Will No One Rid Me of This Turbulent Maid?

 One of the earliest “famous” murders took place in 1170 in Canterbury England, when four knights hacked the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Beckett to death. The story goes that the four knights had heard King Henry II remark “Will no one rid of this turbulent priest,” when he got the news that Thomas Beckett had excommunicated some clergy men who were supporters of the king.

Apart from the gruesome murder, the most prominent part of this story is the fact that the knights were never given orders to kill Thomas Beckett by the king. However, given that the king was venting to his household staff, there is good cause to suggest that the knights were fearful that displeasing the king would cost them and so, while no explicit orders were given, the knights interpreted the king’s wishes as such.

I’m reminded of this event in English history because we in Singapore have been seeing some parallels here. The case of Parti Liyani, the Indonesian maid who was acquitted of theft by her former employer, former Changi Airport Chairman, Mr. Liew Mun Leong, has taken a new twist. Mr. Liew’s son, Karl, who was a protagonist in case against Ms. Liyani has just been sentenced to two weeks in jail for lying to the police and to the judge in the earlier case. The full report o the story can be found at:

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/karl-liew-admits-lying-parti-liyani-trial-3384201

 

 What makes this particular story of Mr. Karl Liew’s imprisonment so fascinating is that the same key element, namely the might of the state against a lowly maid in reverse. Young Mr. Liew is only going to jail because the District Judge, Mr. Eugene Teo intervened. Both the Attorney General’s Chamber (AGC) and the defence lawyers had agreed to a matter of a fine of $5,000, arguing that while the young Mr. Liew had lied under oath, no malice was proven and Ms. Liyani didn’t really suffer harm since the charge on two of the items she was accused of stealing were removed. This argument pushed the judge to make the point that the younger Mr. Liew’s actions were "brazen fraud", which cannot be tolerated by the court. More on the trial can be found at;

https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/karl-liew-son-of-ex-changi-airport-group-chairman-gets-2-weeks-jail-for-lying-to-judge-in-parti-liyani-case

Had it not been for the district judge, the younger Mr. Liew would have gotten off with a fine of S$5,000, which when you consider the fact that Mr. Liew’s family is considered one of the more prominent ones in corporate Singapore, a relatively small sum.

The facts of the case are not in dispute and in fairness, we cannot blame the defence counsel for using the arguments available to him to get Mr. Liew off the hook. A defence lawyer has a legal and moral obligation to give the best possible defence to his or her client.

What must be called into question is the AGC and its conduct in Mr. Liew’s case. Mr. Liew admitted to lying under oath and gave false testimony. This is the text book definition of perjury, which under Singapore’s penal code carries a jail sentence of seven-years:

 

You would imagine that this was an open and shut case and the AGC could have made a case for Singapore’s justice system by charging the younger Mr. Liew accordingly.

However, instead of charging him with perjury, the AGC went with the charge of “giving false information to a public servant knowing it would likely cause the public servant to use their lawful power to the injury of another person,” and he admitted to giving false testimony to the police. The consequences for these charges are significantly less than perjury. The $5,000 fine imposed and two-week sentence are the maximum allowable.

By going for the lesser charges, the AGC had effectively ensured that whatever jail time and fines he received would have been minimal.

The second factor that should be considered is the AGC’s behaviour in court. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP), Mr. Kelvin Chong stated that Mr. Liew was well aware that he was lying under oath and the harm that it would cause Ms. Liyani. However, the DPP proceeded to argue that there was “no malice” on the part of Mr. Liew and then argued that no efforts to made to “bolster his lies.” In layman terms the prosecution was saying “Mr. Liew lied under oath but since he’s not a good liar, no harm done – slap him on the wrist with a fine and let’s move on.” As the Online Citizen reported – the DPP and the AGC were doing the job of the defence counsel:

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/15/district-judge-says-prosecutions-submission-on-karl-liews-sentencing-reads-like-mitigation/

Some of the best and brightest lawyers work for the AGC. Outside the courts, it is one of the organs of our legal system, which we take so much pride in. However, if you look at the AGC’s arguments both in the original prosecution of Parti Liyani and in the prosecution of Karl Liew, the AGC has been made to look like it was a group of kindergarten kids playing at being lawyers.

What would make a normally proud and competent institution behave like this? I can look back at the 1170 incident in Canterbury, England. The king said something and the courtiers proceeded to treat it as a direct order. Think of Mr. Liew Mun Leong and his family as being like the king. They wanted to be rid of the “turbulent maid” who was not happy that they expected her to illegally do more work with no pay. It’s on record that the police did a shoddy investigation. Its on record that false testimony was given in court. Its now record that when the people who actually committed a crime were caught, an organ of state became too incompetent to do its job.

Parti Liyani did not become the proverbial Thomas Beckett in this case because there must have been a god smiling on her. That fact that her lawyer Anil Balchandani worked tirelessly and for free is one miracle. The other miracle is Justice Chan Seng Onn and now Justice Eugene Teo who stopped miscarriages of justice from getting worse.   

Unfortunately, the case in 1170 and the Parti Liyani case have one serious divergence. After Thomas Beckett was murdered, he became a saint and King Henry was vilified. The Pope (back in the days when there was only a single church under the Pope) demanded that the king do penance and got his way. The four knights who did the deed were excommunicated and fled into exile. In a sense there was retribution.

In the Parti Liyani case, the only form of retribution was public outcry. The elder Mr. Liew resigned from the Chairmanship of Changi Airport. However, there’s been no acknowledgement that a wrong had been committed. When Mr. Liew resigned, the great people of the nation urged us all to remember the “good” that the elder Mr. Liew had done. When the younger Mr. Liew admitted to committing a crime, the prosecuting authority acted like his defence.

In the words of our unconflicted writer and enforcer of laws, “something went wrong.” In this case, there’s no need to get to the bottom of things because its there for all to see. Now, are we going to understand that there’s a problem and fix it or will our “elites” who defended Mr. Liew as things were going wrong came to light, going to allow themselves to convince a sceptical public that all its suspicions of the system being rigged were correct?