Parti Liyani Saga Part VIII.

The case of the Maid vs the Chairman is again being talked about today. This time, a senior lawyer, Harpreet Singh Nehal, is taking up the justice’s baton to highlight some areas that are of particular concern to him.

Harpreet has written a blow-by-blow account of what went wrong in the much-ventilated case. He said: “Errors appear to have occurred at every level of the system, from the initial police investigation to the prosecutors’ decision to charge Ms Parti, an Indonesian domestic worker accused of stealing from her employer, prominent business chief Liew Mum Leong; to the handling of the case at trial and the lower court’s finding of guilt.”

I know this has been said and written about before, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, but for the sake of public perception, especially in a highly unequal society, the high horse on the issue of elitism and class prejudice is still very much alive and kicking. At times, the floggings are seen as no more as a slap on the behind rather than one calling for the top to give a proper and thorough account. 

Harpreet raised some good, credible points. He did a brief CSI and traced the steps of errors taken (and at times, allowed to be indulged) by the whole machination of the justice system. It is a long, detailed article, but let me do a quick rundown. 

If the main issue with this case is that of the broken chain of evidence collecting, then this trail has a genesis all the way up to the AGC.

First, it took 1.5 years to take the about 150 allegedly stolen items into police custody. We all know that. It is very much a public fact. And why the police took so long to do what I believe their protocol would have mandated them to do to the contrary is a mystery at this present moment. 

Well, they did record the items, but that took time too, a few weeks. In the meantime, the Liew household were allowed to use the items as and when they wanted it. And this part here is rather curious: Was it because Parti has left the country? As such, there’s no rush? 

Or, the more disconcerting part is, did the unconscious influence of the Liews have a part to play? 

Mind you, such bias is not wholly intentional, but essentially underlying, by reason that we often place those high up on the pedestal of trust, faith and hope. It is the same way we are less suspicious of religious leaders, and would never think that they would commit sexual and/or financial abuses. 

If that is the case, and if we really address it wholeheartedly, then, I suspect the issue is more systemic than just one-off. There is thus more than meets the eye about our unequal society, causing a wedge between the have and have-not, both economically and socially. 

Then, there is the question of Parti’s statements to the police. She said it was not properly interpreted to her, in a mix of English and Malay. She could not follow fully. 

Well, I believe that happens, at times. But following the trail to the next level, shouldn’t the prosecutor have caught up with it? That is, the possible contamination of the evidential chain and the lack of proper interpretation? Were the police investigators questioned about it? Did the seniors at AGC have a shot at it, and offer their unbiased, honest view? 

Now, let’s be fair. Human errors abound. We all make mistakes. It is expected, even to the best of us. This case may be one of inadvertent oversight, and I can understand that. It may even be occasional incompetence. I can sympathise.

But, to carry things this far, even up to the appeal stage, with such insistence of guilt, unfortunately gives the public impression that the prosecutors’ job is to convict, period; instead of pursuing justice even to places where one may not want to confront or admit. 

Alas, this is no doubt a chain of assumption on my part from this case, but what kept this chain taut to some certain is the DVD issue. It is what the Justice Chan had described as a “sleight-of-hand” by the prosecutor to only present evidence in a light that supports their conviction (pun unintended) rather than to submit to the objective hand of justice. 

As for the lower court judge, this is what Harpreet has to say: -

“...the burden of proof was in one instance, reversed and wrongly placed on the defence instead of the prosecution, expert evidence by the defence was ignored, and the defence was unfavourably commented on for conduct that was allowed for the prosecution. These errors were corrected on appeal.”

Like it or not, this is how things are perceived by the public. The evidential trail went from the police to the prosecutors, and then to the judge at the lower court. 

According to Harpreet, the district judge has left the courts to “assume her appointment as Deputy Senior State Counsel at the AGC’s civil division.” This was done even before the parliamentary session and the review that our Law Minister has called for. 

Lesson? Only one, and this is the real intent behind this post this morning. It is the protection of our social conscience. 

