The storm of Parti Liyani is still brewing. Karl Liew is now in the hot seat. Shanmugam is also in the hot seat, for what he said would be watched and scrutinised very closely not only by Singaporeans but also in Indonesia. Maybe the whole of Indonesia is watching this case, from Widodo to the man in the streets and the maids here and everywhere. The bottom line is that justice and fairness must be seen to be done.
This case is like the proverbial tiny hole in a dam that could bring down the whole dam and all the dam is trying to hold. Many people involved in this case, from the judges, prosecutors and investigators, are going to be tainted by it one way or another. Some may just get embarrassing red faces, some could be quite bad.
At the moment it is like a slow motion movie, moving frame by frame and act by act. It may run loose and drag many things and people down with it by the time the show is over.
And it is not only the characters in the play that are under the spotlight. The whole judicial system, criminal justice system, the coterie of elites and the whole image of Singapore are thrust to centrestage. It is like a house of cards, pulling out one card could bring down the whole house.
Shanmugam had to be very careful, extremely careful, in what he said in Parliament. The opposition MPs are sharpening their knives, so to speak, ok, ok, no murder is going to happen in Parliament. No one is going to be struck by a knife. Don't get too excited, don't over react. Just sit tight and watch calmly.
Yes, stay calm, stay calm, everything will be alright. Do not panic.
If there is a moral story behind this episode it is that all civil servants and public officers must be professionally correct in whatever they are doing at all times. Do not think something is too small to do any harm and can be glossed over or be swept under the carpet. Whatever can go wrong will go wrong.
Key questions to ask, who had been cavalier? What could be done better by which department as Shanmugam put it? Which departments have been found wanting?
Theindependent.sg reported this below, which is a serious allegation of wrong doings. Who was she referring to about tempering with evidence?
Singapore — The Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) released on Wednesday (Nov 4) a statement by former domestic helper Parti Liyani on the conduct of police officers during her trial on theft charges involving items from the family of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong.
HOME is a Singapore charitable organisation that was founded in 2004.
Ms Parti said: “On 3 July 2020, I submitted a complaint against several officers of Tanglin Police Division. I requested the Singapore Police Force Internal Affairs Office to conduct an inquiry into their conduct of the investigations and trial against me.”
She added that “in court, there was possible tampering with evidence in an attempt to cast me as being untruthful”.
Aftermath Of Parti Liyani's Acquital: Many Questions Still Unanswered
ReplyDeleteThese are a few issues that I don't understand and I would like to ask "WHY?":
1. I don't understand why Shanmugam must get himself involved in a way that complicates and confuses the whole issue?
2. I don't understand why Ministry for Law and the Ministry for Home Affairs, as well as the AGC and Police openly stated that Liew Mun Leong did not influence the case, when he was the one together with his son who reported the fake thefts to the Police. He was also involved as a witness in the Lower Court as well as in the High Court. And therefore no action is being taken against him?
3. I don't understand why MOM openly stated that they are not going after Liew Mum Leong for what he had done - violating the MOM regulations of deploying his maid in three different places instead of one?
4. I don't understand why AGC is footing the bills for the two prosecutors (lawyers) who are now in hot soup?
5. I don't understand why the police investigation officer has not been charged or sacked for what he has done in this case?
LKY once said, if he were to order char kway teow, he would get extra eggs without asking for it.
ReplyDelete2020 US Presidential Election: Biden Is Likely To Win
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden and Donald Trump are both trying to get 270 electoral votes in order to win the 2020 US Presidential Election. The counting is still continuing. But the whole game/show hinged upon only five key states, i.e Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Alaska.
If Biden (with 264 electoral votes now) wins either Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina or Georgia, he will win the US Presidency.
The other remaining state is Alaska, which has 3 electoral votes, and is leaning toward Trump, who has only 214 electoral votes so far. And this is driving him crazy. Just imagine, one who promised and boasted repeatedly to win, win, win but finally becomes a loser, joining George W.H. Bush and Jimmy Carter as one-term President.
It will be a big slap on his face - don't know where to hide. Maybe, he will take refuge in jail, because there is a string of alleged charges waiting for him to step down as President - tax evasion is one of them; rape is another.
Part of Mr Shanmugam's Ministerial Statement in Parliament pertaining to Parti Liyani's case:
ReplyDeleteGUARD AGAINST INFLUENCE PEDDLING
"The message is, it doesn't matter who you are. If you do wrong, action will be taken. But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against soft corruption and influence peddling. Let me quote what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee have said.
In 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote:
•"We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously. We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable, if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries."
•"When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders."
And as early as 1961, Dr Goh warned about the risks that groups of elites might create an environment that would favour one community at the expense of another.
In an article in the Nanyang University journal in 1961, he said, and I quote:
"To achieve an honest and energetic administration appears easy in theory. In practice, very few of the young and emergent nations have achieved this. Even in the most advanced and leading societies, whether communist or democratic, the problem of nepotism is a recurring one and can only be countered by constant vigilance.
"In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism that is to be feared, but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no illegalities are committed, but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families.
"In underdeveloped countries, the matter could be more serious. A system may arise in which the dominant majority, whether of families, clans or even entire communities, arrogates to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant majority is thus able to point out that those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to this elite group.
