As the saying goes – “Six Degrees of Separation”. Does this ring true for the Liew Mun Leong and Parti Liyani saga? While we are in no way suggesting that there is any proven wrongdoing or negligence on the part of any of the government agencies, the lower courts or members of the Liew family in this, there does appear to be a web of connection between all the major players.

At the heart of this matter, we have the following cast of players:

  1. Parti Liyani as the accused (Parti);
  2. Liew Mun Leong (Liew) and his family as the accusers;
  3. Tan Yanying the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP);
  4. Tan Yong Soon, father of the DPP and colleague of Liew at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
  5. The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC)
  6. Lucien Wong who as the Attorney General heads up the AGC
  7. Ho Ching , CEO of Temasek Holdings;
  8. Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Singapore,
  9. The Ministry of Manpower (MOM)
  10. Josephine Teo, Minister of Manpower who heads the MOM
  11. Teo Eng Cheong, CEO International (Singapore, Southeast Asia, North Asia) of Surbana Jurong and husband of Josephine Teo. As of the writing of this article, we understand that Teo Eng Cheong has resigned from  Surbana Jurong although he may still be serving his notice period.

After the High Court’s high profile acquittal of Parti, it has been revealed that that there have been serious mistakes made in the investigation process of this matter. From the handling of the evidence to the seemingly glaring inconsistencies in statements made by the Liew family, it did not seem like a strong case for the AGC to prosecute in the first place. Why then did the AGC make the decision to prosecute?

As criticism begins to mount, it would appear that the DPP who was actively blocking Ms Parti’s Defence Counsel from asking pertinent questions of the Liews is Tan Yanying who also happens to be the daughter of Tan Yong Soon (NS Brigadier General). Tan Yong Soon was the former CEO of Urban Development Authority (June 2001 to Dec 2003) which overlaps with the time when Liew was the CEO of Capitaland, He is also now a colleague of Liew at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy where Liew is the Provost Chair. The Attorney General, Lucien Wong also happens to be on the board of Capitaland where Liew was a past director. Their time there would have overlapped.

Parti as a Foreign Domestic Worker would have fallen under the purview of the Ministry of Manpower, headed by Josephine Teo who is the Minister for Manpower. Josephine Teo in turn is married to Teo Eng Cheong who is a colleague of Liew at Surbana Jurong. Despite Parti having made a complaint in 2017 to MOM about how she was forced by the Liew family to work in contravention of MOM rules, there is no evidence that MOM did anything other than to issue a letter of caution to the Liews.

As late as August this year, when news had already broken about Liew (who incidentally has a position in Temasek as senior international business adviser and who is also Chairman of Surbana Jurong in which Termasek holds a majority), having potentially bullied his FDW in a relationship where the balance of power is disproportionate, Ho Ching who is both the Prime Minister’s wife and the CEO of Temasek Holdings publicly praised him. This is then followed by Dilhan Pillay Sandrasegara of Temasek International praising Liew (in a most insensitive and tone deaf manner) for his various contributions to Singapore.

Clearly, Liew is an influential man who is connected with many of the power brokers in the establishment. While this may all just be a huge coincidence, it is also obvious that the inter playing relationships between the players in this matter could cause incidents of conflicts of interests.

Added to that is the observation that all the people who played a part in prosecuting Parti despite it seeming like a weak case to begin with are all seemingly closely associated with Liew.

With this in mind, should a Committee of Inquiry (COI) not be called by the President to ensure that any investigation is open, above board, transparent and objective? If the government agencies are permitted to self investigate, it could result in irreparable reputational damage. After all, isn’t it true that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done?

Under the Inquiries Act, the President has the power to appoint a COI. The public is watching to see if the President will exercise this power.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
71 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

李函轩身亡案调查结果:长官违反安全训练守则

第一精卫营士兵李函轩身亡案报告出炉,根据国防部长黄永宏,在昨天于国会发布调查委员会调查结果,李函轩所属单位在事发前晚,在一项体能训练违反《安全训练守则》,没有让士兵获取足够睡眠。 李函轩所属支援连,在4月17日,即案发前日,进行两项体能训练。第一项在清晨6时30分,进行战斗循环训练,这符合安全训练条例。 不过,下午3时30分的心血管机能训练,长官以提升部队凝聚力和强化士兵体能为由,要求全体支援连,依同样速度跑步,而不是根据跑步能力分组训练。 在六圈跑步中,李函轩首三圈需比原定要求块10秒速度完成,剩余三圈才可根据个人速度完成。 在完成一圈跑步后,士兵只获得一分钟休息时间,比教程要求的少了45秒。 李函轩所属侦察排,长官以缺乏团队精神,有人在关灯后仍使用手机,而集体遭长官以俯卧撑、卷腹、匍匐前进等体能运动,进行体罚。长官还望士兵身上泼水,整个过程持续35分钟,士兵在洗刷后在10时45分才就寝。这导致李函轩只获得6小时15分钟睡眠。 黄永宏称,睡眠不足可能是李函轩在18日的快步行军中,导致身体疲惫的因素之一。 “相关长官在实施体罚前,没有征询上级同意,时候也没通知上级。虽然查案过程,大多士兵认为长官只是要求高,但长官是在未获授权情况下,进行体罚。” 调查也显示,一等中士李函轩完成六公里快步行军时,曾申诉小腿抽筋,但仍完成训练;完成8公里时被发现反应模糊,在场人员让他脱掉衣服、敷冰和泼水,但误判他只是过度疲劳,没有个伤患打点滴,敷冰部位也错误。 现场有人建议立即送医,但长官不采纳。见其情况未好转,才将他转到医疗中心,造成长时间的延误治疗。 委员会初步评估,无法鉴定直接导致李函轩严重中暑原因,但很肯定事发时处理伤患不当,送往军营医疗中心救治时间有明显延误,是导致李函轩中暑不治的关键原因。 李函轩中暑造成多个器官败坏,但是身上没发现其他伤势,也没证据显示涉及犯罪行为或医疗缺失。…

Politics and ethnicity: framing racial discrimination in Singapore

James Gomez Racial discrimination is a global phenomenon that the United Nations…

If the WP have breached their fiduciary duties, what about the PAP?

The high profile court case involving involving three Workers’ Party (WP) MPs…

律师拉维为迪哥达刑事诽谤 申请交高庭审理

因为一篇刊载在《网络公民》的文章,在去年12月被控刑事诽谤的35岁男子迪哥达(Daniel de Costa),早前针对其指控作出宪法挑战(constitutional challenge)。不过两周前法庭驳回了他的申请。 针对法庭判决,拉维已在昨日(11日)申请,要求将迪哥达的刑事诽谤案交给高庭审理,并探讨对迪哥达的起诉,是否抵触新加坡宪法第12条。 迪哥达在去年12月12日,在刑事法典第499条文,以及第500条文下被提控。他被指控在2018年9月4日,电邮了含诽谤内阁成员内容的文章到《网络公民》。其中提及“高层腐败”(corruption at the highest echelons)。 在刑事法典第500条文下阐明,任何涉及诽谤他人者,一旦罪名成立,可能面对最高两年监禁或罚款,或两者兼施。 在此次的申诉,律师拉维提及即便总理弟妹李显扬和李玮玲,都曾对总理以及其内阁,作出相似乃至更严重的指控。…