Parti Liyani legal case

Parti Liyani, Karl Liew and Liew Mun Leong

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

In 2019, she was sentenced to 26 months in jail when the District Court found her guilty of four counts of theft.

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

She was represented by her pro bono lawyer, Anil Balchandani at both trials.

Background

Parti Liyani has worked in Singapore as a foreign domestic worker since 1996.

Employment at the Liew household (2007 - 2016)

Parti was employed as a foreign domestic worker in the Liew household by prominent businessman, Liew Mun Leong , former Changi Airport Group chairman, for approximately nine years from March 2007 to 28 October 2016.

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.

According to Parti, she worked from Monday to Saturday from 5 AM to 11 PM and was paid around S$600 a month in 2016.

In the nine years of her service, she reportedly had a “cordial relationship” with her employers despite occasional clashes with the son of the Liew family, Karl Liew.

Unlawful deployment

By law, foreign domestic workers are only meant to work at their formal employer's residence.

In Parti Liyani's case, her formal employer was Liew Mun Leong. However, in 2012 and 2013, she had been asked to clean Karl Liew’s office. Between September and October 2016, she was also deployed to clean his home.

On these occasions, she was not fairly compensated. When Parti Liyani was fired without notice on 28 October 2016, she said the following to Karl Liew:

“I know why. You angry (sic) because I refused to clean up your toilet.”

On the day of her termination, she also said that she would report her illegal deployment to the Ministry of Manpower.

Timeline leading to Parti’s arrest

On 28 October 2016, Parti Liyani was given about two hours to pack her belongings and vacate the Liew household.

After which, she immediately flew home to Surabaya, Indonesia, leaving three boxes of her belongings which she packed, that Karl promise to be shipped over to her.

On 30 October 2016, Parti Liyani’s ex-employer, Liew Mun Leong and his son, Karl Liew filed a police report against her.

She was unaware that a police report had been filed against her by Liew Mun Leong and his son Karl Liew on 30 October 2016.

Parti Liyani returned to Singapore on 2 December 2016 to seek employment but was arrested at Changi Airport upon her arrival.

From 2016 to 2020, Parti was not permitted to work due to the ongoing investigations. She sought shelter at the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics (HOME) during this time.

District Court trial: Charges & sentencing (2017 - 2019)

Parti Liyani was charged with three counts of theft in dwelling and one count of theft as a servant in August 2017 for allegedly stealing from four people in the Liew household.

Her charges were as such:

Charge	Description of Items	Alleged Possession
DAC 931427-2017 (the “1st Charge”) Section 381 of the Penal Code	- One Pioneer DVD player valued at $1,000 - One Brown Longchamp bag valued at $200 - One Blue Longchamp bag valued at $200	Liew Mun Leong
DAC 931428-2017 (the “2nd Charge”) Section 380 of the Penal Code	- 115 pieces of clothing valued at $150 each - One blanket valued at $500 - Three bedsheets valued at $100 each - One "Philips" DVD player valued at $150 - An assortment of kitchenware and utensils valued at $300 - One "Helix" watch valued at $50 - One damaged "Gerald Genta" watch valued at $10,000 - Two white iPhone 4 with accessories valued at $2,056	Karl Liew
DAC 931429-2017 (the “3rd Charge”) Section 380 of the Penal Code	- One leather "Vacheron Constantin" watch (unknown value) - One white-colored "Swatch" watch with orange-colored design valued at $75 - One silver-colored ring with blue shiny stones valued at $150 - One pair of silver-colored earrings with white opaque stone valued at $150 - One yellow-colored earring with one white opaque ball valued at $75 - An assortment of fashion accessories valued at $400 - One pair of black "Gucci" sunglasses valued at $250	May Liew
DAC 931430-2017 (the “4th Charge”) Section 380 of the Penal Code	- One purple "Prada" bag valued at $1,000 - One black "Gucci" sunglasses with red stains valued at $500	Heather Lim Mei Ern

She was later charged with an additional offence for being in possession of items that were obtained fraudulently.

Parti’s 19-day District Court trial started in April 2018.

Her pro bono lawyer, Anil Balchandani argued that the items allegedly stolen by Parti were either gifted to her or items that she found to be discarded.

Video of Liews opening three boxes of "stolen items"

During the hearing, it was stated that members of the Liew family found “stolen” items in the three boxes that Parti had packed when she was asked to leave.

The investigating officer testified that the police did not seize the items allegedly stolen by Parti after the report was filed against her. Instead, the items were left with the Liews, and the police only took photos of the "stolen" items after Parti was arrested at the airport.

