Pandora box, the extraordinary case of Parti Liyani

The prosecution of Parti Liyani, an Indonesian domestic worker for four counts of theft ended happily for her but not for the complainant, Liew Mun Leong. Liew, his daughter, son and daughter-in-law have their names sullied even as Temasek, Surbana Jurong and Changi Airport Group continue to heap praises on him.

Liyani’s case has highlighted the plight of migrant workers in Singapore and reveal many unsatisfactory facets of our justice system, not least, the attitude of our police and Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) when it handles complaints against the powerless poor.

We owe it to pro bono lawyer, Anil Balchandani and Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics’ (HOME) for this rare and unprecedented victory of the poor.

Balchandani’s hard work is appreciated by appeal judge, Justice Chan Seng Onn who said of him:

… I would like to commend Mr Anil for the pro-bono services that he has rendered for this case: the trial itself took 22 days with extensive cross examination of the Prosecution witnesses; his trial submissions for both conviction and sentence totalled 279 pages (excluding authorities and other attachments); the appeal hearing stretched over 3 days; his submissions for the appeal totalled 221 pages (excluding authorities and other attachments); his written submissions were detailed and well-footnoted; his arguments were persuasive; he explored carefully every aspect of the Prosecution’s case and scrutinised the voluminous evidence in the transcripts in order to mount his client’s defence both at the trial and the appeal with clarity; he analysed the grounds of decision of the trial judge in great detail to submit on areas where the trial judge had erred in her findings; he handled all these matters singlehandedly and had shown much dedication in his pro-bono work for this case.

The judge’s dispassionate, cool and clear judgement is exemplary of a truly fair-minded, meticulous and courageous judge. He did not use a single harsh word for the shoddy investigation work of the police or the illogical conclusions drawn on facts by the trial judge. He called a spade a spade when he judged on the credibility of testimonies of witnesses.

Justice Chan’s judgement is devastating for Liew Mun Leong, his daughter, son and daughter in law. Not one of them emerged unscathed. This has not escaped the sharp-eyed netizens who are now busy digging out their connections in the unwieldly corporate world where many of their leaders, I suspect, have lost their moral compass.

In summarising his decision to acquit Parti Liyani on all four charges, Justice Chan said:

… I allow Parti’s appeal against all four charges against her. I first observe that in the present case, which involved a voluminous number of items, the proper handling of the evidence by the police and recording of the allegedly stolen items is crucial in order to preserve the chain of custody of the items. Coupled with the existence of an improper motive by members of the Liew family for mounting the allegations against Parti, I find that the convictions against Parti are unsafe and accordingly acquit her of all the charges.

That there was an “improper motive by members of the Liew family” was a bold finding. That employers lodge complaints against migrant workers in order to ensure that they are black-marked and would never return to work is a practice that is known but never challenged.

A cool, clear and measured tone runs through the entire judgement. I hope the Minister of Law, the AGC and Ministry of Manpower (MOM) will take note of all the issues raised in the judgement and implement immediate measures to protect migrant workers from suffering the same fate as Liyani.

PARTI LIYANI SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED

I suspect that in lodging the police report, Liew Mun Leong never expected Liyani to be prosecuted. He had made the report purely “for the record”. He never expected Liyani to return to Singapore and to be arrested at the airport a month later. After all, the Liews had dismissed her without any reason, giving her just 2 to 3 hours to pack up and leave, a practice that is common and known to employment agencies and employers.

I suspect too that this practice is also well known to MOM which takes the stand that since the Employment Act does not apply to domestic workers, employers are free to dismiss them in this cruel manner. This is something that MOM and embassies should seriously look into and rectify. Embassies should work harder to protect their nationals who come here to work in order to send hard earned cash home.

For the reason that a prosecution of Liyani was never anticipated, Liew’s report was carelessly drafted, not because he did not have the time to check and enumerate the alleged “stolen properties” but because, as the judge ruled, he thought that the report would prevent Liyani from returning to Singapore to lodge a complaint with MOM. Liew had included in his crucial first information report these items — hard disks worth $500, towels worth $100, gadgets worth $1,000. These items were subsequently not included in any of the four charges brought against Liyani. Any investigating officer would have questioned why these items were dropped from the list of “stolen properties”. An experience judge would have questioned this omission too. But this was not done.

