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.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part III

Before the legal dust even settles on Parti’s case, controversy from a nearby front is brewing. 

Recall the acquittal of the maid accused of theft of stolen items from the wealthy household of the Liew family? And the questionable motive of the Liew family for sacking Parti, giving her just 2 hours to pack, which led to her 4 years legal ordeal? 

Well, the news today is about the recusal of the AG Lucien Wong from reviewing into Parti’s case. Hri Kumar Nair will now lead the review process. He is Deputy AG. 

The reason for Lucien’s recusal is that there is a back story (or history) between him and Liew Mun Leong, the current chairman of Changi Airport Group, who had lodged a police report against Parti. 

For a period of time, Lucien sat on the board of directors of CapitaLand “while Mr Liew was president and chief executive of the company.” So, at the very least, they knew each other, and were friends to some extent. 

Subsequently, Lucien stepped down from the board in January 2006. Eleven years later, he was appointed Attorney General in 2017.. Coincidentally, that was also when the investigation of Parti’s case started. 

Lucien was therefore AG for throughout the case, but he nevertheless came forward to clarify that he was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions in the case. Neither was Hri Kumar involved in the same. 

Honestly, without any further details on that statement as reported, it is difficult to understand the scope and depth of what prosecutorial decisions entail. The general public will not know what that means specifically. 

Does that mean that both of them had never given the green light to prefer the charges against Parti? Or, does that mean they did not review the case at crucial intervals, provide guidance and direction, and exercise the discretion in selecting the prosecutorial team to establish the 4 charges against Parti? Or, does that mean they were not consulted at all on the case along the way, especially the events leading up to the trial, the trial proper, and the appeal? 

I guess we have to take at face value what the office of the Attorney-General has said in their public statement, and rely on their good judgment.

But it doesn’t stop there. There is another part of the AG statement that reads: “A-G Lucien Wong and Mr Liew did not have a personal relationship, and this continues today.”

At this juncture, I really don’t know whether that is a preemptive measure by the AG to address some strong sentiments on the ground about the Parti’s case, especially regarding the break in the chain of evidence and the conduct of the prosecution in respect of the DVD player. 

Mind you, this DVD issue is no small issue. If you want to know the full context, and pardon me for the length, here is what transpired at the trial below in the cross examination of Parti -

“Q: So if you don’t know what is wrong with this player, how do you know that you’ll be able to get it fixed?

A: Because Mrs. Liew said this is spoiled so I just think it can be repaired.

Q: And you didn’t ask Mrs. Liew for further details?

A: No.

...

Q: Mrs. Liew has said in Court that the DVD player was working the last time she saw it. What do you have to say?

A: Disagree. ...”

At this point, the DPP asked for permission to connect DVD player to the monitor to play it. 

“Court: No, I don’t think you can turn it the other way but what’s--- what’s your point? You want to show what it works, is it?

[DPP]: Yes.

Q: Ms. Liyani, the---sorry, for the record, the DVD player is connected to the monitor at the---oh, sorry, at the Prosecution’s desk area. You---

...

Q: So you are able to see the picture on the screen, Ms. Liyani? 

A: Yes, I can see.

[DPP]: ... For the record we have connected P19 to the monitor via a HDMI cable and we have then powered on the DVD player and we pressed play and there were images which were shown on the monitor which came from this P19.

Balchandani: But where is it---what is playing?

Court: Okay, well, perhaps put it the other way. You didn’t insert anything into the DVD player before this, is that right?

[DPP]: No, Your Honour.

Court: Okay, right. Okay.

[DPP]: Alright---and Your Honour, I am---okay, so, okay.

Q: So, you agree---I mean, so you see that the DVD player is working, isn’t it?

A: Only now I realised, before that, I wouldn’t know.

Q: So I put it to you that you were lying that Mrs. Liew gave you this DVD player and told you that it was spoilt.

A: Disagree.

Q: I put it to you that you stole P19.

A: I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal. If I steal, I would have already brought it home, why is it still around?”

Well, Parti did have a point there. If she had stolen, why would she have packed it all up in three boxes, so conspicuously, and then asked Karl Liew to ship it back for her? 

But the point of the cross-examination is to demonstrate that the DVD player was not in any way “spoilt”. So, there was no reason to discard it. That was the casual link to the charge against Parti for theft, that is, “no spoil, no throw” and if so, you stole. 

But that incomplete demonstration tripped Parti, and that accounted for what she had said in defence: “I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal.”

But, why incomplete demonstration? 

Well, upon appeal, the High Court judge allowed Anil to demonstrate the DVD player and “when the DVD player was switched to the “DVD player mode” with a DVD inserted into the DVD player, the error message “could not initialise disc” was displayed.”” 

The judge then remarked that a DVD player that is unable to play DVD “can be reasonably described as “spoilt””.

And here is what the prosecution had to say: -

“On appeal, the Prosecution conceded and agreed with the Defence that during the trial below, there were already difficulties with the functionality of the Pioneer DVD player in playing the DVD disc but not in playing the recorded clip in the hard drive of the DVD player.”

The High Court Judge then said that “the fact that the said Pioneer DVD player was only partially functioning (ie, it was able to play videos from the hard disk component, but not able to play a DVD) was not disclosed or clarified by the Prosecution during their cross-examination of Parti at the trial below.”

This incomplete demonstration was clearly unfair to Parti. You must imagine that it was her against the Goliath-like prosecutorial machination, and she only had a pro bono lawyer to fight it out at trial, and appeal.

So, to put it mildly, the “incomplete demonstration” caught her by surprise, as Mrs Liew had previously told her that the DVD player was not working. 

This led the High Court judge to opine this: “In the judgment (below), the Judge did not address the veracity of Mr Anil’s allegations against the Prosecution’s “sleight-of-hand” technique to demonstrate in court that the Pioneer DVD player was working.”

So, going back to the statement that Lucien and Liew “did not have a personal relationship, and this continues today,” it unfortunately leaves one wondering, what does “personal relationship” mean? 

As a layman, I would have wish for more information on that. Were they even friends? How impersonal or arm’s length was their relationship? 

For, mind you, they did sit on the same board, and surely there should have been some interaction, right? Exchange of ideas? 

He was also a well-known and competent lawyer, who specialisd in banking, corporate and financial services work. And Liew’s business in CapitaLand ought to have some dealings in the financial and banking areas too? 

So, did Liew consult Lucien during the latter’s stint in the board, and/or after he stepped down, when he - as LHY puts it - became LHL’s personal lawyer in Oxley affair? 

While I can understand Lucien’s decision to recuse himself from the review due to his past board dealing with Liew, because fairness/justice has to be seen to be done, I nevertheless felt that since Lucien is appointing his deputy to review the department under his charge, wouldn’t it be wiser to set up a separate independent inquiry so that it removes all doubts or suspicion, if any, as this case requires not only accountability (as the Law Minister puts it) of what Justice Chan had said about “improper motive”, but it also requires the public to be assured and persuaded that it is done above board (pun unintended)?

That is just my view. Cheerz.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part II

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.