Shanmugam reveals to MPs additional evidence in Parti Liyani case untested in court

The defence's submission stated that Parti wanted to file a MOM complaint, but did not say what she wanted to complain about.

Syahindah Ishak | November 04, 2020, 03:03 PM

The Parti Liyani case has received a lot of attention over the past few months.

Questions have been raised by Members of Parliament (MPs) from both parties and a motion was filed to speak on issues related to the case.

On Wednesday (Nov. 4), law and home affairs minister K Shanmugam gave his ministerial statement in Parliament, laying out the reasons for the High Court's decision.

Shanmugam focused on whether the Liew family had an improper motive behind their police report against Parti and also revealed additional evidence that was untested in court.

The issue of motive

Former Changi Airport Group (CAG) chairman Liew Mun Leong had lodged an "urgent" police report against Parti which stated that she had stolen some of the family's items.

The court heard that the report was made two days after Parti explicitly told two members of the Liew family that she intended to file a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). This was because Parti was required to work illegally at Karl Liew (Liew's son)'s home and office.

Hence, Shanmugam said that the police report was made to ensure that Parti's return to Singapore would be prevented and her termination happened suddenly so that she cannot file a complaint to MOM.

The High Court thus came to a view that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews filed the police report to prevent Parti from filing a MOM complaint against them for having deployed her to work outside their house.

Motive therefore appears to have been the key factor in the judgment, said Shanmugam.

What did Parti want to complain about?

However, Shanmugam stated that the defence's submission only said that Parti wanted to file a MOM complaint on Oct. 28, 2016.

The defence did not submit what Parti wanted to complain about or that the Liews understood that Parti intended to complain about being deployed to work at Karl's home and office.

After the High Court decision was issued, internal reviews were conducted by several authorities.

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) had directed the police to conduct further investigations into whether any offences had been committed by the Liews.

In the process of further investigations, it was revealed that Parti wanted to complain to MOM after her employment was terminated, said Shanmugam.

A maid agent who was present at the time has confirmed this fact.

The agent also noted that Parti did not say whether she wanted to complain to MOM about anything else.

Further investigations also revealed that the maid agents had offered to help Parti lodge a complaint to MOM.

They offered their assistance twice, but Parti had declined on both occasions.

This, Shanmugam said, is "quite different" from the inference that the High Court had made.

Why didn't prosecution bring up the additional evidence?

However, Shanmugam stated that the High Court "understandably" went on the basis of the evidence that was presented and the submissions made to it.

In other words, the High Court did not have the benefit of the additional evidence that Parti declined the maid agents' offer to help her lodge a complaint to MOM.

Shanmugam added that the prosecution did not bring up the additional evidence as the issue of motive was not part of the defence's case.

The matter wasn't brought up at the pre-trial conferences too.

Shanmugam went on to explain that the prosecution generally puts up evidence it needs for the charges and to deal with the points that the defence are going to raise.

When a new point is raised in a trial, the prosecution will then have to assess how to proceed.

In this case, Shanmugam said that the motive issue was only brought up when witnesses were on the stand and in submissions.

The prosecution did not see a need to deal with the issue by bringing in new evidence.

Filing a complaint with MOM should not have been an issue

Further investigations had also revealed that Liew had been thinking of terminating Parti prior to October 2016 because he had suspected her of stealing.

Additionally, making a police report will not prevent her from returning to Singapore or from filing a complaint with MOM.

If a MOM complaint was the key concern, said Shanmugam, filing a police report and having police investigations is a "sure way" for such a complaint to be raised.

Not discussing what was right or wrong

Shanmugam said in his ministerial statement that he wasn't discussing whether the specifics of the conduct of the trial were right or wrong.

He emphasises that he only wanted to set out what happened, and what had been found since the High Court's judgment.

He added:

"Members must take this further evidence in its proper context. It is evidence untested in court. But since this has come up during the further investigations, as to whether the Liews committed an offence, I am duty bound to set out in this House.

I cannot come here and go through the facts without telling you that we have this further information which only came about because the further investigations into the Liews' conduct was directed by AGC."

The use of Malay and Bahasa Indonesia

Shanmugam also addressed the fourth reason given by the High court in acquitting Parti — the languages she used when the police recorded her statements.

A total of five statements were recorded from Parti, he noted. The first four were in Malay, but she gave the fifth one with the aid of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.

According to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), it is mandatory for a written statement to be read over to the person who gives it. This is usually done in English.

However, if a person does not understand English, it must be read over in a language that he/she understands.

The High Court found that there had been a breach of the CPC because Parti was not given a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter for her first four statements.

The High Court also said, however, that this was not a "flagrant violation", so the statements remained admissible.

Parti chose to speak Malay

In this case, said Shanmugam, the police officers "believed in good faith" that Parti understood Malay.

The recorder had asked Parti in Malay whether she wished to give her statement in Malay or in Bahasa Indonesia. She chose, he said, to speak in Malay.

Shanmugam said there is "no significant difference" between Malay and Bahasa Indonesia in the asking of this particular question (which language she wanted to speak).

Parti did not ask for an interpreter during the recording of her statements, and the recorder testified in court that he was able to communicate with her without any difficulties.

The High Court recognised that Parti understood some Malay, though the extent of her understanding was unclear. Therefore, it also said that the differences in the two languages could create reasonable doubt with respect to the accuracy of the statements recorded.

Shanmugam noted that there are differences between Bahasa Indonesia and Malay, particularly in specific words.

"They could mean different things even in the context, or in the context of this case. And that can make a difference if Ms Liyani didn't know the different meanings."

Final statement read back to her by Bahasa Indonesia interpreter

However, Shanmugam added that a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was provided when recording Parti's final statement and when the charges were served on her.

The final statement dealt with the majority of the areas covered in previous statements recorded from Parti, and the items in the charges that were tendered.

So on that basis, said Shanmugam, Parti's final statement was "not affected by any issues relating to interpretation".

At her trial, Parti said that she may not have understood some aspects because it was read back in a mixture of Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, and the interpreter was "talking too fast".

The High Court had dismissed this claim as the statement reflected that it had been read back in Bahasa Indonesia, and Parti had affirmed that to be correct and true.

Totally unrelated but follow and listen to our podcast here:

Top image from Gov.sg & by Matthias Ang.