Like Liew Mun Leong, the police too, I suspect, did not expect a prosecution of Liyani. The issue of a warrant of arrest against her after recording the complaint of Liew Mun Leong was probably a standard practice. They did not even bother to visit the scene of crime to seize the properties allegedly stolen. This again is probably a usual practice for domestic workers who have been repatriated. It probably never crossed their mind that Liyani would return one day. And here I wonder how many migrant workers have been wronged but have been compelled to leave Singapore at short notices, never to return.

When Liyani returned to Singapore on 2 December 2016, she was arrested upon arrival, detained and subjected to interrogation. This I think is the efficiency of technology! Once the warrant of arrest is entered into the system, the airport arrival terminal sounds the alarm. But what I don’t understand is why the police did not refuse the entry of Liyani and save all the hassle! Somewhere along the chain, someone may have forgotten about the case!

From the judgement, I gather that many of the things she carried in her bag were allegedly stolen from the Liews. These were seized and added to the items of alleged stolen properties!

The trial judge noted in her judgement:

“… Her bags were found to contain more items belonging to the victims. These items included:
a. The two Longchamp bags;
b. One Gerald Genta watch;
c. One Helix watch;
d. Two white iPhones with accessories;
e. One black Braun Buffel wallet;
f. One black Gucci wallet;
g. One Prada bag;
h. One Gucci sunglasses with red stains.

It is interesting that the appeal judge noted that all the above items were either used, old or damaged. I wonder why it didn’t cross the mind of the investigating officer to ask why a person who had committed theft of these items would bring them back to Singapore. I wonder too why the Liews (daughter, son and daughter in law) when shown these old and broken items by the investigating officer did not tell him that they were either discarded items or were given to Liyani.

Their claim to ownership by attaching ridiculous values to each item, for eg $25,000 for the broken Gerald Genta Watch which was reduced to $10,000 by the trial judge upon hearing the evidence of the defence expert witness, probably increased the number of charges against Liyani. From the theft of Liew Mun Leong’s properties, Liyani had to face 3 additional charges of theft of discarded properties of daughter, son and daughter in law. In the end, these additional charges simply embarrassed their standing in high society. The inclusion of 120 items of used clothings and 2 counterfeit watches further damaged their reputation.

I am puzzled as to why the prosecution proceeded with the case despite knowing that all or at least most of the goods were used, broken or old, things that rich people would discard without a second thought. Were they pressured by the fact that the complainant is a well known and powerful person?

If the prosecution was under some self-inflicted pressure, they certainly prosecuted with vigour. Liyani faced four charges (with one more being stood down) even though (if convicted), she was a first offender. This practice of heaping charges on an accused person who claims trial is well known.

Under the law, if a person is convicted of at least 3 charges, two of the sentences would run consecutively. By proceeding with four charges, the prosecution probably hoped an accused person would plea bargain and plead guilty to at least one charge on the promise of a withdrawal of the remaining charges.

For a migrant worker the temptation to plead guilty, serve a shorter prison sentence and be repatriated is tremendous. I suspect many guilty pleas were extracted from accused persons because they could not withstand the pressure of risking convictions of more than 3 charges.

For standing up to the pressure, I salute Liyani for her courage. Her lawyer and HOME have done a great job in believing and supporting her claim of innocence throughout the four years.

Justice Chan Seng Onn has delivered a judgement that should wake up those who are in charge of law and order.

Before I retired from legal practice more than 13 years ago, I had noticed a sea of change in the attitude of prosecutors handling criminal matters. Police prosecutors have been replaced by highly qualified and legally trained personnel from the AGC. I hear complaints about their being arrogant. As a senior lawyer, I too had been snubbed when duty prosecutor refused to see me.

I remember one instance when my case was stood down by a senior judge who advised that I should see the duty prosecutor. My client had, like Liyani, faced more than 3 charges of shoplifting some goods of little value. He was a good man and was a first offender. He shoplifted not because he needed those items but I suspect, he was crying for help. He did not attempt to conceal the items he took. The duty prosecutor rejected my request to reduce the number of charges.

I returned to court and informed the judge. My client pleaded guilty to all the charges and I asked for probation for my client. In those days, it was rare for adults to be granted probation. The judge granted my request, much to the surprise of the prosecutor and lawyers. I suspect he was not too happy with the attitude of the duty prosecutor.

Arrogance can arise as a defence mechanism to the lack of confidence and experience. It can also come about because of the desire to win at any cost.