This case of the maid fighting for her freedom (for four long years) could have just been swept under the rug. But it didn’t. Thankfully, there were and are fighters of enduring justice like HOME, Anil and many more who confronted the system with moral courage, and asked deep, searching questions. 

Let me end by saying that our system is not broken - not in the way that many authoritarian and populist countries are experiencing now. It is not broken beyond redemption because, in a way, it took one justice to smoke out another in the appeal, and set things right. 

As for our government, there is the assurance of a review at the highest level by our law minister. That should be comforting. So let’s hope it is a review to clear the air for all, especially Parti, in this most unfortunate case of the misdirection of justice.

 

Parti Liyani Part VII

Seems like we have our own Arab spring on local soil, that is, the spirit of it, not so much the magnitude. But then, you never know. 

To bring you up to speed, it is the case of the Maid taking down the Chairman. Now, Parti Liyani is going for the Prosecution of the case. She is seeking leave from the Court for an inquiry to be carried out into the conduct of two prosecutors. 

After 4 years of legal torment, having to put up in Home thereby being missed by loved ones at home, having to depend on the kindness of strangers for her daily expenses, relying on a lawyer who did her case pro bono, and having to face a nerve-wrecking conviction and sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment for all 4 charges of theft, Parti is now bringing her own blend of justice to the doorsteps of the AGC. 

The main issue with this case is largely fourfold: first, the alleged collusion of the Liew household; second, the chain of custody of evidence; third the accuracy of the recorded statements; and fourth, the sleight-of-hand of the prosecutors regarding the DVD evidence. 

You will note that it was a David and Goliath struggle because, at the court below, the judge (after hearing all the evidence for a trial that lasted more than 20 days) found the Liew household’s evidence to be “clear, compelling and consistent even under lengthy cross-examination by the counsel of the Defence”. 

She found “material inconsistencies” between Parti’s evidence and her statements to the police, and opined that the Prosecution “had proven the four charges beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted Parti.” 

Yet, on appeal, all that was overturned as much as the table now is turned around. Just as David struck with a sling and a stone, Parti with support from Home, a community and her pro bono lawyer, is asking for her 4 years back from those who have taken it away from her with suspected collusion, breakage in the chain of custody of evidence, the taking of Parti’s statement without an interpreter, and the non-disclosure of relevant evidence that the DVD player was in fact defective at the trial, thereby prejudicing Parti in her reply at cross-examination. 

Alas, at this juncture, I am reminded of what CJ Menon once said: -

“Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers of justice” assisting in the administration of justice. As a “minister of justice”, the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court to arrive at the correct decision. It is neither the prosecutor’s duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor to “timorously discontinue proceedings the instant some weakness is found in their case.”” (PP v Wee Teong Boo @ para 136). 

CJ cited a few cases in support and wrote: -

“The accused, the Court and the community are entitled to expect that in performing his function in presenting the case against an accused person, the Prosecutor will act with fairness and detachment with the sole and unadulterated objective to establish the whole truth in accordance with the law...The role of the Prosecutor therefore excludes any notion of winning or losing a case...His role is to seek and achieve justice, and not mere to convict. The role is to be discharged with an ingrained sense of dignity and integrity.”

But this case has indeed stirred the social/economic justice waters more than one would have liked to. The Goliath on one side was so-called justice personified, with influential Snr Liew saying that it was his civic duty to report a crime. And with Liew junior asserting this at cross examination by Anil: -

“I put it to you that you were in favour of making this police report to falsely accused Parti of theft of several items.

A: I disagree, Your Honour. The police report was really my father’s decision. As far as I’m concern, it was really hassle to report to the police these items because what does it matter since we have recovered these items and we actually don’t wish for Parti Liyani to go to jail. If she---“

But Karl knew that Parti will nevertheless face jail time if convicted when such report is lodged with alleged items valued at tens of thousands of dollars. And yes, it is really a hassle for the Liews to cooperate with the police and prosecutors in their investigation and prosecution of Parti, but I believe the so-called “hassle” is far worse on Parti’s side, for lack of a better word/description, in the light of the acquittal. 

