Skip to main content
Advertisement
Advertisement

Singapore

Town councillors are duty bound to protect public monies and property values, says PRPTC lead counsel

Town councillors are duty bound to protect public monies and property values, says PRPTC lead counsel
05 Oct 2018 01:04PM (Updated: 05 Oct 2018 10:27PM)

SINGAPORE — Public monies received are not meant for town councillors to benefit their friends and families, and property values will drop if they do not do their job properly, said lead counsel for Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council (PRPTC) Davinder Singh as the trial against three Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament and other defendants over alleged improper payments opened on Friday (Oct 5).

There is “simply no room for doubt” that town councillors and officers of town councils are custodians of residents' and public monies, Mr Singh said in his opening statement.

“Those monies are given to town councillors and officers not to benefit friends and supporters but to carefully and prudently spend for the benefit of the residents and the estate,” he said.

Turning to the defendants’ denial of fiduciary duties owed, Mr Singh held that the MPs are doing a “volte-face… knowing that they have breached their duties”. “This is only part of a highly disturbing pattern of saying whatever is convenient, even if untrue,” he added.

CNA Games
Show More
Show Less

Mr Singh charged that WP’s former chief Low Thia Khiang, chairman Sylvia Lim and the other defendants “have come ready to use the witness stand as a soapbox to score political points”, instead of using the occasion of the inquiry to “show remorse” for their lapses.

He said the defendants have resorted to “disingenuous defences” when they took the matter to trial. “In doing so, they have advanced a narrative that bears very little resemblance to the objective facts and contemporaneous documents,” he said.

He referenced the accountants’ reports by KPMG and PwC, which have made it “overwhelmingly clear” that non-compliances, lapses and failures stem from a “complete and reckless disregard” of their duty to protect public monies.

Lawyer David Chan, who is representing Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC)’s independent panel, had told the High Court that KPMG’s report uncovered an aggregate 186 control failures in AHTC’s governance.

PwC’s report, which limited itself to matters that were not covered in KPMG’s report, concluded that the circumstances surrounding the initial appointment of FM Solutions and Services (FMSS) as managing agent on July 15, 2011, have put the propriety of all payments made to the firm into question.

“It is striking that despite the KPMG and PwC reports, there is no honourable acknowledgement of wrongdoing,” Mr Chan said.

Mr Singh reiterated that the values of homes are “dependent” on how town councillors and officers behave.

“Misconduct… not just affects the pockets of the residents and drains public funds, it can cause property values to diminish. For many, their homes are their most valuable assets. Town councillors and officers are therefore duty bound to protect their value,” he said.

On the culpability of town councillors Chua Zhi Hon and Kenneth Foo Seck Guan, Mr Singh said Ms Lim should not have been surprised that AHTC and PRPTC sued Mr Chua and Mr Foo for their personal actions and for causing loss to the town councils.

“As a lawyer, she must know that the duties are imposed on each and every member of (the town councils), just like duties are imposed on each and every director on the board of a company,” he said.

“The fact that, just like a board, ‘collective’ decisions are made has no bearing on the incidence and imposition of duties on each individual. They are two separate issues.”

It is therefore not open to Mr Chua and Mr Foo — two resident volunteers who became appointed town councillors of AHTC on May 27, 2011 — to avoid liability for breaching their duties by claiming that these breaches were made in the course of, or arose from “collective” decision-making, he said.

He further pointed out that there was “no suggestion” in Mr Chua’s and Mr Foo’s pleadings or affidavits that they questioned, probed, inquired into or set out to prevent or rectify any of the improper contracts, transactions and payments — and failed because they were outvoted or blocked by the other members of AHTC.

“Instead the evidence suggests otherwise,” he said.

Source: TODAY
Advertisement

Also worth reading

Advertisement