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.
No comments:
Post a Comment