In Liyani’s case, there was the charge for theft of a spoilt Pioneer DVD player. I was shocked that the fact that the dvd player could not play dvds was not disclosed at the trial but was only admitted at the appeal.

Both the police and the public prosecutor knew that it was “spoilt” before the trial. If they had acknowledged this fact, Liyani’s defence that the owner had wanted to throw it away but that she kept it would have succeeded. This is not only a professional flaw but a character flaw on the part of the prosecutor.

The only reason I can think of for this non-disclosure is that the prosecutor wanted to win the case at all costs. This should never be the attitude of prosecutors. I hope Liyani’s case will put an end to such attitudes.

The AGC, MOM and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) have a lot to do to improve their established system. They should not spend time trying to POFMA young activists but concentrate on improving the system that has been deteriorating over the years.

Turning a blind eye to these serious issues is detrimental to our country. We may have the best technology, machines and money, but what is the point when we have lost our soul.

Liyani has opened the Pandora Box. Let’s empty it and recover our soul.

 

Teo Soh Lung

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

21 Responses to “Pandora box, the extraordinary case of Parti Liyani”

  • Is this a crime?:

    “In Liyani’s case, there was the charge for theft of a spoilt Pioneer DVD player. I was shocked that the fact that the dvd player could not play dvds was not disclosed at the trial but was only admitted at the appeal.

    Both the police and the public prosecutor knew that it was “spoilt” before the trial. If they had acknowledged this fact, Liyani’s defence that the owner had wanted to throw it away but that she kept it would have succeeded. This is not only a professional flaw but a character flaw on the part of the prosecutor.”

    This looks like a crime. Is it a crime?

    Not only “not disclosed at the trial”. The prosecution carefully arranged a demonstration in court and tricked the defendant into agreeing that the player was working.

    Is this a crime?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TumasikPatriot:

    We the Patriots and True Singaporeans have a SOUL… and treasure it dearly…

    they Don’t… they SOLD it!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    For a person who qualified in law, Teo Soh Lung continues to not see the trees from the forest from the HIGH COURT appeal judgment delivered by Justice Chan Seng Oon, namely his judgment of “improper motive” based on the FACTUAL EVIDENCE, that the accused, Parti Liyani, had filed a complaint (complaints?) to the Ministry of Manpower of the unlawful instruction by Liew Mun Leong for the maid to clean up his son’s house and his son’s office for which she was paid a desultory 20 CENTS per hour average.

    At her trial before District Judge Olivia Low, the DJ DISALLOWED Liyani’s Counsel to admit the said compliant to be admitted as her Defence. Why? Was DJ Olivia Low disallowing the said compliant to the MOM made in good faith? Surely not……..at least I have not seen any report of her justification to do so, ie disallowing the said MOM to be admitted as evidence. This could only meant that DJ Olivia Low had NOT discharged her judicial duties in GOOD Faith, which was a flagrant BREACH of her oath of office, which should have meant that her judicial decision had been ILLEGAL.

    The High Court judgment also revealed that the DPP had fraudulently and maliciously misled DJ Olivia Low and the Defence on whether the DVD player was spoilt on the basic criterion of the Liew family (and any lay person) when it could NOT play a FRESH video disc. The DPP had deceived the Court that the DVD player was functioning by linking the DVD hard-disc directly to the monitor, a procedure the Liew family and any lay person would surely not have considered, to prove that the DVD player was not spoilt, contrary to the Liew family criterion that it was indeed SPOILT.

    I have written about this several times in almost all the threads on the Liyani’s case, and YET Teo Soh Lung thinks the world of herself with all those PETTY issues which failed or would obscure the TRUE reality of the travesty of justice, BIAS, the lack of independence and most importantly the BREACHES of the judge’s oath of office in contravention to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Teo Soh Lung should get acquainted with Articles 2,4, 12(1), 97(1) and the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

    Quite Regrettable, Sad and Pathetic…….especially for a person trained as a lawyer and who had suffered from the failings of the judicial process.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • "One country, two systems":

    This case expose the hypocrisy of the “system”. It showed that Singapore is one country but with two system (of justice). One for “PAP (Power AND PRIVILEGE) members” and another for the rest of the country.

    A top “PAP member” and rich “free-rider” was “taken out” be a maid from Indonesia. What a joke or is it big-time karma for LHL and PAP.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Is this a crime?:
    September 16, 2020 at 11:15 pm (Quote)

    In my opinion, YES to your question whether crimes (not only just the singular) had been committed, in particular sections 25 and 199 of the Penal Code in the case of ALL the parties especially DJ Olivia Low; the DPPs involved and the Liew family.