However, a video shared by the Liews showed them going through the belongings and suggesting that the items be sold to the Karang Guni, rather than expressing shock that they had been stolen from them.

The Three Boxes: Inaccurate Police Sketch and Evidence Handling

During the trial, a police crime scene specialist, Goh Swee Kiat, testified that he drew a sketch of Liew Mun Leong’s residence on 21 March 2018—18 months after Parti Liyani was fired and repatriated. The Defence highlighted that this sketch contained “non-contemporaneous information,” as it depicted three boxes at the house when, by then, they were no longer there.

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.

However, Goh testified that he sketched the crime scene based not on what he observed, but on ASP Tang’s instructions that three boxes had been present. The Defence argued that this was a “straightforward and obvious” issue, yet the inconsistencies exposed a larger problem—poor evidence handling left key items vulnerable to tampering, relocation, or addition.

Furthermore, the Defence contended that this was not merely a case of lost evidence, but of “prosecuting authorities being prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be.” By directing Goh to depict a layout he had no direct knowledge of, ASP Tang had “essentially doctored evidence” to mislead the court.

Independent Valuation of Alleged Stolen Items

During the trial, Parti’s lawyer, Anil Balchandani, cross-examined Investigating Officer (IO) Assistant Superintendent (ASP) Tang Ru Long about the valuation of the 144 allegedly stolen items.

ASP Tang admitted that he had not assessed the value of the items himself but had instead taken the figures from the Liew family—Liew Mun Leong, Karl Liew, Liew Cheng May, and Heather Lim—without requiring any supporting documentation.

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.

Expert Testimony on Valuation Discrepancies

• Gerald Genta Watch
  • Karl Liew claimed the watch was worth S$25,000, but an independent horologist valued it at no more than S$500, given its poor condition.
  • Despite this, District Judge Olivia Low only reduced its value to S$10,000 instead of accepting the expert’s assessment.
• Helix Watch
  • Karl Liew valued this at S$50, but horologist Eric Ong, founder of Bonfield, testified that it was a door gift with no value.
• Vacheron Constantin Watch
  • Ong determined this was a counterfeit and stated that Vacheron Constantin does not manufacture this model, meaning it had no legitimate market value.
• Swatch Watch
  • Similarly, a Swatch watch valued at S$75 by Liew Cheng May was also found to be a counterfeit with no value.

The Knives: The Pink Knife & the Black-Handled 'Jarmay' Knife

Karl Liew claimed that Parti Liyani stole 42 kitchen utensils, including stainless steel pots, ceramic and glass pots, two cups and saucers, two dozen forks and spoons, chopsticks, and two knives. These items, listed in the 2nd charge, were valued at S$300.

Karl testified that he purchased these items while studying at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom between 1998 and 2001 and shipped them back to Singapore in 2002. However, Parti maintained that she had bought these items from Cash Converters in Toa Payoh, Hock Siong at Kampong Ampat, and NTUC between 2012 and 2014, intending to bring them back to Indonesia when she eventually returned home.

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.

The Black-Handled Knife: Expert Testimony Contradicts Karl Liew

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.

The Pink Knife: Karl’s Own Contradiction

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.”

Verdict

In March 2019, Parti Liyani was found guilty of her charges but filed an appeal to the High Court against all four charges. On multiple occasions, the defence was blocked by the prosecution from questioning witnesses on points that later became the basis for overturning the conviction. For example, Karl Liew's claim that he wore women's clothes and Parti's threat to file a report against the Liews for illegal deployment to the Ministry of Manpower.

High Court trial: Appeal & acquittal (2019 - 2020)

The appeal process lasted for several months until Justice Chan Seng Onn overturned Parti Liyani's four theft charges on 4 September 2020.

According to Justice Chan, the District Court did not consider the credibility of the Liew family’s testimonies, among other points.

Reasons why Parti's conviction was invalidated.

Improper Motive by the Liew Family

• 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.

Break in Chain of Custody of Evidence

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

Lack of Proper Translation for Statements

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

Karl Liew’s Lack of Credibility

• Karl’s testimony was inconsistent, and he had previously been found to be a dishonest witness in a separate civil case.
• 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.

Unclear Ownership and Valuation of Items

• 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.

Parti’s Lack of Concern Over Missing Boxes

• 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.

Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

• 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.

Parti was acquitted of her final charge under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act on 8 September 2020.

Impact of Parti's life

In a public statement on 13 April 2023, Parti expressed her experiences and hardships following the legal case against her.

She described her financial struggles, stating,

"I was left alone to find my own place to stay, where I had to pay rent with my own money for an undetermined period of time until I ran out of money."