And the Goliath on the same side also included the police taking their own sweet time to secure the evidence of the alleged stolen items. Mind you, after the report lodged (on 30 Oct 2016), it took five weeks to document the items alleged to be stolen, and another 18 months to receive the items into police custody, during such time, the evidence risks being contaminated. 

This is further compounded with the following comments by Judge Chan on appeal about the failure to provide Parti with proper interpretation: -

“On the stand, Parti testified that the interpreter translated the statement back to her in a mixture of Bahasa Melayu and Bahasa Indonesia and hence there may have been some aspects of which she did not understand.”

“Parti also made various allegations, inter alia, that there were differences between what she had explained and what was recorded, and the interpreter was “talking too fast” such that Parti could not “understand everything”. 

This was directly contradicted by P31 which states at the end of the statement that it was read over back to Parti in Bahasa Indonesia and she had affirmed it to be correct and true, which puts paid to her allegations.”

The above appears to me to be justice on a rush, a kind of a happy meal justice, just to pacify its customers, instead of a justice “with the sole and unadulterated objective to establish the whole truth in accordance with the law.”

Then comes the prosecutors and the DVD issue. You can read it at your own time. But Justice Chan opined that “the Prosecutor’s sleight-of-hand technique...demonstrate in court that the Pioneer DVD player was working,” even when it was clearly “spoilt” as it could not play DVD, sadly shows how “happy meal justice” tends to lead to happy results only for some people in society, leaving the rest fighting for their lives, and everything they have, just to bring the justice that CJ Menon earlier talked about to proper light. 

Mind you, bringing such justice to light costs a lot of money and only the rich and powerful can afford them, while those who can’t afford will just have to accept their fate and serve their time, even though they might - like Parti - be acquitted strictly based on the proper standard of evidential rule in the rigorous way Justice Chan had applied it. 

In any event, if the prosecutors are “more than advocates and solicitors”, and are “ministers of justice”, then I guess it is important to ask (at the Parliamentary sessions next month) what, or who, if any, at the higher levels gave the assigned prosecutors such driven cause to pursue a maid all the way to the appellate court with such conviction to, well, maintain the conviction? 

Surely, the act of such pursuit of justice to establish the whole truth has to be an act known (and discussed with) by their supervising superiors right? And the evidence given by the Liews and the police in their cavalier way of securing and the custody of the evidence must also have been duly reviewed and scrutinised by the proper authority in the upper levels of AGC right? (Ironically, it appears that the hand that had pursued such justice is, or will be, the same hand that has been appointed (deputy AG) to review the whole process). 

For if “the role of the Prosecutor therefore excludes any notion of winning or losing a case,” then I hope, in Parliament next month, the elected ministers of parliament will hold the proper ministers of justice or justice system to account, regardless of whatever levels they may reside, and not to, as CJ puts it, “timorously discontinue proceedings (in Parliament) the instant some weakness is found in their case”, or in this case, to stop short at going to the commanding roots of the issue. 

After all said, let me just end with this cross-examination between Anil and Karl.

“Q: You know accusing somebody of steeling [sic] is a serious problem or matter, serious matter, correct?

A: That’s why we are here.

Q: And that is why, we are trying to establish, why you or your family after discarding items, would want to say, “Wait a second. Now I want that back.”

[emphasis added]

A: No, I don’t want it back. I want to report a crime. As the citizen a crime happens in my household, if it happened in the household, you don’t need to be a lawyer to say report it....

Q: And would you further like to concede that you trumped-up certain parts of this Police Report?

...

Q: Trumped-up.

A: Negative.

Q: So, that the police can take action immediately.

A: Negative.

Q: Why do I say that?

A: I don’t do these things. I have no---

Q: Because---

A: I no motivation to come up anything, to accuse anybody whose [sic] innocent. ...”

Well, with the above in mind, what can I say about the turn of events in the State versus Parti case? 

I guess I can only say that after proving her innocence, Parti is now lodging her own report to bring to justice those she thinks are guilty of (or responsible for) her 4-year legal woes. I believe, she like Karl has “no motivation to come up anything, to accuse anybody (who is) innocent...”.