    In addition DJ Olivia Low and the DPPs had, prima facie, contravened section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act which states as follows:

    Report in good faith made to Chief Justice, police, etc., not contempt
    16.—(1) To avoid doubt, a person is not guilty of contempt of court under section 3(1)(a) by reason that he or she has made a report to the Chief Justice, the police, a law enforcement agency or any other public authority alleging misconduct or corruption on the part of a judge, being a report —
    (a) which is made in good faith; and
    (b) which discloses grounds which, if unrebutted, would provide a sufficient basis for the investigation of the allegation of misconduct or corruption.
    (2) In this section, “law enforcement agency” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68).

    Black’s Law Dictionary has defined ‘misconduct’ as: Any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial … to the right determination of the cause.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Oh I find Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s commentary at

    http://www.tremeritus.net/2020/09/16/lucien-wong%e2%80%99s-controversial-past-points-to-need-for-reform-of-the-ag%e2%80%99s-office/

    to be much more apposite and accurately reflective of the bankruptcy of the PAPie regime and the Singapore judiciary and the judicial system

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Those who have missed some of my comments, might find what I have posted in the undermentioned link informative:

    http://www.tremeritus.net/2020/09/14/they-stood-up-for-a-maid-theyll-stand-up-for-us/

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    “…I am puzzled as to why the prosecution proceeded with the case despite knowing that all or at least most of the goods were used, broken or old, things that rich people would discard without a second thought. Were they pressured by the fact that the complainant is a well known and powerful person?…”

    If the complaint comes from a member of the ‘Home Team’ then too bad, the person who is being accused is already guilty. The system is for the ‘Home Team’ to always get their way.

    The one unexpected twist was an honest and upright judge and a dedicated lawyer. The last judge we had – the Hon. JBJ – ended up selling books at City Hall MRT. This was to show the people that no one can stand up to them.

    Yes, things are changing – but not the way people think. Even now the system will make sure future such complaints will not be railroaded by honesty, fair play, innocence or the pursuit of justice.

    The ‘Home Team’ will get what it expects next time. You can be sure of it. Practice makes perfect.

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

    Lots of companies also suka suka fire people. The locals don’t get pro bono representation?

    Luckily for me, I could just join competitor firms back then.

    Now many devious employers have included a clause in wmployment contracts that empployees canot work for other firms in the same industry. How valid is this clause?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Great Asia:

    Just like Lee Kuan Yew, Liew is also a person of big brain and small heart. In fact, most of the PAP fat cats are of similar quality.

    Ha ha ha!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    THE BOTCHED PROSECUTION of Parti Liyani looks horribly tainted of a vexatious prosecution without merit. This, I believe, adequately explains why the fifth and final charge thrown out amounting to an acquittal without her defence being called to account.

    The prosecution of Parti Liyani was conducted in a fashion which almost akin to a witch hunt – the complainant and prosecution tendering tainted evidence as if they were painting whatever picture they like on a blank piece of white paper.

    Even more stunning was District Court continues with the vexatious prosecution AFTER REJECTING SOME OF THE EVIDENCE TENDERED by the prosecution OF “stolen items” as doubtful or unsafe to deduce a guilt of Parti Liyani as charged. The writing was on the wall for all to see – DEFECTIVE EVIDENCES have been tendered by the prosecution – RED LIGHTS HAVE BEEN FLASHING THAT THIS LOOKS LIKE A VEXATIOUS LITIGATION of the complainants whose witnesses were found to be unreliable of testimony on the courtroom floor as well. That is to say – the EVIDENCES AND WITNESSES WERE UNRELIABLE.

    SO HOW DID THE DISTRICT COURTROOM FOUND THE DEFENDANT “guilty” as charged on ALL offences as alleged. The judgment outcome was unsafe and on ALL COUNTS of flawed evidences and witnesses. The obvious stench is this – who would steal junk, even of damaged, of no resale value will forever haunt the ghosts of justice and fiction drama unfolded?

    @ Teo Soh Lung IS RIGHT – the Pandora box has been opened. Let the worms all craw out as it should.

    The most EERIE AND HAIRY WORM, in my view, is that the AGC is the Govt law architect and adviser was ALSO THE PROSECUTION.

