[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: There was “no pressure or influence exerted” by the former chairman of the Changi Airport Group, Liew Mun Leong, or anyone acting on his behalf in the Parti Liyani case, told Parliament on Wednesday (November 3) Minister of Internal Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam.
“There was no influence from Liew Mun Leong,” he said in a ministerial statement on the case. “It was treated like any other theft case and handled accordingly. We have verified with the investigating officer (IO), his superior officer and the assistant prosecutors (DPP).
Shanmugam added that no one tried to influence the police and the Attorney General’s Office (AGC) in connection with the case.
Parti, a former Indonesian maid, had been convicted in March last year by a lower court of stealing S $ 34,000 from Liew and her family, but the High Court overturned the conviction on September 4.
At Judge Chan Seng Onn’s trial, the judge outlined various problems with the conviction findings and how the case was handled.
Shanmugam said Wednesday that there has been “a lot of attention” in this case, noting that apart from questions about how the police and AGC handled the case, “there is a broader and more fundamental question.”
“A powerful man, Mr. Liew Mun Leong, used the system to his advantage?” Mr Shanmugam said. “Did the police and AGC unfairly prosecute Ms. Liyani because Liew Mun Leong was the complainant?
“Did Ms. Liyani get a fair trial in the state courts? Do we have a law for the rich, socially connected and another for the rest of society? “
Mr Shanmugam said this question is of “central importance” to Singapore, adding that the credibility of its system and the foundation of its society depend on ensuring that there is a rule of law that applies equally to all.
“If that principle is compromised, then Singapore is compromised,” he added. “It is a fundamental duty of the Government to ensure that this principle is respected. I take this very seriously. “
POLICE CONDUCT
Shanmugam said the case was handled by the police, who made decisions together with their immediate supervisor. The case did not attract the attention of senior management or the police or the Interior Ministry, he said.
“No elder has talked to Liew Mun Leong or any of the Liews or been influenced by him in this case,” he added.
“He was dealt with by the IOs and his immediate supervisor, and no one beyond that. No one pressured or pressured the IOs or the supervisor, or anyone in a position to influence the investigations.
In her clarifications to the ministerial statement, the Workers’ Party (MP) Member of Parliament Sylvia Lim said that she accepted that Mr. Liew did not put pressure on the police officers.
“But I wonder if it crossed the mind of the minister that the officer himself may have felt that he was dealing with someone who was very prominent and therefore needed to take special care,” said Lim, who is also a deputy from Aljunied.
Mr. Shanmugam said that this was an obvious question that had hit him, saying, “Did the officer think to himself, ‘This is such a big man, he better do certain things'”?
If that’s the theory, Shanmugam said, then why did the officer wait five weeks to visit the scene? “We think if he was so worried – ‘Hey, I better do this right’ – then we would have waited five weeks?” I ask.
“I am not suggesting that this was specifically the case, but actually the way the matter was handled (negated) the suggestion of any implied additional care,” he added.
AGC CONDUCT
Regarding the AGC, Mr. Shanmugam said that the matter was dealt with by the DPPs and clarified at the director level.
Cases are generally resolved at the director level and are not generally taken to senior management such as the deputy attorney general, attorney general, deputy attorney general or attorney general (AG), Shanmugam said.
That is, “except in the case of more serious or sensitive crimes, or when the consent of the Attorney General is expressly required to process,” he explained.
Additionally, Mr. Shanmugam said that neither Mr. Liew, his family, nor anyone acting on his behalf approached AGC or had contact with AGC in this case, adding that AGC dealt with the police.
Mr. Shanmugam noted that some questions had been raised about when current AG Lucien Wong was on CapitaLand’s board of directors between November 2000 and January 2006, when Mr. Liew was its Chairman and CEO.
“As a result, did AG influence the process in any way? The answer is no, ”he said. “AG did not learn of these investigations or proceedings until the case went to trial.”
Mr. Shanmugam noted that Mr. Wong resigned from the CapitaLand board effective January 2, 2006 because he had a “difference of views” with Mr. Liew on some issues.
“When AGC conducted its internal review on this matter, AG recused itself,” added Mr. Shanmugam. “AG considered that, given the history of differences between it and Liew Mun Leong, the perception of fairness may be affected if AG supervised the review.
“Therefore, AG had nothing to do with this case at any time.”
If the attorney general had been a close friend of Mr. Liew, Mr. Shanmugam said that the attorney general would also be expected to recuse himself from any decision making.
