Parti Liyani's dismissal was not sudden, says Shanmugam
New evidence shows family thought of firing maid for some time before they did so, he says
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong (above) had been thinking of firing Ms Parti Liyani for some time after suspecting her of theft, but his wife did not make a firm decision after looking for potential replacements in late 2015, said Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam.
ST PHOTO: CHONG JUN LIANG
Former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and his wife had already thought of dismissing Ms Parti Liyani by late 2015, and Madam Ng Lai Peng had repeatedly visited the maid agency to review the biodata of new domestic workers.
Ms Parti was fired on Oct 28, 2016 because her replacement became available then.
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam disclosed this in Parliament yesterday to show Ms Parti's dismissal was not "sudden", as believed by High Court judge Chan Seng Onn.
In his ministerial statement, he said new evidence that emerged from investigations after Justice Chan's decision to acquit Ms Parti of theft was "quite different" from the inferences the judge had made.
Mr Shanmugam emphasised that the fresh evidence is untested in court, but said he was duty bound to go through the facts, which arose out of further investigations into the Liews' conduct.
In his judgment on Sept 4, Justice Chan found there was reason to believe Mr Liew and his son Karl had an improper motive for making the police report.
Justice Chan concluded the Liews pre-emptively dismissed Ms Parti on Oct 28, 2016 because they knew she was unhappy about being illegally deployed to work at Mr Karl Liew's home and his office.
The judge concluded that when she told members of the family - after she was fired - that she wanted to complain to the Manpower Ministry (MOM), the Liews then filed the police report to stop her from returning to Singapore to make the complaint.
Justice Chan's conclusion on the Liews' motive rested on three planks: that Ms Parti's dismissal was "sudden"; that she told two family members while packing her belongings that she wanted to complain to MOM; and that the police report was made to prevent her from returning to Singapore to file a complaint.
But Mr Shanmugam said Ms Parti's dismissal was not sudden.
He said Mr Liew had been thinking of firing her for some time after suspecting her of theft, but Madam Ng did not make a firm decision after looking for potential replacements in late 2015.
After a specially designed power bank from France he received in May 2016 went missing, Mr Liew decided to fire her and in September that year, Madam Ng chose a replacement. The new maid arrived in Singapore on Oct 25, 2016 and the family decided that Ms Parti would be dismissed on Oct 28, said Mr Shanmugam.
The second point centred on what Ms Parti had said about her intention to lodge a complaint with MOM after she was fired on Oct 28.
What the maid said was that she wanted to complain about the short notice period, Mr Shanmugam told the House. This was confirmed by a maid agent who was present at the Liews' house while she was packing, he said.
"(Ms Parti) did not say that she wanted to complain to MOM about anything else. As can be seen, this is quite different from the inference that the High Court had made.
"But the High Court understandably went on the basis of the evidence and the submissions made to it. The High Court did not have the benefit of this additional evidence. And as I have said, our purpose is not to reopen the High Court's findings."
Further investigations also revealed that the maid agents twice offered to help Ms Parti lodge an MOM complaint, but she declined.
She lodged her complaint about illegal deployment after she was charged, he said.
As for the third issue, Mr Shanmugam pointed out that filing a police report would not stop Ms Parti from returning to Singapore to lodge a complaint. "Indeed, in this case, it didn't stop her from returning to Singapore."
While the High Court found that the reason for filing the report was "curious", Mr Liew had stated that he was doing so "for record purposes" because he was worried that Ms Parti's boyfriends might break into their home.
Mr Shanmugam said: "I put forward these points on the filing of the police report because for our purposes, in this context, the question is not whether the High Court is right or wrong.
"But rather, the question is: How did the police and AGC proceed? Is there anything so obviously wrong about the filing of the police report that should have been apparent to the police and AGC?
"On the material before them, did the police and AGC have good reason to proceed on the basis that this was a routine theft case? That is the central question."
