Parti Liyani legal case: Difference between revisions

Parti Liyani (born 1974) is a former domestic helper from Indonesia who was accused of theft by her Singaporean employer, Liew Mun Leong.

Following a successful appeal, the High Court acquitted Parti Liyani of all charges in September 2020.  

On 28 October 2016, her employment was terminated by Mr Liew, who was Parti’s formal employer, when he suspected that Parti was stealing from various members of the Liew family.

In the nine years of her service, she reportedly had a “cordial relationship” with her employers<ref>Andres, Gabrielle. "[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/timeline-changi-airport-group-cag-chairman-maid-parti-liyani-13089208 Timeline: How former maid Parti Liyani was acquitted of stealing from Changi Airport Group chairman's family]". ''Channel News Asia''. September 7, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref> despite occasional clashes with the son of the Liew family, Karl Liew.<ref name=":2">Yang, Calvin. "[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/timeline-of-events-how-former-maid-parti-liyani-was-acquitted-of-stealing-from-liew-mun Timeline: How acquitted ex-maid Parti Liyani, ex-CAG chairman’s family went from harmony to High Court fight]". ''The Straits Times''. September 11, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref>

=== The Three Boxes: Inaccurate Police Sketch and Evidence Handling ===

Prosecution witnesses, including Karl Liew and investigating officer ASP Tang, confirmed that at least one box had been moved to Karl’s house shortly after the police report was filed on 30 October 2016. By 3 December 2016, two of the three boxes were no longer at Liew Mun Leong’s residence.

When further questioned, ASP Tang also confirmed that he had not verified whether the items were original or counterfeit. This was particularly significant in the case of high-value watches listed in the charge sheet, as later expert testimony revealed major discrepancies.

* '''Gerald Genta Watch'''

Karl was unable to specify where these utensils were stored in the house after their alleged arrival from the UK. His mother, Mdm Ng Lai Peng (Mrs. Liew), testified that Parti had helped pack Karl’s utensils when he returned in 2002. However, Parti only started working for the Liew family in 2007—five years later—making it impossible for her to have been involved. Despite this, Mrs. Liew insisted on her claim, even when confronted with the timeline inconsistency.

Defence counsel traced the black-handled knife to Jarmay Enterprises, a kitchenware manufacturer. Ms. Teo, the company’s owner, testified that it was ''“impossible”'' for the knife to have been made before 2006, as Jarmay only began producing it that year. This directly contradicted Karl’s claim that he had purchased the knife before 2002 in Wales.

During cross-examination, Karl ''agreed'' that the pink knife could not have been produced before 2002. He reaffirmed this during re-examination, despite having earlier testified that he bought all the utensils while studying in the UK and shipped them to Singapore in 2002. As the Defence pointed out, ''“on Karl’s own evidence, the pink knife was not in his possession, and by deduction, all the other items in P1-14 could not have been with him.”''

=== Reasons why Parti's conviction was invalidated. ===

* Justice Chan found reason to believe that Parti’s sudden termination and subsequent police report were linked to her threat to lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) about being illegally deployed to clean Karl Liew’s house and office.

* The police report was filed on 30 October 2016—just two days after she expressed her intent to complain, suggesting a preemptive move to prevent her from returning to Singapore.

* The Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no improper motive in making the police report.

* After Parti left, the Liew family went through her belongings and removed items before reporting them to the police.

* The police did not seize the allegedly stolen items immediately but instead allowed the Liews to continue using them.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/17/parti-liyani-case-police-discovered-stolen-items-were-still-with-liews-when-parti-was-arrested-at-airport/</ref>

* Items were only taken into police custody on 18 April 2018—nearly 18 months after the report—creating doubts about contamination or misidentification.

* Parti’s initial statements were recorded without a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter. Instead, she was interviewed in a mix of English and Bahasa Melayu, which are not her native language.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/11/07/parti-liyani-case-translation-during-police-interview-one-of-many-factors-in-justice-chans-decision-to-acquit-her-of-theft-charges/</ref>

* There were inconsistencies in how statements were read back to her, raising doubts about whether she fully understood or agreed with them.

* Karl’s testimony was inconsistent, and he had previously been found to be a dishonest witness in a separate civil case.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/11/parti-liyani-case-defence-was-prevented-from-confirming-with-karl-liews-mother-that-he-does-sometimes-wear-womens-clothes-as-he-claimed/</ref>

* He claimed ownership of women’s clothing and accessories in an apparent attempt to incriminate Parti, later justifying this by saying he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts.

* Several items listed as stolen were discarded or unused by the Liew family, casting doubt on whether Parti had truly stolen them.

* The Pioneer DVD player, a key piece of evidence, was found to be faulty, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that it was in working condition and had value.

* The trial judge did not sufficiently consider Parti’s explanations that some items were either gifted to her or found discarded.

* The lower court inferred guilt from the fact that Parti did not inquire about the fate of her boxes while she was in Indonesia.

* Justice Chan found this reasoning flawed, as the boxes contained many of her own items as well, making her supposed lack of concern ambiguous.

* The prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Parti had intentionally stolen the items.

* Justice Chan ruled that the various inconsistencies, improper motives, and weak evidence made the conviction unsafe.

Separately, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon had earlier allowed Parti’s complaint against the two DPPs in her trial to proceed. CJ Menon noted that Parti ''"contends that the DPPs had, in their conduct of the trial, concealed material facts and thereby created the false impression that the device was fully functional,"'' which undermined her credibility at trial.

He rejected claims that Parti’s prosecution was influenced by her former employer, Liew Mun Leong, emphasizing that there was no improper interference in the case.  

However, no immediate wrongdoing was found. As of today, the case has been closed with no further action taken against the prosecutors or investigating officers​.

Repository of information about Parti Liyani’s case - https://partiliyani.weebly.com/

Notes of evidence for the hearing -