"Thus many able and aspiring people are denied the opportunity for the full use of their abilities."
I personally find these words, very powerful, insightful, and I have more than once quoted the speech of Dr Goh in my own speeches because Dr Goh has, I think, identified precisely a serious, insidious risk in any society, including ours.
We are not that special that we can be immune to these risks. We have to constantly make sure that we don't allow it. We have to be very careful, to try to stamp it out wherever it appears. And make no mistake, make no mistake - it will keep appearing in big and small ways."
-------------------------------------------
Looks like LKY has risen from the ashes together with Dr Goh Keng Swee. It is really enlightening to note that their words have been quoted again and again by present leaders of Singapore.
A version of Shanmugam's extra-long parliamentary statement appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on November 06, 2020, with the headline
ReplyDelete'Why S'pore insists on equality before the law: Shanmugam'.
It is not the number of words one can say, whether in the parliament or outside the parliament. It is what actions have been taken and what actions the authorities are going to take.
ReplyDeleteOne can talk until the cows and buffaloes come home, but it does not prove anything. It does not mean that justice have been seen to have been done. It only means some people are very good in talking while others are not.
In this case, there are a number of actions that have to be taken in order to show that justice has been done. The high court judge has done his fiduciary duty and responsibility already. The rest is up to those who are deemed to be responsible to take the necessary actions for the public to see and to answer to the Indonesian government how their citizens are being treated in Singapore working as a lowly-paid maid in a big mansion of a powerful and wealthy family, and having been fixed with a criminal offence, suffered for four years, loss of income, unable to get a new job and nearly jailed for more than a year.
Bottom line: Has justice been truly and completely served?
If Singapore really insists on equality before the law, as stated by Minister Shanmugam, then why others have been fined or penalised by MOM for violating its rules and regulations but Liew Mum Leong is cleared and no action will be taken against him for making his maid worked in three places - his house, his son's house and his son's office?
ReplyDeleteIs this called equality before the law? I don't think so because I am not stupid.
Mr Liew belongs to the Elites Class of The Sinkie system, he had already got his due, further more his past contributions exceed the current fault that he had, let's move on (probably Someboli might said tat to protect him).
DeleteIn this case it would be good if the govt intervenes to compensate Parti for the 4 years she lost, the jailed sentence, the trauma and suffering she went through. Someone has to pay her for it.
ReplyDeleteWhether she takes it up as a private Sue against her employer is her discretion.
Uncle, I'm sorry this will need to tan ku ku lio lah ho boh.
DeleteThe whole of Singapore is watching patiently to see the outcome of this saga. I will make a prediction on the final scene of this movie. The Liew family will get a tiny slap on the wrist and warned " you are all very naughty, please do not do that again. As this is the first offence, no punishment. Let move on and forget what has happened, no harm done."
ReplyDeleteThis is Singapore, the elites can do no wrong. We are all connected and we look after each other. The peasants are so gullible and easily conned. They die, their business.
Most probably u r rite.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote:
•"We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously. We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable, if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries."
•"When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders."
In 2004, twenty years later, what happened?
1. They inevitably enriched themselves with obscene out-of-the-world salary and even more unimaginable bonuses.
2. They promote their families by putting their wives, sons, daughters and daughters-in-law to top positions as Minister, Chairman, President and CEO in various government organisations and government controlled private enterprises.
3. They favour their friends by making them hold influencial positions and making them rich and powerful through lucrative government infrastructure projects and other government-linked private projects.
4. They also promote and favour their cronies through "backdoor entry" piggy-back on the coat tail of an anchor minister in a GRC to easily become MPs and Ministers.
5. They regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative and start suing the common people until bankrupt, and then the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders.
Am I right or wrong. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
I am told by my grandma that a smart lawyer will speak as little as possible because the more one speaks, the more likely one will make mistakes and say something self-incriminating.
ReplyDeleteI am also told by my grandpa that the more one speaks to explain any situation that is attributed under your responsibility to oversee or supervise, the more you are feeling guilty of negligence and irresponsibility, and is trying to take yourself off the hook.
I am also told by many uncles that anything one says can be used against you in a court of public opinion whether you say it in Parliament or outside Parliament, whether in public or in private behild closed doors, like calling your countrymen "xia shuay" for example.
When one speaks as an MP in the Parliament, anything one says is protected by Parliamentary Privileges and therefore cannot be taken to task in a court of law.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the court of public opinions, in the cyberspace age, irrespective of location, time and privacy, anything one says can and will be used against you in the present time or in the future, especially so if one is a highly paid taxpayers-made millionaire minister.
How on earth could the law says no further action will be taken against Liew Mun Leong for allowing the maid to work in three places? Special law for special people? Something is not right lah, even though I am not one familiar with the law. But to say anything more means lim ko pi threat! Better just watch the show
ReplyDeleteProbably it's not Mr Leong per se but his son lah. Or two kinds of std..
DeleteObviously it is because Crafty Leong is Ka-Ki-Lang lah.
ReplyDelete"We are all connected, closely connected....." so says the Big Powerful Arrogant AristCat in Pa-Lee-Men.