ALL THE SAME BEFORE THE LAW
Mr. Shanmugam said that this case illustrates how the rule of law applies in Singapore, where the High Court acquitted a maid in a case where the plaintiff is a “rich and powerful person”.
“But they are all equal before the law,” he said. “It doesn’t matter who the parties are. Justice, according to the facts, and the law as seen by the courts ”.
Shanmugam said that people could agree or disagree with the court’s findings, but that’s a different matter.
“The rule of law is fundamental to our idea of fairness, equality and justice,” he said.
While Shanmugam said societies around the world are grappling with debates about inequality and the feeling that the elite are “bending the rules and systems to their advantage”, Singapore “is not in the same situation.”
“Our active intervention in socio-economic issues has helped the majority of people to benefit,” he said. “But our people know that we must jealously guard the availability of equal opportunities.
“We have to make sure everyone is treated fairly. We must be vigilant, protect ourselves from the rich and powerful who take advantage of unfair advantages. “
If a “significant part” of the people feel that the system favors some or is unfairly against them, “then Singapore will lose its cohesion and will not be able to succeed,” Shanmugam said.
“That is why it is essential that we have a fair system, that we have a clean system, that we have a system that gives everyone opportunities,” he added. “If Liew Mun Leong unfairly influenced the proceedings, it will be a success for our foundations.”
PUNISHING CORRUPTION
Despite that, Shanmugam said it does not mean there will be no abuse of power or corruption, adding that swift and decisive action must be taken when it happens.
An example is the case of the former Minister of National Development, Teh Cheang Wan, who held the portfolio between 1979 and 1986 when allegations of corruption arose against him.
Mr. Teh was also one of the most important members of the cabinet of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
“When allegations of corruption arose, Mr. Lee directed the CPIB (Corrupt Practices Investigation Office) to carry out investigations,” Shanmugam said.
“Mr. Teh was put on leave. Ultimately, he decided to end his life rather than face a trial or corruption charges, which the AGC had not yet resolved. “
Shanmugam also highlighted how in 2012, then-Singapore Civil Defense Force (SCDF) commissioner Peter Lim was jailed for six months on corruption charges after receiving sexual favors from three different women.
In 2013, then-Deputy Director of the CPIB, Edwin Yeo, was jailed for 10 years for breach of trust as a public official and forgery after embezzling S $ 1.76 million.
“In most countries, the SCDF commissioners, the CPIB deputy directors are practically untouchable,” Shanmugam said. “But not in Singapore.”
PEDDLING INFLUENCE
Beyond addressing corruption, Shanmugam said Singapore must also protect itself against soft corruption and influence peddling.
“We have to be very careful to try to eliminate it wherever it happens,” he said. “And make no mistake: it will continue to appear in large and small forms.”
Mr. Shanmugam stressed that the Prime Minister sends a letter to MPs at the beginning of each new term in government, reminding them that they must not exploit their public office in personal interest.
“If we believe there is any conduct that requires a closer look, we take a closer look at it,” Shanmugam said, referring to conduct that is not criminal but should be avoided.
“When we feel that, I usually chat with the relevant deputy. Come, have a cup of coffee with me. When they leave, the problem is usually solved. And if it is not resolved, then they do not remain as deputies ”.
CONNECTIONS ARE INEVITABLE
However, Shanmugam said that Singapore has a more challenging environment, as it is a small place where “a lot of people know each other.”
“We try to find people based on merit. And often, because of their careers, they will have a deep connection with many other people with whom they interact, ”he said.
“The way we handle this is to make sure the appointees are men and women of character who have the moral fiber to do the right thing.”
For example, Mr. Shanmugam said that when Professor S Jayakumar was Minister of Law, the successor to Police Commissioner AG and himself were Professor Jayakumar’s law students.
“Our small size means that these connections and interactions are inevitable,” he said. “That’s why we will always have to be very careful.”
Shanmugam said Singapore ranks high in credible international indices for the absence of corruption, the rule of law and the way its system “runs cleanly.”
He said the system is kept clean through the media that highlights these issues, a well-educated and conscientious population that holds those in power accountable, and a Parliament where issues can be discussed and debated openly.
“But these factors are also present in many countries where influence peddling is nevertheless a cancer,” he added.
“We have avoided the slippery road because in addition to the above, we have had in our three Prime Ministers the firm will to ensure a clean system, and the decision to act when something was wrong.”
