Law minister Shanmugam cautioned the public that we should not be defensive, “it should not be a witch hunt.” He said there has got to be a fair process. We have to find out what happened, why it happened, and then deal with it. And be accountable.”
Well, to answer the Law Minister’s query, here is what happened: for about 4 years, the maid of Chairman of Changi Airport Group, Ms Parti Liyani (46), had to undergo a traumatic criminal prosecution, being accused of four charges over stealing about $34,000 worth of items from the Liew’s household, who lives in a private estate.
Parti had no one on her side, except for HOME and her pro bono lawyer, Anil, who believed in her innocence to the end until justice completed her tireless work in the stellar hands of Justice Chan.
Mind you, at first instance, the court convicted her of four charges stating that she found Liew’s son, Karl, credible, believable and reliable. The district judge convicted Parti on the testimony of the Liew household. But Justice Chan, after reviewing the evidence, wrote a 100-page ground of decision that found the lower court judge according due weight to the testimony of Karl and the other witnesses of suspect and unsafe to rely on.
Justice Chan went further to cite, among other things, that there was “improper motive behind the allegations of some family members.” He added: “There is reason to believe that the Liew family, upon realising her 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.”
So, in answering the Law Minister’s question about “what happened?”, well, that’s about sums up what happened. It was an acquittal, in full. There were reasonable grounds to believe “improper motive” against Parti due to her threat to report to MOM for being forced to clean two houses and Karl’s office in breach of MOM rule. For the latter, I understand that the Liew household has been given an advisory by the authorities.
As to his query about “why it happened?”, well, Parti has always maintained her innocence. She based it on four explanation. First, some of the things are purchased by her. Second, some are given. Third, some are discarded items by the Liew household. She merely kept what the Liew did not want. And fourth, some items might have been mixed into the charged items due to a break in the evidential chain.
But for the Liew, that’s not why it happened. To them, it was simple case of theft in a dwelling house, or mansion, motivated by greed and dishonesty. It’s misappropriation with intent.
Yet, that allegation by the Liews does not fully answer “why it happened?” because it seems more layered and complicated than that. Recall Justice Chan cited “improper motive” leading to a preemptive strike to prevent Parti from proceeding with her threat? That “why” is more than meets the eye.
In fact, at one point, the judgment reads: -
“Parti demanded for a reason for her termination. However, Karl simply reiterated that she had to go home without giving any reasons. Parti pleaded with Karl and said, “if you do not want me, don’t send me home”. Parti got upset with Karl and allegedly accused him of being a very bad person and said that God would punish him. Karl informed her that she had two hours to pack up her things.””
Alas, for 9 long years of service, being made to clean two houses and an office for a period of time, despite her protest, Parti was made to pack her things in 2 hours. Her plead indeed went unheeded.
Let me just clarify that this is not to add drama to the saga, but to address what the Law Minister had said was a “witch hunt”. It seems to me for 4 years since the 2-hour dismissal, and the charge, trial, appeal and acquittal, Parti has gone through her own hell and back.
And based strictly on the acquittal, and what Justice Chan said was “improper motive”, and what the Law Minister said was a case about “the class and status differences between Ms Parti and the Liews”, I felt that this case smacks of some sort of a “witch hunt” started by the Liews and ended with the team of Parti and Anil. That’s just my view.
So, in the light of the above, I hope I have answered the Law Minister’s question about the “what” and the “why” - to some extent. At the very least, the “what” can be rounded up as follows: a breach of MOM rule, a plead that has fallen on deaf ear, a motive stained/triggered by a threat, and a 4-year ordeal that ended with one’s innocence in tact.
And most of that should have been relatively clear by now, because all of it has been put to the rigorously grind through the fair process of the law, with a thorough examination of the witnesses and evidence by Justice Chan.
In other words, with all that, it should have been concluded with some clarity as to who is wrong, and who has been wronged, right?
And on top of that, the Law Minister also said that “the best way to build trust with the public and in the system is to allow for a fair process.” He said that the parties and the system should “be accountable”.
Well, Parti was held “accountable” (so to speak) and she nevertheless came out of the legal furnace cleared of all charges. The initiative now should therefore befall on the parties on the other side right? In other words, there should be some goodwill action and apology from the Liews for that which can’t be denied, at least.
At this point, I know what some may be thinking. Yes, Ho Ching may be right to defend Liew by saying this: “I remember Liew Mun Leong saying the mission of CapitaLand is to build people to build for people. That was why he was chosen to be the founding CEO of CapitaLand.”
That is of course Liew’s good track record. He is nevertheless handsomely rewarded for his contribution to Singapore and her people. Many will invariably appreciate his effort and dedication.
But building people cannot be just reduced to a statistics right? Here I recall Jesus once said that even if one amongst hundred leaves the flock, he will pursue that one lost sheep to the end.
Alas, it is quite unfortunate that for this case, it seems to be the reverse, where, for 4 years, Parti was being pursued in what seems to me like a “witch hunt” (with reference to what Justice Chan said was reasonable grounds to believe “improper motive”).
Let me end by saying that a man or woman of integrity is one who is of integrity in and for all circumstances, whether he is building people or he has, through a momentary folly or misjudgment, tripped some of them.
That kind of integrity shines through in good deeds and bad ones, because none of us is perfect.
And such integrity calls for, like what our Law Minister said, one to “be accountable” at least for the wrong admitted or already established.
For that is how you build trust, and build people in the long run - with enduring integrity that takes the first bullet for others’ misstep, and also heals another’s wound for one’s misfire.
No comments:
Post a Comment