[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The Minister of Home Affairs and Law, K. Shanmugam, spoke at length in Parliament on Wednesday (November 4) about the case involving Ms Parti Liyani, a maid who was acquitted of stealing from her former employers, the family of the former president of Changi Airport Group, Liew. Mun Leong. The case had sparked a public scandal over the criminal justice system.
Here are seven key takeaways from his speech.
1. The Liews’ decision to fire Ms. Parti Liyani was made some time ago.
At his trial, Judge Chan Seng Onn described the termination as “sudden” and noted that there was reason to believe it was a “first preventive step” by the Liews to ensure that Ms. Parti could not file a complaint with MOM.
However, Shanmugam said subsequent investigations have shown that the Liews had told their maid agency in late 2015 that they wanted a new helper, as they suspected Parti had stolen.
Parti was fired on October 28, 2016 because a new aide was available that day, Shanmugam said.
2. The police and the Attorney General’s Office (AGC) had handled the case as a routine robbery case.
Mr. Shanmugam reiterated that Mr. Liew or anyone acting on behalf of the family did not exercise any undue influence over the police or the AGC by Mr. Liew.
However, he acknowledged that there were lapses in the investigation process, that is, there was a lapse of five weeks from when the police report was presented until the policemen visited the place.
3. The AGC had grounds to charge Ms. Parti with the crime based on the evidence before it.
Police investigators and prosecutors had assessed Ms. Parti to be untrue, in the initial investigations, and there was sufficient evidence to charge Ms. Parti with theft, Shanmugam said.
His statements to the police had several inconsistencies, he added, noting that Ms Parti initially admitted taking various pieces of men’s clothing without permission.
4. Evidence and “highly unsatisfactory” conduct of Mr. Karl Liew during the trial
Shanmugam said there appears to have been an “arrogant attitude” on the part of the Liews in the way that some items were identified as belonging to them and in the way that values were attributed to some items. Mr. Karl Liew, in particular, was singled out as many aspects of his evidence and conduct in court had “raised skepticism,” Mr. Shanmugam said.
5. Attorney General (AG) Lucien Wong recused himself from the case because his history of differences with Mr. Liew could affect the perception of fairness
Attorney General Lucien Wong had resigned from CapitaLand’s board of directors because he had a “difference of views” with Liew, who was then president and CEO, on some issues, Shanmugam revealed in parliament.
6. The district judge sentenced Ms. Parti after she found “serious inconsistencies” in Ms. Parti’s evidence, among others
The trial court also found Ms Parti’s evidence on some items “implausible,” Shanmugam said.
This includes Parti’s claims of having collected two iPhones, jewelry, and a Prada bag from the trash. The district judge had preferred the Liews’ evidence that they would not have ruled out such items, Shanmugam said.
7. The High Court had acquitted Ms. Parti primarily on the basis of the finding that there were reasonable doubts about wrongful motive and a break in the chain of custody of the allegedly stolen items.
The High Court judge had also expressed doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and whether Ms. Parti’s statements to the police should be used against her, as there were inaccuracies in the way the questions were phrased. and grammatical errors, Shanmugam said.
[ad_2]