Assistance from the migrant worker organization HOME provided her with shelter and legal representation, with lawyer Anil Balchandani representing her pro bono.

She also detailed personal belongings that had not been returned to her, including clothing and accessories, which Karl Liew had claimed as his.

While she accepted that some items remained under police retention due to ongoing proceedings, she emphasized, "I was more deprived of my rights to access my personal belongings."

The case, widely covered by the media, significantly affected her reputation.

She noted that "my status as an accused had painted a bad picture of me in the public’s eye," leading to the loss of friendships and personal relationships.

She also feared the emotional toll on her aging mother in Indonesia, given that media outlets in her home country had reported on the case.

Following her acquittal in September 2020, she expressed gratitude for the support she received, particularly from the Singapore High Court and the Indonesian Embassy, which released a formal statement acknowledging that "the truth prevailed, and justice was served."

She criticized Karl Liew’s lack of accountability during the legal process, stating, "Never once did Karl show any seriousness in giving honest evidence."

She referenced a prior lawsuit in which Justice Audrey Lim had found Liew to be a "dishonest and evasive witness, whose evidence was riddled with inconsistencies."

She also noted that neither Karl Liew nor his family had apologized following her acquittal, saying, "It took facing legal charges that finally made him admit guilt."

Concluding her statement, she expressed hope that her ordeal would serve as a lesson to prevent similar injustices in the future, aligning with the Indonesian Embassy’s stance that "this case shall be the last and shall not be experienced by others in the future."

In an interview with HOME, Parti Liyani’s defence counsel, Anil Balchandani shared more about the difficulties of the trial.

According to the defence counsel:

“I was very impressed by Parti’s resolve. Because someone in her shoes generally faces more than just the pressure from the legal system. There is a family she has to take care of, probably living expenses in Singapore and just the inability to talk to anybody… She could’ve restarted her life, continued working in another country and just thought about what happened in October 2016 as a bad dream.”

Aftermath

Resignation of Liew Mun Leong

On 10 September 2020, Liew Mun Leong made an announcement that he would retire from his public service and business roles at Changi Airport Group, Surbana Jurong, Temasek Foundation, and Temasek International.

Liew said in his media release, “After much deliberation, I have decided to bring forward my retirement from the various public service and business roles with Changi Airport Group, Surbana Jurong, Temasek Foundation, and Temasek International with immediate effect,”

“Those who know me, will know I am passionate about the roles and missions of these organisations. I do not wish my current situation to be a distraction to their respective boards, management and staff, amidst their many critical priorities.”

Disciplinary tribunal against prosecutors

It was also reported that she had engaged senior lawyers Peter Low and Remy Choo Zheng Xi of Peter Low and Choo LLC to represent her at the disciplinary tribunal proceedings against Deputy Public Prosecutors Tan Yanying and Tan Wee Hao, both of whom Parti filed a misconduct complaint against in June 2020.

According to Stephanie Chok, previously a manager for HOME, Parti would return to Singapore if she was required to attend further proceedings with regards to the disciplinary tribunal.

On 21 June 2021, the High Court dismissed Parti’s application for compensation from the two DPPs under Section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This was the first such application in Singapore since the provision was introduced in 2010.

In rejecting Parti’s compensation claim, Justice Chan ruled that Section 359(3) applies to decisions on whether to prosecute but not to how a case is conducted in court. He found that while the prosecution failed to disclose that a Pioneer DVD player she was accused of stealing was non-functional, this alone was insufficient to prove malice.

Parti’s lawyer, Anil Balchandani, argued that the concealment of this fact led to her wrongful conviction and that the prosecution "continued full steam ahead" despite evidence that should have led to an earlier dismissal.

Court documents showed that Parti quantified her losses at S$73,100, including foregone wages and housing assistance from the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME).

Justice Chan advised both parties to consider out-of-court mediation, estimating that a full compensation hearing would cost over S$10,000. While Balchandani acknowledged the possibility of mediation, he maintained that there was "some amount of injustice that we wish the court to hear and order compensation."

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.

Parliament questions

In September 2020, HOME raised over S$28,000 has been raised via an online fundraiser on Giving.sg for Parti — meeting the target sum within just a day.

The amount raised is meant to help Parti rebuild her life and realise her dreams, and allow her to support herself and her family in a sustained way.

In January 2021, it was reported that Parti would be returning home to Indonesia permanently following her acquittal in September 2020.

District Judge Olivia Low who had presided over Parti's case and judged her as guilty was later employed in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) as a Deputy Senior State Counsel in the Civil Division.

References

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

Notes of evidence for the hearing -