously served Hougang Town Council or Aljunied were now with FMSS, to which Mr Low said he did not understand this assertion but added that the town council would have reverted to managing the constituency directly if FMSS insisted on something “ridiculous”.
The notion of direct management was then questioned by the lawyer, who pointed out there was at least a risk that staff from FMSS would not want to join AHTC if the MA did not get the second contract. Mr Low agreed with this.
“You see, Mr Low, this assertion of … in-house, direct management (and) getting all the (FMSS) staff or many of them to join me – these are all statements you are making today,” Mr Singh said.
“But in truth, at that time, because of … the path you chose, you put AHTC in a vulnerable position, and therefore compromised the interest of the residents.”
The issue of whether there was a conflict of interest arising from Ms How and Mr Loh holding shares in FMSS, the company appointed as MA then, as well as being town councillors of AHTC, was also brought up towards the end of Wednesday’s hearing.
Mr Singh referenced an email from Mr Yaw Shin Leong, the former MP for Hougang, on Aug 3, 2011, asking WP chairman Sylvia Lim if there was a need to disclose “the exact stakeholdership(s)” of FMSS in the TC minutes/report. Mr Low was included in the email.
Ms Lim replied saying they “can/should enclose the ACRA search” in an email that same day, but Mr Singh pointed out that this was not done.
Mr Low acknowledged this was not done, but could not explain why, saying it was better to ask Ms Lim about it.
“You have to ask Ms Lim. It’s not a big deal, whether she discloses or not.”
“It’s not a big deal? Do you know that we are all in court because of this? You are saying that, today, disclosing the shareholdings is not a big deal? Is it your evidence that having heard everything, it is still not a big deal?” Mr Singh asked.
“Today, no, but at that point in time, I didn’t think it was a big deal.”
“You mean today you recognise it is a big deal, yes?”
“I’m not sure whether I recognise it’s a big deal. But the fact that the court (case) came all the way up here, so … the fact is, I cannot say it’s not a big deal.”
Mr Singh went on to suggest that given that “three minds were applied” to the issue, it was an important one, and that a decision was made to “suppress” this fact from the town council.
“That’s not true, absolutely not true,” Mr Low said.
The trial will continue on Thursday with the WP MP again taking to the witness stand.
SINGAPORE: Those looking to buy the new iPhone XR can make a pre-order from 3.01pm on Friday (Oct 19), Apple Singapore has announced.
Priced from S$1,229, customers can pre-order the smartphone from the Apple Store app or its website, apple.com/sg.
The iPhone XR comes in five colours: Black, white, yellow, coral and a special edition that comes in red. It will be available in three sizes, 64GB, 128GB and 256GB.
The iPhone XR will go on sale in more than 50 countries and territories including Singapore from Oct 26, Apple Singapore said in its news release on Wednesday.
Apple unveiled the iPhone XR, along with the pricier iPhone XS and XS Max, and the Apple Watch Series 4 on Sep 13.
The iPhone XR comes with a 6.1 inch Liquid Retina display, a 12MP wide-angle back camera with Smart HDR, IP67 dust and waterproof protection, A12 Bionic chip, Face ID and a battery life that lasts one and a half hours longer than the iPhone 8 Plus.
Last month, hundreds queued outside the Apple store along Orchard road a day before the launch of iPhone XS and XS Max. Security personnel were also present to direct the crowd along the barricades.
SINGAPORE: A 28-year-old man was fined S$4,000 after he was caught trying to smuggle a leopard tortoise hidden inside a spectacles case into Singapore, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) and Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) said in a joint release on Wednesday (Oct 17).
Joey Law Swee Siang was also fined an additional S$3,600 after more animals were found at his home.
In the incident earlier this year in April, ICA officers at Woodlands Checkpoint detected a leopard tortoise “hidden in an eyewear case placed in the glove compartment of a Singapore-registered car”, the release said.
The case was referred to AVA for further investigations. During follow-up checks at Law’s home, four other illegal animals – an African spurred tortoise, a razor-back musk turtle, a Mekong snail-eating turtle and a snake-necked turtle – were found.
Law was subsequently fined S$4,000 for the illegal import of the leopard tortoise.
He was also fined an additional S$3,000 for the possession of the African spurred tortoise and S$600 for keeping the Razor-back musk turtle at his home.
Charges for the possession of the Mekong snail-eating turtle and snake-necked turtle were also taken into consideration during sentencing.
Three of these animals – the leopard tortoise, African spurred tortoise and the Mekong snail-eating turtle – are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
(Clockwise from top left): An African spurred tortoise, a razor-backed musk turtle, a leopard tortoise and a Mekong snail-eating turtle. (Photos: AVA)
The animals have been seized and placed in the care of Wildlife Reserves Singapore.
“Animals that are smuggled into Singapore are of unknown health status and may introduce exotic diseases into the country,” said the two bodies in the joint release.
The keeping and trading of wildlife and wildlife parts or products is an offence in Singapore, added the release. Offenders could be fined up to S$1,000 and have the illegal wildlife seized.
In addition, offenders in possession of or found selling illegally imported CITES-protected species could be fined up to S$500,000 and/or jailed for two years.
