The one question that could have saved Parti Liyani much earlier: Why would anybody want to steal junk?

It was a basic question that took four years to be asked.

Had it been asked earlier, it could have saved Parti Liyani from all her troubles and trauma, from languishing in a shelter for four years while awaiting the conclusion of her case of stealing from the home of Liew Mun Leong.

Defence lawyer Anil Balchandani who acted pro-bono for Parti and successfully secured her acquittal, appears in a video put up by HOME (Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics), the non-governmental organisation which provided shelter, food and financial assistance to Parti for four years. The video was shot a week before the High Court ruling on 4 September.

Balchandani spoke of the breakthrough: “I think the maybe memorable or most lucky point that we had was we asked the (high) court to have all the items presented before it . . . . and the court agreed. And that allowed us to present to the court what you can’t see in pictures.”

Once the “stolen” items were presented in court, the effect was telling, said Balchandani: “So the condition of the items, the clothes, the rags, the very old DVD players, the earrings, the jewellery that was outdated – you could see it in a photograph but you will not appreciate it until you see it. And slowly we were, you know, we were able to inch forward. And we have to basically convince the judge, why would someone steal junk?”

Indeed, why would anyone go through the trouble of stealing things which even the rag-and-bone man might reject?

And why wasn’t it a question the police, prosecution and district judge all thought of asking?

Only at the High Court was this question finally addressed. In his lengthy 100-page judgement, Justice Chan Seng Onn pointed to some aspects of this, including the case of a Pioneer DVD player which was allegedly stolen by Parti. She denied the theft, saying it was disposed of by the Liew family because it was “spoilt” and she kept it to bring home to Indonesia for repair.

Justice Chan believed Parti: “As its name suggests, a DVD player’s main function is to play a DVD . . . a DVD player that is unable to play DVD can reasonably be described as ‘spoilt.’”

The judge applied common sense. As was the case when Parti was accused of stealing clothes belonging to Karl Liew, the son of Liew Mun Leong. This strangely included women’s clothing apparel. When asked at the trial if he “had a habit of wearing women’s clothes” Karl actually said that he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. Justice Chan found this assertion to be “unbelievable”.

So the Parti Liyani case is now to be reviewed by multiple parties because something has “gone wrong in the chain of events”, according to Law Minister K Shanmugam.

They could start by reviewing why nobody thought of asking the most basic questions – such as why would anybody want to steal junk, and how could a man have clothes “stolen” from him that included women’s apparel.

 

Augustine Low

 

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

26 Responses to “The one question that could have saved Parti Liyani much earlier: Why would anybody want to steal junk?”

  • Rae:

    What a junk family this Liew family is. Accused the maid of stealing junk, anyhow value the items and the police and prosecutors went along, never checked, the district judge also just agreed. What a sham the whole process!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • PAP mandate strong:

    @ When asked at the trial if he “had a habit of wearing women’s clothes” Karl actually said that he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. Justice Chan found this assertion to be “unbelievable”.

    Possible. Man nowadays metro sexual, wear make up also. Maybe coming out of closet …. Cross dressing or fetishes or maybe gay as illustrated by LHY son. Many here as well as sg support LBGTQIAA, just look at turnout rate at HLP pinkdot.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Alice:

    Covid-19 exposed incompetence, Liew Mun Leong case exposed cronyism and failure of ownself check ownself, persecution of Lee Hsien Yang’s family exposed biased judiciary and attorney general. The system is totally broken.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Alice:

    The PM called opposition voters free riders. He will say the govt did nothing wrong in the Liew Mun Leong case, he will call the people witch hunters.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Alan:

    The PAP will NOT fix the system but they will SURE fix the opposition. Too busy scheming how to fix the new leader of the opposition and the Sengkang town council.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    So,with such gangster tactics,if Maid was scared to seek help, she would be an innocent victim with 26 months’ jail term and branded as CRIMINAL?

    DONT THE LAW SOC think this is too much?
    Where is the LAW SOC?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Not Over Yet:

    It is “theft” only if she had taken those items without the employer’s explicit or implicit permission. Junks and useless items still belong to the employer unless he decides to dispose or give them away. I think motive is an important part in this whole saga. Was there an intention to fix the maid for threatening to launch a complaint to MOM? There is no question that Justice Chan is wise and discerning to acquit the maid. An acquittal however may not be enough for the Indonesian people who must have followed the case and fetl for her, the ordeal her employer had put her through. They may want to see punitive measures taken.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • People Angry:

    “And why wasn’t it a question the police, prosecution and district judge all thought of asking?”

