Why Attorney-General recused himself from AGC's internal review

When Attorney-General Lucien Wong resigned from the board of CapitaLand in 2006, it was over differences of viewpoints on some issues with Mr Liew Mun Leong, who was then the president and chief executive officer of the listed real estate group.

Given this history, Mr Wong recused himself from the Attorney-General's Chambers' (AGC) recent internal review of the case involving Mr Liew's former maid Parti Liyani.

Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday disclosed this in Parliament as he stressed the reviews by the police and the AGC have confirmed that there was no improper influence at any point in the case. "I can be categorical; there was no influence by Liew Mun Leong. It was treated as any other theft case and handled accordingly," the minister said.

Questions on propriety had cropped up after Justice Chan Seng Onn overturned Ms Parti's conviction on appeal and said in his judgment there was reasonable doubt about Mr Liew's motive for making a police report against her.

The relationship between the A-G and Mr Liew came under scrutiny particularly after the AGC announced the A-G would not be involved in the review of the case.

Some had suggested the two men were close as Mr Wong had been on CapitaLand's board.

On why the A-G recused himself from the AGC's internal review, the minister said: "The A-G felt that given the history of differences he has had with Liew Mun Leong, the perception of fairness may be affected if he oversaw the review.

"Thus, the A-G had nothing to do with this case at any stage."

Mr Shanmugam said the decision to prosecute the maid was dealt with at the level of the deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) and their directors, and the A-G did not know of the proceedings about Ms Parti until the case went to trial.

Setting out how such cases are handled, he said when the AGC receives a file from the police, prosecutors will assess whether or not to charge or if action has to be taken.

This assessment and the decisions are usually cleared by a director, and are not brought to the attention of the deputy chief prosecutor, chief prosecutor, deputy A-G or A-G unless they involve more serious or sensitive crimes, or where the A-G's consent to prosecute is expressly required. He added that neither Mr Liew, his family members or any intermediaries had approached the AGC on the case.

Similarly, the police's internal review showed decisions on the case were taken by the investigation officer (IO) and his immediate supervisor. "It didn't come to the attention of the senior management," he said.

"We have checked with the IOs, their supervisor, the DPPs and their director," he added. "There was no pressure or influence exerted on them by Liew Mun Leong or anyone acting on his behalf, and they handled this case as they have handled other theft cases."