 

And that seems to be the most apt narrative describing the recent turnaround, which was no doubt a hassle to Karl. But it was nevertheless a lived-through hell for Parti.

 

Parti Liyani Saga VI

We all want an equal (or more equal) society. But at what cost? 

LKY once said: “You want an equal society with low growth? Or an unequal society with high growth then you take part of the growth and support the lower strata? With no growth, everything goes wrong...We work towards equal opportunities. Not equal results but equal opportunities in life.”

But then, what is equal opportunities in life when the life you are living is clearly deprived of opportunities as compared to those at the top? What then becomes of such “equal opportunities” when a society suffers from systemic inequality, that is, an evolved system unwittingly geared towards the rich and powerful as a matter of both default and design?

You see, a child with better tuition, a good home environment and engaging parentage would surely provide much more opportunities from the start as compared to a child of the same intelligence, but he or she comes from a broken, large family with barely enough to feed all. The result differs much because the opportunities differ even more. 

In fact, the Parti Liyani’s case is another example of such deprivation. She may be a migrant worker, but her 4-year battle in the courts is not unfamiliar to many in the lower rung of our society who have experienced similar legal, economic and/or social oppression as citizens.

In today’s article by Lydia Lim, she wrote about an interview with the president of migrant workers’ advocacy group TWC2. 

In a statement, Ms Debbie Fordyce, said: “In Yani’s case, she was arrested for on Dec 2, 2016, charged on Aug 31, 2017, and has spent almost four years at Home’s shelter, waiting for the conclusion of her case. We also provided her a bailor for the sum of $15,000, an option which is not available for most migrant workers accused of crimes.”

“These migrant workers are often not allowed to work, thus they are reliant on organisations like Home to provide them shelter, food, and financial assistance. During this time, they are also not allowed to leave the country, and have no means of seeing their families back home.”

“Consequently, by the time many migrant workers are presented with charges, they choose to plead guilty even if they are of the view that they are innocent of the charges that they are facing. The time it takes for them to serve their sentence may be shorter than the time it takes to go through the court process.”

So what do we then make of LKY’s trade off between equality and growth? Is the cost really low (or lower) growth, that is, making society more equal will eat into the economic pie, threatening our competitiveness, and causing greater hardship to the poor with rising unemployment? As such, a child from that family will then suffer even more when dad comes home one evening breaking down, because he has just got fired and the family savings is practically depleted? 

But, bearing the above in mind, and if we reflect even deeper, isn’t there a point in economic growth when we will have to tell ourselves that if we carry on the way we have been carrying on, where the rich continue to store their wealth in the equivalent of financial warehouses situated locally and abroad, having enough for generations to come, the trade off will over time be far worse than just lower economic growth and global competitiveness, thereby leaving a society that is not just divided, but broken, disillusioned and spent? 

Food for thought?

Well, in another article today by editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang, he too addressed the red hot mala dish on the social justice menu after the Parti Liyani’s case. And one of them is the “question of privilege and entitlement enjoyed by the rich and influential, including their access to justice and corridors of power.” 

He quoted Law Minister Shanmugan saying that “we have to look at that, and deal with what went wrong.” 

Actually, the reality of what went wrong is not something we are completely blind to. There is nothing new here. Any historian will tell you that it is recycled or repackaged problem of society as the rich and poor divide deepens. 

Mind you, this is not the coming together of world renown scientists trying to solve the mystery to the M-theory (M-theory is a theory in physics that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory). But it is no less challenging though, because it is a problem with many names and many suggested solutions, yet it is often the lack of political will and moral courage that bedevils the resolve to bring it to some level of restored trust, hope and resolution. 

I suspect this is so, or made worse, because of the ostentatiousness of wealth at the top. It is largely a problem of the attitude of those who have and can’t help but flaunt it. It is therefore both an attitude of entrenched self-preservation, thereby leaving all goodwill measures half-heartedly implemented, and of ensuing self-enrichment, thereby perpetuating the problem even further.