    You go read the judgement. Everything is very clearly laid out by the good judge. They were not interesting in asking.

    It is so clear, and yet the public cannot call it what it is. You call a spade a spade, and the spade will hit you, and insist that it is a diamond.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    She packed but wasn’t going to bring her bags with her, to leave them in the house to let the younger Liew send them after her? Wonder who would steal knowing that the stolen stuff would still be left for a time with the family? Especially that purportedly $25000 watch, an item that didn’t need a luggage to transport? And think of Liew’s so-declared nobility, that he felt it a civic duty to make that police report as service to the nation for the sake of justice, presumably in line with his noble services to the nation which Pillay boasted for him!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Stated above :Quote -”http://www.tremeritus.net/2020/09/11/the-one-question-that-could-have-saved-parti-liyani-much-earlier-why-would-anybody-want-to-steal-junk/…..”Unquote .

    Response : Don’t you all know that the junk is reported everywhere to be on mews to be worth $34,000? However,if you look at the lists of items that is reported stolen by Parti Liyani,one do not know their actual value but by their names,one will not understand and will wonder how all these sound like cheap “junks” names can add up to accumulated value worth $34,000.Maybe you all can investigate the actual values cost of those “junks” and examine more deeper into the aspect as to how the values reported out to be accumulated $34,000? This will give an idea where the lies come from and whether Parti Liyani did steal or not ?Or did the Liew Mun Leong family fabricate lies to police of thefts by Parti Liyani ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Power And Privilege (PAP):

    “And we have to basically convince the judge, WHY WOULD SOMEBODY STEAL JUNK?”

    Indeed, why would anyone go through the trouble of stealing things which even the rag-and-bone man might reject?

    And why wasn’t it a question the police, prosecution and district judge all thought of asking?”

    ————–

    The obvious question was not asked earlier for the simple reason that to ask it means the Liew family’s claim (that the maid stole from them) may not be true. LML is well-connected. He has “power and privilege” (PAP). Moreover, the maid has a “lower” social standing and is not even a Singaporean. “PAP” people like the Liew family would consider it an insult to believe her instead of them. The “system” kowtows to PAP people.

    LKY’ “pick-the-winner” policy has made Singapore elitist – “one country, two systems”. PAP continues the “abominable” practice.

    You can bet Shanmugam will NOT investigate: (1)the illegal deployment of the maid and (2) the attempt of the Liew family to frame her to stop her from giving evidence they broke the law. Also, the results of the “review of the process” mentioned by Shanmugam will NOT be made public.

    I have seen this type of “reviews” before. You never hear about it again. What Shanmugam said is all PR because the “system” got “bad press” when the maid was acquitted. The elitist system considers LML resignation (from all posts and early retirement) as sufficient “punishment”. Again it will be “one country, two systems”.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Law Society is a joke:

    xoxo:
    So,with such gangster tactics,if Maid was scared to seek help, she would be an innocent victim with 26 months’ jail term and branded as CRIMINAL?

    DONT THE LAW SOC think this is too much?
    Where is the LAW SOC?

    Law Society is a joke. It does not think without asking permission from PAP. If you want to know what the Law society thinks go directly to PAP. It does the thinking for the Law Society.

    BTW, when Amos Yee won in a US court and got asylum the Law Society said it would comment on it later after the result of the appeal of the US Dept of Homeland Security (USDHS) against the giving asylum to Amos. USDHS lost the appeal, i.e., Amos won and got asylum. This is over two years ago and to date no comment from the Law Society on Amos getting asylum in the US. Amos won TWICE in a US court humiliating LHL, PAP and the Singapore Government. Amos beat them at their own game (TWICE) of using the courts to persecute critics. But Amos was smart he took them to a US Court which they cannot control.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    At 74 years the maid-basher is already with one foot in the grave. Still behaves like an a**hole. His son is retarded and wears girl’s clothes. His wife wants to watch DVD on a broken DVD player.

