AHPETC – Assumptions, assumptions and more assumptions

I mentioned earlier that I did not read the copious text unloaded by the ST on the AHPETC saga. The persistent condemnation to the point of outrage, appearing daily, forced me to take a closer look at what the case was all about. I pulled out Today’s front page article on Friday 13 titled “AHPETC actions ‘unlawful’” with a subheading ‘Public monies have been lost, minister charges’ for a second look.
 
I am just a layman that at best has a bit of common sense and hopefully can understand what a top notch legal mind was talking about without being confused or misunderstanding him, and hopefully agreeing with him. The paper said he had 5 major lapses to flog but focused mainly on ‘related party transactions’ of AHPETC. The beef is that 4 senior staff with closed relationship were appointed to manage the Town Council and they could approve each other’s claims for payment, like writing their own checks. And there were over charging of S&CC fees amounting to taking money from the common people to pay their friends, ie benefitting their friends.
 
Now what is this ‘unlawful’ charge about? To my understanding there must be a law that is broken. Otherwise how can it be unlawful? What law has been broken? Is it about appointing kaki lang to oversee each other resulting in conflict of interest and possible fraud? I am not sure if there is a law that says an organization cannot appoint the father as Chairman, son as CEO and wife as GM or Finance Director. Is there? I am very sure in family businesses this is often the practice. I am not sure if there is a law for public listed companies on this or in the civil service. I am sure it is frown upon, undesirable, unacceptable and maybe there will be company policies against it. That did not make it unlawful right? To be unlawful, there must be a law that forbids it right, learned counsels? Can someone help me on this? I am cocksure that if it is my grandfather’s company, I will appoint anyone to any position I like and have them sign and approve each other’s pay check and you can’t do anything about it. I like what. Cannot meh?
 
The other issue that Shanmugam was talking about is lost of money, lost of a lot of money. The money were collected from common folks, hard earned money, like the CPF savings, dunno which one is more serious, but being used to pay friends or benefitting friends. Let me explain the simple part first. Many ex Ministers and MPs were appointed to high offices and drawing big fat salaries. Could they fall under the same category as paying friends and benefitting friends, or ex Ministers and MPs are not friends but ex colleagues in political office? Not the same meh?
 
My point is that there is nothing wrong with such appointments, even with high pays if the friends, oops, I meant ex colleagues, can do the job well. Tiok boh? So, can I say there is nothing wrong to pay friends high salaries and benefitting them if the job is well done, or is done? Those people appointed chairman and directors here and there are not friends meh? They never benefited meh?
 
I think what is important is money lost. How much is lost, can anyone prove it? I have heard that a lot of money was lost but no numbers being given. But that is beside the point. The most important thing must be the intent or wrongful act like theft or fraud. In the commercial sector, people can lose billions by making bad or wrong investment decisions with no bad intent, with no intent to fraud. And everyone just squeezed their balls and could not do anything about the big losses. Who would be complaining except the rightful owners of the money, the minority shareholders right? There is nothing wrong mah. There must be intent to cheat, to fraud, to steal, according to the law to be unlawful, to be a crime. Has anyone proved any intent in the AHPETC case, or it is assumed? Can one just go around assuming and cut off people’s head or demanding for a pound of flesh on assumptions?
 
A family business with son or wife claiming millions and father happily signing it is quite common as they trusted each other, and they know that they are absolutely honest people, family business what, so what is wrong? As long as there is trust and the trust is not broken, husband and wife signing for each other cannot meh? Where is the law to say cannot? If got law say cannot, then cannot lah, then it will be unlawful. Nothing more to say leow. Like this I sure can understand.
 
Ok, the structure is wrong, according to Shanmugam no town councilor who knew this should approve the structure. Yes, yes. It is not a good practice. But is it against the law, against Town Council regulations? If got such law or Town Council regulations, then surely must be breach of fiduciary duties. Got or not?
 
Now the tricky part, according to Shanmugam, the structure or ‘arrangement was designed. FMSS was a convenient vehicle to which millions of dollars went from the town council. And another obvious question: Money that went to FMSS – where did it actually go? What happened to it?’ Designed for what? For fraud, to cheat? Let me quote Sylvia Lim, what was Shanmugam ‘insinuating’? I say never mind lah. Prove the guilt first. If not, no need to talk more. Let me try to imagine a group of people huddling in a corner designing a town council structure with the purpose of cheating. It would be good if I have a video recording of it.
 
What happened to the money? You dunno, I dunno. So must be unlawful? What I like is this part quoted by Shanmugam. ‘The law takes an extremely strict view on related party transactions (and) on conflicts of interests. Where contracts have been entered into with related parties in breach of fiduciary duties, the law presumes loss.’ This is a matter of law and the Minister must be right. So those contracts signed between family members must be loss according to the law? Must prove loss or not? This part I dunno.
 
Shanmugam also charged that 4 WP MPs are culpable for allowing related party transactions to happen under their noses. Culpable for losses or for allowing such transactions? What law is broken? ‘If not exposed, the money would not have been repaid,’ said Shanmugam. So there was lost of money and the money repaid. Is my understanding tiok or boh tiok?
 
I dunno whether I am wiser after reading the article or not? Anyone of you getting wiser or smarter? Got law broken or not? Got money lost or not? Got intent to cheat proven or not? How I wish I had completed my law school, then not so blur. Lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, not legal….not lawful, not lawyer.
 
Oh, one more observation. All the town councils used to charge resident and commercial units different fees, with commercial units paying very much higher S&CC. In 2014 the fees were changed to be the same. As a result, AHPETC ended up charging higher fees for commercial units by not lowering their fees. So they are thus overcharging market rate. Not over billing for sure. Is this a crime? The cost of operation of different town councils cannot all be the same right? And being new and inexperience, being ignorant, did not know other town councils have lowered their fees, so it is unlawful, overcharging? Tiok boh? Got shadow or not? Like that also can be a problem ah? Based on the chart put up by Shanmugam there was a difference. But is that a crime? Is that criminal? Is that cheating, overbilling or overcharging? 

What is wrong with collecting more money? You ask me lah?