Recall Thorstein Veblen's sociology of conspicuous consumption, which “produced the term invidious consumption”, that is, “the ostentatious consumption of goods that is meant to provoke the envy of other people; and the term conspicuous compassion, the deliberate use of charitable donations of money in order to enhance the social prestige of the donor, with a display of superior socio-economic status.”

As such, as the rich and poor divide increases, what outstrips lower growth as a cost to society is that we get a shallower society, one that is so consumed with conspicuous consumption so as to bring attention to oneself or one’s wealth for the sole intent of provoking “envy of other people” that we lose our humanity in the trade off as its greater cost. 

Alas, nothing is spared in such a society where even virtue of compassion becomes a means to an end, as Thorstein puts it, “the deliberate use of charitable donations of money in order to enhance the social prestige of the donor.”

So, going back to LKY’s trade off, I suspect that there is a greater hidden cost to society than just losing out on growth (assuming lower growth here is strictly measured in GDP terms and not growth in happiness, contentment and community). And maybe, the story of the maid taking down a chairman will inject some much needed fresh impetus into a very ancient subject that humanity has been struggling with since the first settlers claimed lands to plant vegetation for market sale and kicked off the first legal call for private land ownership, and its protection and perpetuation. 

Let me nevertheless end with the appreciation speech which former Speaker Tan Soo Khoon gave for retired MP in July 2006. 

“Like the newly MPs, we retirees were also at one time greenhorns in the world of politics but we learned from the experience of others who came before us. One of the most valuable pieces of advice imparted to me by my older colleagues when I first came into Parliament came from the late EW Barker, who said: “Be humble and do not be overwhelmed by your newly accorded status”. And to that, I might add, it also helps if you come across as warm and approachable to your constituents, and not one who lords over them.””

If you missed it, the operative words are “one who lords over them”. For after the Liyani and Liew household legal saga, which stretched over 4 years of trauma for the starkly deprived, the one cardinal sin of an already unequal society like ours is to even give the perception that the ones sitting at the top are lording over those at the bottom. 

I guess our Law Minister will have his parliamentary plate full next month when he opens up the can of worms on “the question of the privilege and entitlement enjoyed by the rich and influential, including their access to justice and corridors of power."

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part V.

Assoc Editor Chua Mui Hoong is asking rather tough questions about the Parti Liyani case. 

This morning ST article entitled “The curious case of the maid, the business tycoon and the pink knife” is pushing some sacred cow buttons for our meritocratic system, suspected to be skewed towards the rich, privileged and highly educated. 

Before I rattle on, what about the pink knife? You may be familiar with the maid and the business tycoon, but pink knife? That came quite out of the blue right? 

Well, let me scratch that itch. Chua wrote: -

“The pink knife in question was an item Mr Karl Liew said that was bought when he was a student in Britain, which he had brought back to Singapore in 2002. But on questioning, he admitted that the knife was of modern design that could not have been in production in Britain before 2002.”

And Judge Chan said: “No adverse inferences were drawn against the prosecution from failing to call witnesses who could corroborate or support Karl’s internally contradictory testimony regarding his alleged ownership of the pink knife, when there was no investigation.” 

Now let’s get back to the article by Chua. 

Throughout the trial, Justice Chan reserved the most damning remarks for Karl, the police, and most unfortunately, the judge. Of the three, Justice Chan dealt with Karl with a firm and stern hand. And this has to do with a bedsheet and a quilt cover.

At the trial, Parti was quick to defend herself by giving evidence that they were purchased from Ikea, Alexandra, for $49. But Karl insisted that the bedsheet was bought from Habitat in Britain and valued at $100. 

Justice Chan however said: “On a totality of the evidence, and in particular, the objective evidence which strongly suggests that the bedsheet was from Ikea, I find that Karl fabricated his testimony about having purchased the bedsheet from Habitat in the UK.” (Fabricated is a strong word). 

“Instead I believe Parti’s evidence that she purchased the bedsheet together with the quilt cover as a set from Ikea. Clearly, the conviction for theft of the bedsheet is against the weight of the evidence and is not sustainable.”

Alas, the appeal process vindicated Parti, without which, this would be no more than a most typical case with this led-on narrative - “maid stole from her rich employer because of greed and poverty”. 