    I want to ask the maid how the hell she put up with these rotten humans. She should be given a medal.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Still So Many Questions ?:

    First time Looking at the pictures of the stolen items, many questions can already be raised about the authencity of the theft report itself. Anyone realised the State Times never reported on the full details of this case ? It doesn’t look good at all to accuse The Maid of stealing one Corelle bowl that is already stained let alone discarded clothes and suits that said to be worth $150 apiece ?

    Obviously the family have a motive to exaggerate their losses and the District Court judge only have the 6th sense not to partially fall for it Only when the evidence was clear cut. In other words that $34,000 theft figure is still only an arbitrary estimate. The High Court Judge is wise enough not to fall for it altogether.

    The son is already a dishonest witness in another court case and should have raised a lot of questions about his integrity. And with the father’s wealth not willing to bail out his son’s bankruptcy, a lot of questions can also be raised about whether the father is really civic minded enough to respect our laws As claimed ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    Lower court judge said the Liews’ witness had some contradictions, etc., yet believed because they were credible persons. We suppose things such as grossly exaggerating costs of “stolen” items, like just carelessly claiming that broken watch “being expensive, and therefore $50,000 (without proper valuation done, and in court valued at most $5000), that old free-gift valueless watch “looking ugly and cheap, therefore $100, but charitably reduced to half-price, $50!” !, and when that claimed stolen clothe package was opened and a female item found, “I sometimes wear female dresses (any follow-through to see if he was …..??) And those wallets which defence had witness flown in from Indonesia testifying under oath that they were gifts to a previous maid?

    Reminds me of many years ago Sinnathuray, before promoted to High Court, when trying Tan Wah Piow, judging that Phey Yew Kok “was an honourable man, therefore believable” despite Tan’s witnesses testifying they saw Tan not being in Phey’s office where the purported “rioting” took place, but “on the opposite side of the road”. As the facts were, Phey wasn’t “honourable”, indeed then was already under investigation for corruption, and the court wasn’t alerted!!

    Back to the present, isn’t the two years jail sentence very disproportionate, even if the hapless maid was guilty of stealing some old mostly spoilt items from a very rich man’s house, some rich man who had also cheated her by illegally forcing her to work elsewhere and paying her $10 for some three days work, sometimes not at all?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    Obviously the Liews were lying under oath in their testimony to the lower court. Lying under oath and thus chargeable?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Dr Tan Tai Wei

    WHEN PARTY X ACCUSED PARTY Y OF THEFT but AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES Party X was in ABSOLUTE POSSESSION AND CONTROL of the said “stolen” property, HOW CAN “THEFT” POSSIBLY TAKING place in the mind, at the instigation and actual ill-conduct of party Y (the accused) except with the “consent” of Party X (the accuser) or in the FICTION OF FACT AND IN LAW.

    The evidence stares incredulous at the lunacy of the illogical allegations, much worst conviction.

    Parti Liyani cannot be convicted in BOTH the fiction of fact and in law, IMHO.

    WAS THAT initial CONVICTION LAW JUDGMENT GONE MAD OR AT LEAST incomprehensibly UPSIDE DOWN of that Parti Liyani’s conviction??

    How is K. Shanmugum’s forward investigation/review going to explain this impossibility of incongruity of law application?

    IT IS MIND-BOGGLING to me.

    Dr Tan Tai Wei: She packed but wasn’t going to bring her bags with her, to leave them in the house to let the younger Liew send them after her? Wonder who would steal knowing that the stolen stuff would still be left for a time with the family? Especially that purportedly $25000 watch, an item that didn’t need a luggage to transport? And think of Liew’s so-declared nobility, that he felt it a civic duty to make that police report as service to the nation for the sake of justice, presumably in line with his noble services to the nation which Pillay boasted for him!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • No logic island:

    Augustine Low:
    They could start by reviewing why nobody thought of asking the most basic questions

    The problem with Lee island- no one asks the basic questions that are most most rooted in logic and sensibility. They live in their own elitist world full of misconceptions and illusions. its like the whole system gets carried away when presented with a scenario and trying to implement the mechanisms it most often touts as efficient , flawless and rigid. We can see this all our lives throughout the system right from school, NS, work and retirement.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Police CLOSE DOWN:

    The police never thought of this?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • it is not a witch hunt:

    the 1st conviction requires agc and police.

    both clearly have not done their job properly.

    this is not a witch hunt.

    but justice needs to be meted out.

    the agc and her superiors who approved the 1st indictment all must face the music.

    the police who did the slipshod police work needs to tell the world whether there was bribe or no bribe that caused the slipshod police work.

    this is not a witch hunt but action to mete out true justice.