    To my mind, this is WRONG legal architecture. In Australia, there is a separate Office of Public Prosecution (OPP) to undertake criminal prosecution.

    THIS IS GOOD.

    WHY?

    Very simple. A botched prosecution like Parti Liyani’s has NO REPERCUSSIONS nor CHALLENGE of vigorous feedback to the prosecution. Heads won’t roll – but recused from forward review. Instead the public is left to fear that or if a subsequent “internal review” will FORMALLY wash away blood from tainted accountability hand/s, and the blood-stained floor of vexatious litigation covered with carpet thereafter giving new elevated dimension to the meanings to the word – whitewashing.

    Parti Liyani will be conveniently forgotten as “justice is served” when THAT IS EXACTLY OPPOSITE TO THE TRUTH. Her acquittal in the High Court merely reversed an unsafe/flawed conviction in the lower court. The pain and suffering continued in the natural person for life WITHOUT THE COMPLAINANT AND THE STATE PAYING appropriate financial compensation.

    How can justice be served when she got punched in the face and no apology supplied?

    If there was a separate OPP, they will be counting lamp posts on the street UNLIKE THE PROSECUTION STILL GOT THEIR ADVISORY JOBS.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    I STRONGLY BELIEVE that LEE-jiapore needs A SEPARATE Office of Public Prosecution as a distinct tool of check and balances counterweight AND A DESIGNATED FACE of public accountability to fair prosecutions in all criminal law matter.

    The AGC is the govt’s law adviser and architect/engineer and adviser – IT MUST NOT CONDUCT criminal prosecution to avoid public doubt/suspicions of biased and vexatious litigation – PARTICULARLY OF POLITICALLY-TAINTED ALLEGATIONS.

    The law and justice must NOT only be fair BUT ALSO SEEN TO BE FAIR. There must NOT be conflict of interest.

    It is particularly dangerous when AMBIGUOUS LAW is written and legislated into force -opening the door to politically-tainted prosecution of “CATCH-ALL” entrapment of “FIXED TARGETS” and/or widest laxity of judicial interpretation and/or processes to shelter/protected vested interests in the dominant power coalition of offences having occurred.

    IT WASN’T THAT LONG AGO WHEN GRASSROOT OFFENDERS SOUGHT PROTECTION ASSISTANCE FROM MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT making written representations on behalf in seeking escape from law punishments for offences.

    THIS IS MONSTROSITY EVIL AND WRONG that MPs as law-makers BECOME ALSO almost THE LAW JUDGES in this process!! And on the opposite side is the AGC in prosecution which could be of the same political color!!

    In the best of circumstances, when the law writers as engineers/architect of legislation designed and written up for Parliamentary enactment, flawed law simply legislated into law WITHOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES to the extent that the prosecution swallowed its own vomit almost like a STUPID PUPPY engaged IN COPROGHAGIA (eating its own sh*t).

    If we have a separate Office of Public Prosecution, such systemic failure is less likely. OPP won’t prosecute what it sees as flawed law because an OUTCOME LIKE PARTI LIYANI is coming back to ghostly haunt its own vexatious prosecution.

    OPP only duties is criminal prosecution on merit. They have no function otherwise. IF THEY FAILED LIKE THIS INSTANCE OF PARTI LIYANI, all those involved prosecutors will NOT BE NEEDED ANYMORE – most likely walking the street counting the number of lamp post on each stretch.

    The AGC in contrast?

    Oh, it does not matter of a screwed up vexatious prosecution. Their jobs are still there to write even more ambiguous laws. They will still be needed of their services to “advise” the sitting/incumbent govt of the day – their fat paychecks are still funded out of taxpayers’ pockets. Worst come worst, white-washing from annointed washer-man or washer-woman will do the necessary cleaning their failed acts of commission or omission.

    OPP will be A LOT MORE careful of evidence and witness checking – WE WON’T PROSECUTE DOUBTFUL CASES – their paychecks depends on that.

    HENCE THERE IS VIGOROUS CHECKS AND BALANCES if we have a separate OPP.

    and rightly so as well.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    I repeat my post from KJ’s thread before this:

    Contrary to what I believe to be the wayang party’s propaganda or more like s*ake oil speak @#Harder Truths, Singapore is NEITHER of the political systems he/she has described as :Communism, Fascism or Despotism.

    The Economist magazine, with their years of independent reporting, has described SINKaPOOR as an illiberal democracy.