And on the role of the police, from Chua’s article, she wrote that the chain of custody of evidence was highly suspicious. Here’s the short chronology in end 2016. 

28 Oct, the Liew sent Parti off, giving her 2 hours to pack. It was reported that Liew Snr had been tolerating Parti for stealing from them. 

30 October, Liew Snr returned from overseas and was told about the three boxes of allegedly stolen items, which was opened against a promise made to send it back. That’s when father and son left for the police station to lodge a report. 

Curiously, on the same day, the investigating officer issued a warrant of arrest (that is, on 30 Oct, 2016). No further investigation was conducted. No witnesses questioned. So, the Liews lodged report, and police issued warrant. 

3 Dec, the police visited the Liew mansion to document the allegedly stolen items. While the warrant issued was instant, the visit to document/record the alleged stolen items took five weeks. 

This was about the same time when Parti returned from Indonesia to find a new job and was arrested upon arrival. 

And what’s worrying is that it took about 18 months later on April 18 2018 before the items were “received into police custody.” Before that, the three boxes were left with the Liew household to be used at their discretion and pleasure. 

That is why Justice Chan commented that there was “a break in the chain of custody of evidence” as a reasonable bystander would not be able to tell whether the evidence had been contaminated when they were left in the open for any tom, dick or karl to use. 

Mind you, the burden is on the prosecution to prove their 4 charges against Parti, and the way the evidence was handled effectively broke the evidential chain, and that only added to their already-high burden of proof for the prosecution. 

As for the trial judge, Justice Chan said that she had “misapplied the legal and evidential burdens of proof.” This has to do with Karl’s unreliable and contradictory evidence on the kitchenware items, in particular, the pink knife. 

Recall that Karl claimed the pink knife was bought in 2002 when he was a student in UK? But it was of a “modern design that could not have been in production in Britain before 2002”?

That contradiction urgently required some corroboration from other witnesses, and that is the prosecution’s job. In Justice Chan’s view, “the Prosecution has failed to prove its case on the basis of Karl’s uncorroborated testimony alone”. 

Yet, based on such uncorroborated testimony, the trial judge convicted Parti on the charge. Curiously, she found Karl’s evidence, with some misdirection, reliable as a whole. 

From the judgment of Justice Chan, I get the impression that the trial judge gave more concession to the prosecution on the standard of proof they were required to meet as compared to the standard Parti had to meet. 

But, in a criminal system, that cannot be the case, since the prosecution has to come out with the proof first, and on a high standard. They are the accusers with vast state resources, and the well-endowed accusers have to stand ready to present their charges against a maid supported pro bono, thanks to Anil. 

In any event, this is what Justice Chan said: -

“In my judgment, this constitutes an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof on the accused. It appears that the same standard of proof was not demanded or required of the Prosecution. No adverse inferences were drawn against the Prosecution from failing to call witnesses who could corroborate or support Karl’s internally contradictory testimony regarding his alleged ownership of the pink knife.” 

He added: “It is clear that the Prosecutuon is unable to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt solely on the basis of Karl’s testimony due to his evident lack of credibility.”

“I emphasise that an accused person is presumed innocent and this presumption is not displaced until the Prosecution has discharged its burden of proof. Simply put, it is not the responsibility of the Defence to disprove the Prosecution’s case.” 

In Chua’s article, she raised some tough questions: “To what extent were law enforcement individuals and judiciary officers acting out of implicit or explicit bias that accorded the Liew family more respect and attention than was given to the accused, a foreign domestic worker?”

Here’s another tough one: “Even more important is to consider what aspects of our justice system creates obstacles for the poor and less-resourced. What can we do to tilt the scales of justice to a more balanced distribution?”

Now, let me end by saying that, at a risk of stoking inordinate sentiments against the establishment, the questions above provoke a narrative that is all too familiar. It is the age-old manichean-like struggle between the rich and the poor, the have and the have-not, and the top 1 per cent and the rest. And the social disgruntlement it engenders forms the lowest hanging fruit in our society, always ripe for the picking, and if I may say it, nitpicking. 