    AND the pap agc and the pap police need to contribute S$m to the low wage Indosia maid for her 4 years of suffering.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • it is not a witch hunt:

    Harder Truths:
    At 74 years the maid-basher is already with one foot in the grave. Still behaves like an a**hole. His son is retarded and wears girl’s clothes. His wife wants to watch DVD on a broken DVD player.

    I want to ask the maid how the hell she put up with these rotten humans. She should be given a medal.

    pap liar lee kuan yew even older but still far more asshole.

    we are always satisfied whenever we remember the lingering bad death of pap liar lee kuan yew and how his immediate famileee is feuding less than 3 years of his passing. Retribution. clear as day.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • NotMyProblem:

    People Angry:
    “And why wasn’t it a question the police, prosecution and district judge all thought of asking?”

    You go read the judgement. Everything is very clearly laid out by the good judge. They were not interesting in asking.

    It is so clear, and yet the public cannot call it what it is. You call a spade a spade, and the spade will hit you, and insist that it is a diamond.

    And that’s precisely what POFMA is meant to be!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • need some common sense:

    PAP mandate strong:
    @ When asked at the trial if he “had a habit of wearing women’s clothes” Karl actually said that he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. Justice Chan found this assertion to be “unbelievable”.

    Possible. Man nowadays metro sexual, wear make up also. Maybe coming out of closet …. Cross dressing or fetishes or maybe gay as illustrated by LHY son. Many here as well as sg support LBGTQIAA, just look at turnout rate at HLP pinkdot.

    The point then was that the sizes were for those of small built!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • LML:

    Not sure why LML make the report..What was the really valuable items that get stolen ?
    Misled by his wife and son?A weak spot for family member?
    Sad outcome.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Aiya, Liew Mun Leong CONTRADICTED himself lah…….which is more important, as the following which I hv also posted in the other threads show:

    What every comment, whether in the form of original post or subsequent comments by TRE readers, there is NO MENTION of the following which would cast great doubts about Liew Mun Leong’s character DEFECT.
    At the trial before DJ Olivia Low, Liew Mun Leong was reported to have said, according to the CNA report at:
    https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/liew-mun-leong-retires-cag-temasek-parti-liyani-13099110?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_24082018_cna
    Liew Mun Leong retires from CAG, other public service and business roles after court’s decision on Parti Liyani case
    10 Sep 2020 07:47PM(Updated: 10 Sep 2020 08:40PM)
    During the trial, Mr Liew told the court that he had long suspected Ms Parti of stealing from his family home, but “tolerated” her behaviour.
    —-
    Yet in the Straits Times report he was reported to have said the following:
    https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/liew-mun-leong-steps-down-as-chairman-of-changi-airport-group-surbana
    Liew Mun Leong steps down as chairman of CAG, Surbana Jurong after ex-maid acquitted of stealing
    Published
    Sep 10, 2020, 7:57 pm SGT
    In his statement on Thursday, Mr Liew outlined why he lodged the report, saying: “When my family discovered some of our belongings in Ms Liyani’s boxes, I proceeded to make a police report the same afternoon I returned from overseas – because I genuinely believed that if there were suspicions of wrongdoing, it is our civic duty to report the matter to the police and let the authorities investigate accordingly.
    —–
    Notice in the ST report, Liew said that he made the “…Police Report the same afternoon on his return from overseas – because I genuinely believed that if there were suspicions of wrongdoing, it is our civic duty to report the matter to the police and let the authorities investigate accordingly”, BUT he failed to do so earlier even as though “…he had long suspected Ms Parti of stealing from his family home, but “tolerated” her behaviour.”
    How does Liew Mun Leong explain the obvious CONTRADICTION and clear his prima facie character defect that he is NOT an honest person?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Ivan Theng Sor Hai:

    What is perjury?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisements
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic
Advertisement

UA-67043412-1