    For me, the REALITY is that SINKaPOOR is neither of the above description……….it is a FIEFDOM – the Lee Family’s FIEFDOM.

    Nevertheless there are aspects of the political system which is democratic, and it is within such limitations that there are avenues for genuine political discussion and people’s activism which can and must influence the policies, and which the PAPies have now come to realise.

    In Russia, Belarus and Thailand with their very strict laws and policies towards public activism, people are rising up against the status quo of the self-serving policies as advocated by the PAPie’s “CO-DRIVER” in the form of the wayang party of whom its IB @#Harder Truths is propounding, since the supposed “ownself check ownself” policies of the PAPies suit the wayang party just fine………..notice their lack of concern and of course implicit support of the emperor without clothes failed policies whenever the PAPies have been exposed for their failures and abominations like the Parti’s v Liew Mun Leong’s case even as their wayang MPs have been pictured to enjoy themselves………….yes make merry while Rome burns.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Shouldn’t miss this from another thread exposing the s*ake oil propaganda of what I believe to be from the wayang party’s IB @Harder Truths:

    I thought TRE readers must be aware of my describing this little red dot as SINKaPOOR. I have also justified/explained why the term SINKaPOOR is appropriate.

    As confirmation that SINKaPOOR’s is and would continue to face DIRE times which would not affect the wayang party MPs at least for the next 5 years leading their celebration as pictured, the cotton from sheep paper Major General aka khi Chiu had spoken exactly of the DIRE times ahead for the SINKaPOOR’s economy and for more misery for sinkies, except of course the wayang party’s MPs, with clear signs of panic in his expression.

    Decide for yourselves if the voters in Aljunied GRC, Hougang SMC and SengKang GRC are immune to the woes face by all sinkies of declining HDB values to eventually ZERO and their rice bowls being taken over by so-called foreign talents while the wayang party MPs continue life with their monthly assured MP allowance of $16k per month.

    Yeah, ask the wayang party MPs and or their IBs to show that they can claim: I told you so!!!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    in a nutshell,isnt this MODERN SG FEUDALI$M?
    It is no dufferent from slavery.
    She is a maid,not a slave.
    So too OUR OWN sinkingPOOReans are being treated in similar manner?
    HAVE OUR ELITES BECOME ELITISTS?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Soccerbetting2:

    Reported on TOC :Quote -”Parti Liyan’s case is not the only time Judge Olivia Low has seemingly disregarded evidence where FDWs are concerned

     by Ghui
    16 September 2020…

    As Singaporeans watch the Liew Mun Leong saga unfold, many have criticised the lower courts for the seemingly flawed judgement that District Judge Olivia Low delivered against Parti Liyani.
    Apart from apparent mistakes made by the police and the prosecution team, it has been revealed that the lower court judge, Olivia Low had failed to to consider the unchallenged expert evidence on the authenticity and the working condition of some of the stolen items.
    In addition, there have also been disturbing revelations about how Low had sought to seemingly suppress information about Parti’s threat to complain about the Liews to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for making her work in contravention of MOM rules in court.
    However, it is noteworthy that this does not appear to be the only time Low has erred in her judgement concerning foreign domestic workers (FDW). In another case, where an FDW, Moe Moe Than (Than) was abused by husband and wife Tay Wee Kiat (Tay) and Chia Yun-Ling (Chia), Low also had her judgement reversed.
    While Low had acquitted Chia for not paying Than’s salary, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng at the High Court reversed this acquittal and sentenced her to a further three months for this charge. In addition, the High Court also handed down another six more months to Tay for abusing Than. It would seem that Low had disregarded certain pieces of evidence and been too lenient with a couple who had abused their FDW.

    The High Court Judge was of the opinion that Low “did not evaluate the evidence or make any clear findings of Chia’s version of events”. While Chia had claimed that she had paid Than the salary she was owed in full, Justice Hoo (of the High Court) had not found this version of events believable as Chia had changed her position about the date she had paid the salary, and her reasons for the backdating were “contrived” and “illogical”.
    Given that this couple had also ill treated another FDW, Indonesian national Fitriyah, whose employment overlapped with Than’s, Low’s leniency does seem odd. Looking at this case, and that of Parti Liyani’s, does Low have a pattern of taking what employers say at face value without any probing? Was there an unconscious bias on her part to assume that employers tell the truth over FDWs?
    Given that mistakes where FDWs are concerned are not isolated incidents for the former District Judge, a thorough and serious investigation should be held to evaluate her fitness as a judge in a transparent and open manner.
    TOC understands that Low is currently employed at the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) and she is no longer presiding over any hearings.
    However, there may be a need to reopen other judgements issued by her to make sure that she has not made similar mistakes.”Unquote .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • trained or not trained:

    //Quite Regrettable, Sad and Pathetic…….especially for a person trained as a lawyer and who had suffered from the failings of the judicial process.//

    aiyoh. so chim ? law with many numbered articles blah blah blah ??

    whether trained or not trained ? you still cannot beat a wayang ??

    don’t need to be trained lar, one knows wayang when one sees it ???

    do you need to be a mathematician to know that 4 is not 5 or an english expert / certified english teacher to know that selected is not elected ????

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Hello Realistically:

    Realistically:
    For a person who qualified in law, Teo Soh Lung continues to not see the trees …. by Liew Mun Leong for the maid to clean up his son’s house and his son’s office for which she was paid a desultory 20 CENTS per hour average.

    At her trial before District Judge Olivia Low, the DJ DISALLOWED Liyani’s Counsel to admit the said compliant to be admitted as her Defence. Why? Was DJ Olivia Low disallowing the said compliant to the MOM made in good faith? Surely not……..at least I have not seen any report of her justification to …. , which was a flagrant BREACH of her oath of office, which should have meant that her judicial decision had been ILLEGAL.

    The High Court judgment also revealed that the DPP had fraudulently and maliciously misled DJ Olivia Low and the Defence on whether the DVD player was … not have considered, to prove that the DVD player was not spoilt, contrary to the Liew family criterion that it was indeed SPOILT.

    I have written about this several times in almost all the threads on the Liyani’s case, and YET Teo Soh Lung thinks the world of herself with all those PETTY issues which failed or would obscure the TRUE reality of the travesty of justice, BIAS, the lack of independence and most importantly … 97(1) and the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

    Quite Regrettable, Sad and Pathetic…….especially for a person trained as a lawyer and who had suffered from the failings of the judicial process.

    What is your objective of speaking up here?

    Just to rant? I don’t think so.

    What causes the “travesty of justice”, “breaches”, etc?

    How will your ultimate goal be achieved?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • liew mun leong must be jailed:

    Is this a crime?:
    “In Liyani’s case, there was the charge for theft of a spoilt Pioneer DVD player. I was shocked that the fact that the dvd player could not play dvds was not disclosed at the trial but was only admitted at the appeal.

    Both the police and the public prosecutor knew that it was “spoilt” before the trial. If they had acknowledged this fact, Liyani’s defence that the owner had wanted to throw it away but that she kept it would have succeeded. This is not only a professional flaw but a character flaw on the part of the prosecutor.”

    This looks like a crime. Is it a crime?

    Not only “not disclosed at the trial”. The prosecution carefully arranged a demonstration in court and tricked the defendant into agreeing that the player was working.

    Is this a crime?

    the best themed kDrams are mostly about corruption by judge and police and prosecutors.

    as reel life depicts real life, so it is no surprised that liew mun leong was able to fix his low wage maid swee swee to the tune of 2 years and 2 months in jail.

    according to current knowledge, as reported in court report, all the kDrama themed folks, being judge and police and prosecutor, are in the wrong, so much so the maid who was fixed is now completely free.

    1, prosecutor is daughter of liew mun leong kaki.

    2, police may have pocketed from liew mun leong or from liew mun leong via prosecutor.

    3, judge may have a promised S$m job at CAG Surbana Capitalland or even a lucrative teaching position in nus ntu.

    nobody in pap island works for free.

    this is not a witch hunt. but as all humans are more or less the same, it means judge and police and prosecutor all have corrupted their integrity in liew mun leong’s fixing of his low wage maid.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Salaams to Parti.....:

    Gajah mati meninggalkan tulang, harimau mati meninggalkan belang, manusia mati meninggalkan nama.

    A dead elephant leaves its ivory behind,
    A dead tiger leaves its striped skin behind,
    The dead man leaves his name behind.

    What about a heartless atas corporation? When it dies?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Reading too much:

    Sometimes we tend to read too much …or suit our own agenda.
    Actual case may not be so many drama. Adding to the plot according to our imagination when there is none intended.
    This case could be simply some individuals that failed to do their jobs.
    No need to take down a working systems. Punish the offenders.
    Be fair to all, Rich or poor. Let justice takes its rightful course.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1