That reminds me of the merciless battle-cry of the ancient Athenians preparing to slaughter and enslave the people on the island of Melos: “the powerful do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.”

If truth be told, we can’t go on with such blind rage. Sometimes we spend so much time crying over spilt milk that we forget to clean it up, go to the store and buy a new bottle to drink. As a result, the slow curdle that is formed only aggravates the tight girdle of our dissatisfaction. 

Now, I say “yes” to accountability. I also say “yes” to responsibility and fairness. And just as one judicial process failed us, our appeal process however redeemed us (notwithstanding those who fell off the appellate cracks due to impecuniosity). Yet, both are from the same heart of justice, and both want to do justice in the most human way possible, stumbles notwithstanding. 

And just because you are rich doesn’t mean you are an elitist. And just because you are poor doesn’t mean you are always wronged. In a society, in order to prosper, there has to be a fair balance of emotional partitioning or underpinning, with one reserved for critical suspicion, and the other, for trust, even by faith on evidence yet to be seen. 

Mind you, the rich are not our enemy. Neither are the poor always the ones being oppressed, or bullied. While the Athenians’ battle-chant of the rich and powerful still resonates in an unequal society, we have to distinguish the bathwater and the baby here. 

In reductionist sense, we have two stark choices: to blame everyone for everything, or to trust everyone for everything, especially the top. 

But for a society to flourish, for the people to be united, and for us to move and progress forward, each of us just have to find the middle road between the two, and never allowing ourselves to be enticed by numbers or sophistry to push us to either extreme. 

And for the record, I am not a PAP-supporter - as some have accused me in my posts previously. I however support good government, fair reason, human flaws leading to full redemption, emotional persuasion as accessory to moral courage, and above all, love and hope underscoring everything.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part IV.

 

Let sleeping dogs lie?

Well, there is no doubt that Liew Mum Leong at 74 has contributed much to and for Singapore. From building army camps when he graduated with a degree in civil engineering from then University of Singapore in 1970 to being the handmaiden in the merger of Pidemco Land and DBS Land to form CapitaLand and to being the chairman of CAG in 2009, of Surbana in 2013, and also a senior international business adviser appointed by Temasek. 

This is a man who has led with a firm hand, a strong mind and a passionate heart. “Those who know me, will know I am passionate about the roles and missions of these organisations,” he said.

But Liew has yesterday made the public announcement of bringing forward his retirement. This is quite unexpected as to the timing, but it is, I guess, a matter of time since he has passed the normal retirement age at 74. 

Why then retire? 

Well, he said he did so because “he did not wish his current situation to be a distraction to the respective boards, management and staff, amidst their many critical priorities.”

At the current moment, he and his family may (or may not)be under investigation arising from the decision of the high court judge who opined that there is “reason to believe that the Liew family, upon realising (their maid, Parti’s) unhappiness, took the pre-emptive first step to terminate her employment suddenly without giving her sufficient time for her to pack, in the hope that Parti would not use the time to make a complaint to MOM.” That is the distraction Liew is desirous of shielding the organisations from. 

In fact, going back to Liew, there is no short of praises and appreciation for him in his decades of public and civil services. 

For example, the CAG chief executive Lee Seow Hiang said: “Mr Liew’s vision and passion for Changi was an inspiration to the people of CAG and the airport community to always strive for excellence to deliver an exceptional Changi experience. The result has been Changi Airport being recognised as the world’s most awarded airport.”

Even MOF said: “Under his leadership, CAG has completed Terminal 4 and Jewel, and Changi Airport has won multiple awards as one of the best airports in the world.”

At this juncture, I am reminded of a saying, “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.” In colloquial urban lingo, you can translate that to this: “you are only as good as your last screw up.” 

Unfortunately, that can happen to anyone, but more so for the rich and famous, the powerful and idolised, because of the publicity worthliness that can be extracted should they stumble and/or fall. And in Liew’s case, it was a constellation-like fall from the heavenlies of exalted leadership and contribution. 