If that isn't a very clear and scintillating indirect hint, what is?
Singapore: It's Time To Revamp The Whole Legal System
ReplyDeleteIf only a foreign demestic worker, with sheer determination to clear her name, can expose the long hidden (at least for 4 long years of sufferings) faulty system of the legal process and weak judging by single judge at lower courts, I cannot imagine what else could be exposed and revealed if a properly constituted Board of Inquiry commissioned an unbiased President were to be convened and run its course without interference and severe limitations.
The jury system must be reinstated for the good of the people. Obviously, the doing away with the jury system was bad for the people but serve the purpose of Expediency at the costs of untold numbers of miscarriages of justice.
The Privy Council of Appeals should also be brought back so that Singaporeans lives can be much better in terms of more neutral and unbiased avenues of redress. And this is also part and parcel of Globalization.
It is about time, if not overdue, to revamp the entire legal system and also to do a total reorganisation of the legal establishment from the highest to the lowest levels.
No stones should be left unturned for the sake of the common people.
The present system is good for the ruling elites, the wealthy and powerful, and the politically connected.
Short of a complete shake-up, it will not do justice to just get-by with a ministerial statement by the most powerful man in Parliament.
Justice has yet to be seen to have been done! A total revamp of the legal system is urgently required.
The Son Of Liew Mun Leong, Karl Liew Lied And Cheated Businessman Of $6.5Million In 2018
ReplyDeleteDuring his days as a private banker, Karl Liew Kai Lung was sued by a businessman who was his former client, over $6.5 million in investments that he had guaranteed the businessman.
The High Court had found him liable for the $6.5 million in investments and also for deceit in making false representations to the businessman about the investments in China. At that time, Liew was his fund manager and had sourced for and recommended the investment products to him.
During the trial, the Judicial Commissioner Audrey Lim said: “I find Liew to be a dishonest and evasive witness, whose evidence was riddled with inconsistencies,”
From that instance, the AGC and Sub Court judge should be able to see that Karl Liew is a compulsive liar with a history of lying and making false representations in court. He has no regard for the law, but only for himself.
It is not surprising that he is now charged with lying to the police, the prosecutors and the judges in the case of Parti Liyani.
The question is: Could this be a case of "Like father, like son"?
At least some parts of the father's DNA are inside the son, somehow. And also the possibility of nurture, of bad up-bringing?
Another question: Was there collaboration between father and son in verifying the fake "evidence" presented to the police and to the judges?
Who in Singapore would care to bet that Karl Liew would be found innocent and the case would die a natural death? Being in the elite class of Singaporeans, he is like superman with a bullet-proof armour. He must be so confident that he will never be indicted. People like him do not care about integrity or pride. He carte only about his wealth and power over others. He will lie through his teeth to achieve whatever he desire. Shame on you Karl, ofcourse I forgot you have no shame.
ReplyDeleteSin has gone to the Dogs.
ReplyDeleteThe Day of Reckoning is near.
After the court found Karl Marx Liew guilty of cheating the foreign investor, he was ordered to pay back the $6.5 million. But he declared himself bankrupt so that he need not pay back the money. He must have learnt from Donald Trump who declared himself bankrupt four times in order to cheat others.
ReplyDeleteSore Loser Donald John Trump Said He Will Not Concede Defeat
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden has now garnered 264 electoral votes and is leading in Georgia and Pennsylvania, This means Trump's path to victory is already hopeless.
Trump, living up to his well-known trademark of throwing tantrums and a sore loser, has told his allies that he has no intention of conceding to Joe Biden even if his path to Electoral College victory is blocked.
Conceding a lost election shows that you are a matured gentleman, cultured, refined, classy and gracious. It has always been a part of the US Presidential Election of coming together after a divisive campaign. Humble in victory, gracious in defeat. This is the norm society expects of national leaders who have real qualities instead of bluffing all the way to get votes and power in order to self-glorify.
But it's a custom, not a law.
There are usually two elements to a concession -- a call to the victor and a speech to thank supporters and call for national reconciliation and unity.
Hillary Clinton called Trump to concede in 2016 and she addressed supporters after it was clear she had lost the race.
John McCain called Barack Obama to congratulate him on being elected the "next president of the country that we both love."
Al Gore called George W. Bush to concede on Election Night in 2000, then called him back to un-concede when results in Florida tightened. He ultimately did concede, 36 days later, after the Supreme Court ended recounts and gave the White House to Bush. And he gave a conciliatory speech to the nation.
Losers, who are generally part of the government, usually attend the winner's inauguration in modern times. It's unclear if Trump would do that or not.
It might be a fitting code of ill-conduct to Trump's leadership style that he would refuse to acknowledge his loss.
The US Constitution is very clear that a new president will take the oath of office on January 20 at noon. That will happen if Trump loses graciously or if he has to be escorted out of the Oval Office by agents of the Secret Service.
The fact that the Secret Service has begun to protect Joe Biden more and more strictly -- more agents around him and clearing airspace over Wilmington -- suggests they understand a transfer of power is imminent, even if the current president refused to vacate the White House.
Make Americans Grieve Again!