Karl Liew and the back dress he said to have worn in his testimony.

On 4 September, the High Court ruled to acquit former domestic worker Parti Liyani of four theft charges brought against her by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) following a police report made by her former employer, Liew Mun Leong.

Mr Liew—who recently announced his early retirement from Changi Airport Group, Surbana Jurong, Temasek Foundation and Temasek International—alleged that Ms Parti stole over S$50,000  worth of items belonging to him and his family.

However, Justice Chan Seng Onn, in allowing Ms Parti’s appeal against her conviction and jail sentence of two years and two months, branded the Liew family as having “improper motives” against Ms Parti.

We noted in a previous article that, two years ago, the district judge in Ms Parti’s trial as well as the prosecution blocked her lawyer’s attempts at bringing up her former employers intentions to prevent Ms Parti from lodging a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower over her illegal deployment to other locations.

On top of that, however, the court documents also show another instance of Ms Parti’s lawyer, Anil Balchandani of Red Lion Circle, being prevented from corroborating a fact that Karl Liew had confirmed.

When questioning Mr Liew’s son, Karl Liew, over an allegedly stolen female clothing belonging to the younger man, Mr Balchandani questioned him about his tendency to wear female clothing, asking: “Do you have a habit of wearing women’s clothes?”

Mr Liew said he wore women’s “t-shirts sometimes”.

However, the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) then felt that question was asked with the intention to “insult or annoy” Mr Liew. And despite clarifying that he was merely establishing facts, District Judge Olivia Low did not allow Mr Balchandani to continue with that line of questioning.

However, when cross-examining senior Mr Liew’s wife, identified as Mdm Ng, Mr Balchandani attempted to clarify with her on her son’s habit of wearing women’s clothing but was prevented from doing so.

DPP Tan Yanying argued that such a question should not be asked of this particular witness, even though Mr Balchandani countered Mdm Ng would be able to corroborate whether her son did in fact wear women’s clothes as he claimed he sometimes did.

The judge said that such a question is “not relevant”.

Karl confirms he has worn the allegedly stolen black dress before

In another part of the cross-examination on 17 August 2018, Mr Balchandani asked Mr Liew if one of the items that he claimed Ms Parti stole from him—a strappy black dress—was something he had worn before.

Referencing Mr Liew to a photograph of the dress, Mr Liew initially confirm that the dress was, in fact, in his possession.

He then confirmed that he cannot recall the last time he wore the dress.

When pressed further by Mr Balchandani on whether he has actually worn the dress before, Mr Liew confirm that it is possible he has worn it before.

A few minutes later, Mr Liew backtracked on his answer to say that he was actually looking at a different item instead of the dress that the defence counsel was referring to.

Karl’s assertion that he sometimes wear women’s clothing is “high unbelievable”

What is worth noting, of course, is that in his full judgment on the appeal, Justice Chan did take into account these facts, which informed his decision to acquit Ms Parti.

Justice Chan noted:

“In her decision to convict Parti on the 2nd charge for having stolen the 115 items of clothing that were in Karl’s possession, the Judge did not find the need to delve into the details of each and every item.

“Instead, it would appear that the Judge based the conviction on the fact that Karl “confirmed that he had never given [Parti] any clothes” and Mdm Ng only gave Parti clothes that were hers (meaning, Mdm Ng’s), and not anyone else’s.”

Further down, he said:

“Karl’s evidence was internally inconsistent and contradicted by the other witnesses. Karl’s testimony that he had in his possession multiple female items that Parti allegedly stole from him is also highly suspect.

“It is unclear how the Judge could have arrived at the conclusion that this was a result of Karl’s “inability to recall if some items had ever been in his possession”, especially when some of the items were observed by the Judge to be “smaller-sized female clothing” and wallets that “did not appear to be men’s wallets.”

He further said, “When confronted with the question if he had a “habit of wearing women’s clothes”, Karl replied that he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. This assertion is highly unbelievable, especially in the light of the concessions Karl made at trial regarding the women’s clothing removed from the 2nd charge.”

Background of the case

Ms Parti was convicted in March last year of stealing items belonging to Mr Liew and his family — his son Mr Karl in particular. Ms Parti’s employment was abruptly terminated on 28 Oct 2016.

Mr Liew had asked Mr Karl to oversee Ms Parti’s termination and repatriation process to Indonesia, as the former was abroad at the time.

Prior to being sent back to her home country, Ms Parti was given only three hours to pack her belongings despite having worked for the family for almost nine years.

Mr Liew subsequently reported the purported theft on 30 October the same year after returning to Singapore.

Less than two months later, Ms Parti was arrested at Changi Airport on 2 December upon her return to Singapore.

