The question of whether the appointed members of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC) should have done more to secure the best deal for its residents in its early days took centre stage yesterday morning, Day 16 of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit alleging that its payments, including those to a former managing agent, were improper and void.
Questioned by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh on whether he would have acted differently in 2011 to ensure AHTC had considered all its available options, town councillor Kenneth Foo told the High Court: "Hindsight is always the master… I believe that I could have exercised more options at that point in time, (but I acted) to the best of my ability and knowledge."
In 2011, the Workers' Party (WP) won Aljunied GRC in a general election, leading to it taking over the running of the Aljunied Town Council from the People's Action Party (PAP). The town council was combined with that of single-seat Hougang to form the new AHTC.
Without calling a tender, AHTC replaced incumbent managing agent CPG Facilities Management with newly formed FM Solutions & Services (FMSS), which later was also awarded an Essential Maintenance Service Unit (EMSU) contract. Again, no tender was called.
Mr Singh suggested to Mr Foo that if tenders had been called on both occasions, it would have been clear whether companies were willing to make a bid to run an opposition town council.
Mr Foo conceded that this was the case. Earlier, he said he shared others' concerns that companies providing managing agent services to other town councils in Singapore - which were PAP-run - would not be willing to work with the opposition-run town council. This, Mr Foo added, could be because AHTC was an "outlier", and working with it might affect the companies' relationships with their other clients.
Mr Singh countered later that if there was a competitive tender to be AHTC's agent and companies placed bids, then AHTC would have had the benefit of at least a three-year managing agent contract "on the best possible prices".
Mr Foo said this was "possible", but added that while a tender could have garnered the town council a cheaper deal, it could also turn out to be more expensive.
Mr Chua Zhi Hon, another town councillor who took the stand, was asked, among other issues, what had satisfied him about the waiver of tender for AHTC's managing agent in 2011.
Mr Chua said he was satisfied FMSS would take over the job at the same rate and with the same scope of work as outgoing firm CPG.
He added that the political situation was such that the managing agent industry was dominated by companies affiliated with the PAP, and it was necessary to get things running so residents would not face a disruption in services.
Mr Singh said that if there was enough time, and a tender was called, companies may have put in a bid.
He later asked Mr Chua if FMSS had the "upper hand" as well, because it was appointed managing agent and EMSU provider in 2011 without a tender, and that there were no bidders in 2012, when both contracts were put up for bids.
Mr Chua agreed.
Another town councillor, Mr Vincent Koh, who was asked to be a shareholder of FMSS when it was formed in 2011, was questioned on the reasons it was set up.
While Mr Koh said the idea was to keep Hougang Town Council staff together at a time of uncertainty over their jobs during the merger, Mr Singh said it appears FMSS was formed to provide services to the opposition-run town council.
Mr Koh said he was not told of such an intent, but conceded it could be a possibility.
Mr Singh also suggested to Mr Koh that he seemed to be doing an "act of charity" by putting money into FMSS, which would pay Hougang staff's salary with no subsequent job in mind.
Mr Koh said the staff were very close-knit and it was an "act of social responsibility", not "charity". It was the best that could be done for the Hougang staff, he added.
