SINGAPORE - Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam on Wednesday (Nov 4) said he is prepared to recommend a commission of inquiry (COI) into the Parti Liyani case, adding however that he had "heard nothing" to justify one.

In concluding his ministerial statement, the minister had challenged Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai to specify the issues that he felt warranted a high-level independent inquiry into the case.

This sparked two separate exchanges that ended with the Progress Singapore Party NCMP withdrawing his call for a COI.

In responding to Mr Leong's parliamentary question on the matter, Mr Shanmugam noted that the police officers and prosecutors involved in the case have confirmed they did not face any improper pressure.

A disciplinary tribunal will look into complaints against the prosecutors from the Attorney-General's Chambers, he added in his statement on Ms Parti, an Indonesian domestic helper who on Sept 4 was acquitted of stealing from then-Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family. The case has prompted questions about the criminal justice system.

"Thus, before we have a commission of inquiry, which is a serious matter (that) will take up resources, lots of time, more and more work; the member should specify what part of this matter continues to reasonably make him believe and question that undue influence was used by the Liews."

In response, Mr Leong said that while he appreciated how the ministerial statement had provided additional information on the case, he maintained the need for an independent inquiry to have "more discussion" on the matter and look into "systemic aspects of the whole criminal justice system".

"For example, on evidence-gathering... I am not a lawyer by legal training, but I was told by lawyers that it could be called evidence contamination and all those things," he said.

In response, Mr Shanmugam said: "It's not a question of making some broad and vague statements. You are representative of the people... This is serious business. It's not a question of saying 'I'm not a lawyer'.

"(Do) we have a commission of inquiry on the entire law, the police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you? What is it that you want the commission of inquiry to look into, which has gone wrong?"

This first exchange saw Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin step in twice to remind Mr Leong to be more specific in his responses.

Mr Leong, 61, attempted to give two examples. First, he questioned the five-week gap between the filing of the police report by Mr Liew and the police officers visiting the scene, notwithstanding manpower constraints cited by Mr Shanmugam.

He then said Mr Shanmugam's interpretation of the behaviour of the Liews, with regards to Ms Parti, could be further investigated and analysed.

Mr Shanmugam said manpower issues were an explanation but not an excuse for the five-week gap, and that "the police do not in any way seek to defend it".

On the Liews' behaviour, he noted: "There are 250,000 foreign domestic workers, and about 200,000 families. How they interact with each other cannot be the subject of a Government commission of inquiry.

"It is legally not possible to hold a commission of inquiry to look into the conduct of employers and maids."

Mr Leong then clarified that he was referring to Mr Shanmugam's interpretation of the Liews' motive, but the minister stopped him short, saying: "Interpretation of motive has got nothing to do with the Government... It's got nothing to do with how the police proceeded, it's got nothing to do with how AGC proceeded, it is something that has come out in the course of the investigation; subsequent investigations."

The issue of motive, said Mr Shanmugam, "cannot properly" be the object of a commission of inquiry.

"What I'm trying to drive at is that the whole case probably requires more investigation, and interpretation of the facts," said Mr Leong. "But if you think that that is enough, then I will withdraw my proposition or recommendation for an independent inquiry."

Mr Shanmugam replied: "It is not right to come here and say, 'I think that a commission of inquiry is necessary, I cannot tell you why, I cannot tell you what my concerns are, I cannot pinpoint anything, I make no allegations, but in general, you know, it's good to have a commission of inquiry'.

"Let me put it on record: I have no problem recommending such a commission of inquiry. We have nothing to hide; completely transparent about this issue (sic). But in law, they will say (this is) Micawberism."

Micawberism is a reference to the constant state of feckless optimism displayed by the eponymous Wilkins Micawber, a character in the Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield.

"So far, we have heard nothing that I can rationally put together to justify a commission of inquiry," said Mr Shanmugam. "So I will leave it at that."

Mr Leong later repeated his call for a COI in his speech on a motion moved by Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) about the criminal justice system.

This prompted a second exchange with Mr Shanmugam, who again pressed Mr Leong to specify the basis for a COI.

He also said Mr Leong was "quite wrong" in saying Ms Parti's case was only reviewed internally.

"It's gone through a very public process, with detailed cross-examination and a minute forensic examination of every possible issue relating to police and AGC," he said, before reminding Mr Leong that the duties of MPs were "not to come and repeat whatever is outside".

Mr Leong again raised what he called "systemic" faults exposed by the case, this time asking why checks had failed at each stage of the process.

Mr Shanmugam reiterated disciplinary proceedings were underway for both police and AGC officers, and asked Mr Leong to clarify if he was suggesting an element of improper influence. The NCMP said he was not.

In that case, there was no basis for a commission of inquiry, the minister said.

"We thought the systemic faults alone were enough to be a basis for the inquiry, but after your explanation, we are prepared to accept that you had done a thorough investigation of the situation already," Mr Leong conceded, for the second time that day. "Then we'll withdraw our proposal for the inquiry."