Parti was charged with stealing items totalling S$50,000. Though the amount was reduced to S$34,000 when District Judge Low removed several items from the charge sheet and reduced the estimated value of certain items, such as knocking down the value of a damaged Gerald Genta watched from S$25,000 to S$10,000.

Judge Low sentenced Ms Parti to two years and two months of jail after removing items from and reducing value on the allegedly stolen items that Mr Anil had successfully disproved in the State Courts hearing.

The prosecution originally sought a three-year jail sentence.

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

Russian embassy in Singapore rejects petition from activists

(Photo: LGBT rights activists outside the Russian Embassy in Singapore. From left…

苏睿勇拒绝调停献议 要求田径总会道歉

马拉松名将苏睿勇拒绝新加坡田径总会提出的调停会面献议,并点名后者撤回言论,并发书面道歉。 田径总会于周二(13日)透过律师回复苏睿勇,要求调停纷争,提议双方会面进行协商,然而苏睿勇于昨日(14日)拒绝田总的提议,表明田总尚未针对“暂时封锁所有与他的联系”进行澄清。 “直至田总针对评论提出实质性的回应,我们的客户(苏睿勇)才会考虑和田总会面,相信到时的会面会更具有意义和富有成果。” 苏睿勇的律师代表回应。 对此,《海峡时报》记者询问苏睿勇,后者表示只有在田总和奥委会给出回应,他才会接受调停。他表示,“如果你公开指责某人,你要么提出实质证据,要么道歉(若没有根据),你不会在公开对某人人格谋杀,在造成伤害后要求和对方关起门来默默地处理事情。只有在田总和其执行董事解释所有缘由,方能进行调停。” 今日(15日)苏睿勇也转贴《海峡时报》报道,促请田径总会与其执行董事Malik Aljunied出面解释。 苏睿勇近日因东南亚运动会落选而与新加坡国家奥林匹克委员会(SNOC),以及新加坡田径总会(SA)争执,奥委会指出苏睿勇作为国家代表和青年运动员的典范,却表现出“不符合该委会期望的态度和行为”,同时新加坡田径总会表示已“暂时”把苏睿勇封锁在总会的聊天群组和社媒平台外,包括whatsapp、脸书、推特和Instagram等,避免后者在这些平台发文,带来负面影响。 对此,苏睿勇于8月7日向两协会发律师信函,指控他们在未举办任何听证会或给他辩护的机会, 并要求两人于8月13日下午5点前给出具体解释,详细解释“行为失当”的指控 翌日,奥委会透过律师回复苏睿勇并向苏睿勇提出两项要求:1. 他们将在“下周结束前“回复苏睿勇的问题;2.…

Apex court acquits Malaysian on death-row of drug importation charge

38-year-old Malaysian Beh Chew Boo was remanded for nearly four years, of…

职总企业并购KOPITIAM:关乎竞争垄断与公共利益透明化?

最近媒体报导,职总创优企业合作社收购本地咖啡店和小贩中心运营商KOPITIAM集团,但是实际并购价格至今未公开。 据报导,KOPITIAM集团在全岛有80分行,预计并购交易将在年底完成。 并购若成功,将造就全国最大规模的餐饮中心巨头– 这似乎正走向一个竞争减少、约趋垄断的市场局面? 新加坡竞争与消费委员会的官网,对并购垄断的观点是这样的: ”竞争与消费委员会,透过推演并购、假设不并购可能出现的市场后果,来评估并购造成的影响,以及是否出现竞争减少到状态。“ 但我们想想,职总企业并购KOPITIAM,是否与不久前发生的私召车服务公司GRAB并购优步,有相似之处? 职总企业声明:并购符合职总社企的社会使命,确保提供民众可负担的熟食服务(9月21日报导)。可是据《网络公民》早前揭发,有小贩中心业者缴付近1千600租金之余,还要承担逾2千元的杂费。职总不应对外公布,此次并购究竟花了多少钱? 并购涉及公共利益 并购一事涉及公共利益,诚如研究蓄意散播假消息特委会的建议,如果涉公共利益事项选择不公开,政府(当中有许多工运议员)似乎有必要给个说法。 知名美食家司徒国辉在美食指南部落客”食尊“(Makansutra)揭露社会企业管理的小贩中心,却实行最为商业化的餐饮业管理模式。小贩除了租金还要缴交各种杂费,平均每月支出4千元,比新加坡知名麦士威小贩中心最高标价者,平均2-3千元的每月指出还要高。 司徒国辉也指出,职总富食客向摊位征收每月1千608元的租金,比起环境局管理的小贩中心平均1千514元的租金,稍微高些。…