[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The Minister of Internal Affairs and Law, K. Shanmugam, said on Wednesday (November 4) that he is willing to recommend a commission of inquiry (IOC) on the Parti Liyani case, adding, however, that “no I had heard nothing “to justify it.
At the conclusion of his ministerial statement, the minister had challenged non-constituent MP (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai to specify the issues that, in his view, warranted a high-level independent investigation into the case.
This sparked two separate exchanges that ended with the Singapore Progress Party’s NCMP withdrawing its call for an IOC.
Responding to Mr. Leong’s parliamentary question on the matter, Mr. Shanmugam noted that the police officers and prosecutors involved in the case have confirmed that they have not faced any undue pressure.
A disciplinary court will examine complaints against prosecutors at the Attorney General’s Office, it added in its statement about Ms Parti, an Indonesian domestic worker who on September 4 was acquitted of robbing then-Chairman of Changi Airport Group, Liew Mun Leong, and his family. The case has raised questions about the criminal justice system.
“Therefore, before we have a commission of inquiry, which is a serious matter (that) will take resources, a lot of time, more and more work, the member must specify what part of this matter still reasonably leads him to believe and question.” that undue influence was used by the Liews. “
In response, Mr. Leong said that while he appreciated the way in which the ministerial statement had provided additional information on the case, he maintained the need for an independent investigation to have “further discussion” on the matter and to analyze “the systemic aspects of entire criminal justice system. “
“For example, in the collection of evidence … I am not a lawyer by legal training, but the lawyers told me it could be called evidence contamination and all that stuff,” he said.
In response, Mr. Shanmugam said: “This is not about making broad and vague statements. You are the representative of the people … This is serious business. It is not about saying ‘I am not a lawyer.’
“(Do we have) a commission of inquiry into the entire law, the police and the enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So can we clarify what concerns you? What do you want the commission of investigation to investigate, which one went wrong? “
In this first exchange, President Tan Chuan-Jin intervened twice to remind Mr. Leong to be more specific in his responses.
Mr. Leong, 61, tried to give two examples. First, he questioned the five-week interval between the submission of the police report by Mr. Liew and the police officers who visited the scene, despite the staffing limitations cited by Mr. Shanmugam.
He then said that Mr. Shanmugam’s interpretation of the Liews’ behavior, with respect to Ms. Parti, could be further investigated and analyzed.
Shanmugam said the workforce problems were an explanation but not an excuse for the five-week gap, and that “the police do not seek to defend it in any way.”
On the behavior of the Liews, he noted: “There are 250,000 foreign domestic workers and about 200,000 families. The way they interact with each other cannot be the subject of a government inquiry commission.
“Legally it is not possible to hold a commission of inquiry to investigate the conduct of employers and servants.”
Mr. Leong later clarified that he was referring to Mr. Shanmugam’s interpretation of the Liews’ motive, but the minister stopped him short, saying: “The interpretation of the motive has nothing to do with the Government … No it has nothing to do with how the police proceeded, it has nothing to do with how AGC proceeded, it is something that has come out in the course of the investigation, subsequent investigations. “
The question of motive, Mr. Shanmugam said, “cannot properly be” the subject of a commission of inquiry.
“What I’m trying to say is that the whole case probably requires more investigation and interpretation of the facts,” Leong said. “But if you think that’s enough, I will withdraw my proposal or recommendation for an independent investigation.”
Mr Shanmugam replied: “It is not correct to come here and say: ‘I think a commission of inquiry is necessary, I cannot tell you why, I cannot tell you what my concerns are, I cannot point anything out, I do not make accusations.’ but in general, you know, it’s good to have a commission of inquiry ”.
“Let me put it on the record: I have no problem recommending such a commission of inquiry. We have nothing to hide; completely transparent on this issue (sic). But in law, they will say (this is) micawberism.”
Micawberism is a reference to the constant state of irresponsible optimism displayed by the eponymous Wilkins Micawber, a character in Charles Dickens’ novel, David Copperfield.
“So far, we haven’t heard anything that I can rationally muster to justify a commission of inquiry,” Shanmugam said. “So I’ll leave it at that.”
Mr. Leong later repeated his call for an IOC in his speech on a motion made by the President of the Workers’ Party, Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) on the criminal justice system.
This prompted a second exchange with Mr. Shanmugam, who again pressured Mr. Leong to specify the basis for an IOC.
He also said that Leong was “quite wrong” in saying that Parti’s case was only internally reviewed.
“It has gone through a very public process, with a detailed cross-examination and a thorough forensic examination of all possible problems related to the police and AGC,” he said, before reminding Leong that the duties of parliamentarians were “not to come and repeat whatever is outside. “
Leong again raised what he called “systemic” flaws exposed by the case, this time asking why controls had failed at each stage of the process.
Mr. Shanmugam reiterated that disciplinary procedures were underway for both the police and AGC officers, and asked Mr. Leong to clarify whether he was suggesting an element of undue influence. The NCMP said no.
In that case, there was no basis for a commission of inquiry, the minister said.
“We thought that systemic failures alone were sufficient to be a basis for investigation, but after your explanation, we are prepared to accept that you have already conducted a thorough investigation of the situation,” Leong admitted, for the second time that day. . “Then we will withdraw our proposal for the investigation.”
[ad_2]