Even more unfortunate, this practically sums up how the majority in society sees the minority relishing at the top especially in a society that is blighted by social and income inequality, where the gap has become increasingly widened. If you want to extrapolate further on this, I supposed it is safe to say that that is why WP won Sengkang by a surprised margin because many saw the status quo as elitist, aloof and self-enriching, if not self-serving.

In fact, if you google up the meaning of elitist or an elite group, you get this definition - “a group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status.” Underscore superior. 

No doubt it is society’s norm that an elitist be congratulated for his/her many contributions to the country or organisation. That norm dictates that credit due ought to be credit duly given. 

Mind you, their influence and impact can translate into one’s dad being able to bring food home to the family, or allowing one’s mom to pay for her child’s school fees, or even granting a senior citizen work opportunities to save for his retirement. 

Whatever they do, the vision they put into action, and through their industry and passion, those at the base of the hierarchical pyramid will benefit to varying degree. 

But the thing about an unequal society, by social or meritocratic engineering, whether deliberate or unintentional, is that the widening gap exacerbates the problem, and with each added income/social inch of separation between the rich and the poor, you risk compounding the situation by turning the inevitable income gap into an irreconcilable resentment gap. 

Excessiveness indeed begets excessiveness, and if a metaphor helps, I am reminded of the feisty exchange between Jesus and the Canaanite woman when she knelt before him for help. Jesus said, “it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” She replied, “yes Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

Now, I want to be clear that that passage talks about the tenacity of faith, but if you stretch it a little and apply it to an unequal society like ours, you can sense the desperation of the poor crying for help in their scarcity and the tossing attitude of the rich enjoying their wealth, in their abundance or excesses. 

That is what I call the resentment gap, not because the poor are perpetually pissed off, though that is inevitable for some, but because the rich enjoying, and for some, flaunting their so-called “superior intellectual or social or economic status” has become, not only unfair, but oppressive, to many. 

Seen from that master’s table perspective, it is inevitable that many will see the crumbs tossed from their banquet table (or the many economic contributions made and charity established by them) as a stop-gap measure (pun unintended), which sadly only widens the gap further via perceived Trojan-horse-like means.

But is it their fault then for the accumulation or excesses? 

Well, human nature will do what human nature will do. It takes a class, in particular, an elitist class, to shore up a parallel-running system of collateral entitlements and privileges that widens the income/social gap, and people like Liew falls under that pioneering meritorious class. 

This is not to discount his contributions, and sacrifices, but to remind us all that we are very much the authors and also victims of the system we have created for ourselves. In emergent-properties lingo, the sum is insidiously greater than its parts, and some parts at the top reaps the most of it. As a result, the cause-and-effect of such system has its benefit and backlash, and such effect/backlash is often blind. 

In any event, concerning the lodging of the police report, Liew said this: “I genuinely believed that if there were suspicions of wrongdoings, it is our civic duty to report the matter to the police and let the authorities investigate accordingly.” 

Alas, now that the High Court judge has spoken, and mind you, he did say that he has “faith in our legal system and respect the decision of the High Court”, will he then continue with that same civic duty to come down from his banquet table and offer more than crumbs to Parti to make up for what she has to endure for the last 4 years? 

Let me end with a peculiar exchange at trial between Parti’s lawyer, Anil, and Liew in 2018. Here is the relevant extract.

“My point is that most of the time something is missing, you will blame Parti,” charged Mr Balchandani.

Mr Liew objected strongly: “Not true. This is rubbish.”

He also denied he was accusing Parti of stealing to “fix” her.

“There is no motivation for a person like me to go against a maid. I am trying to avoid (her coming back to steal things) for the good of Singapore.”

True, I believe Liew. There is no motivation for people like him to go against the maid. His aim, as he had said then, was to try to avoid her from coming back to steal for the good of Singapore. It was the good of Singapore that people like him had in mind. It was a Singapore he and many others have built up. 

And it unfortunately comes with a system that has its own assortment of class, privilege and entitlement. It is an assortment that needed protection from. In other words, it is that good of Singapore that needed protection. That is, a protection that those at the top stands ready, and always, to uphold, sustain and perpetuate.