Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

Karl Liew, 45, son of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, was sentenced to two weeks' jail on Apr. 14, 2023, for lying during a criminal trial of his former domestic worker Parti Liyani.

Parti worked for the Liews between 2007 and 2016. She was charged with theft, and Karl Liew testified against her during the trial.

She was convicted and sentenced to 26 months in jail by a district judge, but the High Court overruled the decision and acquitted her of all charges.

A High Court judge noted that Karl Liew was not truthful with his testimony, which prompted police investigations into his behaviour.

Karl was charged and pleaded guilty on Mar. 31, 2023, to one charge of giving false information to a public servant intending to cause harm to another.

Another charge of furnishing false information to a police officer was taken into consideration.

What Karl Liew did

In August 2017, Parti was charged with five offences, and one of the charges alleged that she had stolen various items that belonged to Karl Liew.

The total value of these stolen items in the charge amounted to S$46,856.

Out of these items were 120 pieces of clothing that were said to be valued at S$150 each, including a cream polo t-shirt and a red blouse.

However, both items were female clothing, and Karl Liew had lied that they were his in his police statements and during Parti's trial.

Judge emphasised that Rule of Law should apply to everyone

District Judge Eugene Teo noted that both the prosecution and defence sought the maximum fine of S$5,000 after Karl Liew pleaded guilty.

However, Teo disagreed.

He emphasised that "lenient penalties for such conduct sends all the wrong signals" and that rules applied to others must be used the same way on Karl Liew as well,

"Because our adherence to the Rule of Law means that none stand above it and that it applies the same to everyone."

Judge cannot agree with only a fine

In the brief grounds of his decision obtained by Mothership, Teo first clarified that it was necessary to note that Karl Liew had testified against Parti "on a range of matters over several days" and that the prosecution had focused only on a small segment of it for his charges.

He also noted that both the prosecution and defence "had taken pains" to emphasise that Parti was not convicted of theft for the two pieces of clothing mentioned in the charges, a point which he fully acknowledged.

However, Teo added that after considering the matter in detail, he could not agree that Karl Liew should only get a fine.

Actions "innately serious" and have to be condemned

He explained that this case is about someone who "knowingly furnished a false statement to the police" and "went to court to also furnish false testimony under oath" to get a person convicted of an offence.

Even though there was ultimately no wrongful conviction, Teo pointed out that it does not change the fact that Karl Liew's actions were all "innately serious" and "ought to be met with the clearest degree of condemnation".

He judged that nothing less than a prison sentence is warranted for such a case,

"The result here must leave no one with any doubt about our tolerance for such brazen fraud in the face of the court and upon the court. "

Teo explained in detail why he thinks a fine is not appropriate.

Judge disagrees that there was "no actual harm"

Teo first noted that the parties had submitted that there was "no actual harm" caused as the false testimony did not result in a wrongful conviction,

"Respectfully, I think that submission takes an unjustifiably narrow and blinkered approach as to what ought to be considered as actual harm caused in this case."

He explained that the argument took no account that:

1. The police and prosecution were misled into investigating Parti
2. They were misled to bring a criminal charge against Parti, albeit a small part of that charge
3. Parti had to prepare and mount a detailed defence
4. Time and effort expended by all parties at the trial to review Karl Liew's false evidence
5. Parties had to prepare submissions about his false evidence
6. A judge had to spend time reviewing that false evidence independently

Teo highlighted that all these resulted from Karl Liew's decision to offer false evidence in court, and hence there was no basis for concluding that no actual harm was caused.

Karl Liew's actions has potential harm

Teo also addressed the point that there was also potential harm that Karl Liew's actions could cause.

He said that both prosecution and defence argued that even if Parti was convicted of stealing the two pieces of clothing due to Karl's false testimony, it would not have made a "significant difference" compared to the total value of the other items.

Teo disagreed and said the old saying about "guilty men and innocent man" came to his mind.

Abhorrent for justice system to result in wrongful conviction

Widely attributed to the English jurist William Blackstone, the saying was, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

Teo explained,

"We can all accept the basic notion which it tries to convey: that it is abhorrent for the justice system to result in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person and that efforts to prevent that must be taken."

He emphasised that Karl Liew's actions in court sought to precisely bring about an outcome that "no one should find palatable to stomach".

Teo reiterated that the legitimacy of Singapore's justice system relies on the continuing faith that the public has. Hence, appropriate punishment must be given to those seeking to mislead and abuse justice.

"It is a grave violation because it goes against our most cherished and foundational notions of right and wrong."

Agrees there is no malice

Teo, however, did agree with the prosecution and defence that there was nothing to infer malice on Karl Liew's part.

He commented that nothing was placed before him to explain why Karl Liew did what he did and nothing to explain how a man can view the justice process "with such apparent callousness".

Prisons can cater for Karl Liew's Parkinson's Disease

On the final point of Karl Liew suffering from Parkinson's Disease, Teo noted that the prosecution and defence implied that a prison term would have a significantly disproportionate impact on Liew because of his condition.

While Teo accepts that Karl Liew is suffering from the disease, he noted that whenever an offender pleads guilty to being excused for ill health, an evaluation is done as to whether the prisons can make accommodations to cater to that offender's condition.

Teo said he asked the prosecutor to do the evaluation, and the Singapore Prisons Service had confirmed that they could accommodate Karl Liew's condition.

Teo also reiterated that "nothing extraneous was allowed to influence sentence" and that he had already adjusted the sentence meted out significantly after considering his mitigation plea and his condition.

Judge felt Karl Liew would also want to be not falsely accused

In conclusion, Teo reminded everyone that the sentencing of an offender is ultimately the court's responsibility.

"Perhaps the most intuitive way to appreciate how sentencing should be conducted here would be to consider what ought to be done if the tables were turned.

I do not think Mr Karl Liew would take kindly to anyone falsely accusing him of being a criminal/petty thief or that he was guilty of some wrong-doing, and being dragged all the way through police investigations, and then subsequently being charged in court, expending time, effort and expense in his defence, suffering the associated anxiety and consequences to his public reputation throughout that process & period, in order to clear his name and prove his innocence."

Teo said that Karl Liew would then also want to rightly demand that the person who falsely accused him be met with "an appropriately robust penalty to deter such conduct and prevent others from suffering that same fate."

"That is precisely what this court is doing."

Parti Liyani's statement

A website dedicated to Parti's case maintained by HOME volunteer Stephanie Chok published a statement from Parti, intended as a victim impact statement for the sentencing judge to consider.

Says she suffered economically and socially

Parti, who is back in Indonesia, stated that she had suffered economically and socially.

She said she came from a poor family and would remit a part of her salary back to Indonesia for her mother and siblings.

She added that the trial had caused her not to earn any income for four years, impacting her mother.

Grateful to Singaporeans and her lawyer

Hence, she is very grateful to the kindhearted people in Singapore who donated a total of S$28,000, which covered a part of what she could have earned.

She is also grateful to her lawyer Anil Balchandani who represented her pro bono.

Parti pointed out that the accusation had tarnished her reputation and had cost her a few relationships with her friends in Singapore as they lost trust in her.

Thanked High Court judge for acquitting her

She expressed gratitude to Justice Chan Seng Onn for fully acquitting her,

She also thank Singaporeans and the Indonesian embassy in Singapore for their support.

Finally, she said that her "hope remains high that the case would become the right lesson" to everyone and that her case "shall be the last and shall not be experienced by others in the future".

Related stories

Top image via HOME/Grace Baey & Mothership/Hannah Martens