FAQs: A Response to MHA on Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor (2020)
On 4 November 2020, Minister Shanmugam addressed Parliament on the case of Parti Liyani. He spoke based on “internal reviews” which did not seek Parti’s input. These FAQs address key points raised by the Ministry of Home Affairs and draw on court documents.
Question #1: Did Parti really “expressly [admit] to taking… 10 to 15 items of [male] clothing” without permission? Did these admissions offer a sound basis for charging and prosecuting her?
Response: These insinuations rely on police statements taken on 3 and 4 December 2016, just after Parti’s arrest. Problems with both statements have been highlighted by the High Court and in this article here.
Parti was already given permission to take those items of clothing some time ago. Liew Mun Leong discarded old clothing items and Parti was told by Mrs Liew that whatever Karl Liew did not want, she was allowed to take. Parti’s so-called admission refers to her not asking for permission again when packing clothing in October 2016, because she already received permission to take those items earlier.
Question #2: Were there serious inconsistencies in Parti’s statements? Does this mean she was unreliable and there was a sound basis for charging her?
Response: If questions are put poorly, with police officers introducing cross-language ambiguity and imprecision about the items being discussed, it is only logical that answers may change across interviews. Such changes point to issues with the process, rather than to guilt or
dishonesty.
First, there was no translator for most interviews, and Malay differs from Indonesian in significant ways. It is unclear if the officer may have used Malay words like “mengambil” (“to take”) without clarifying he meant “mencuri” (to steal). These differences may not have been apparent in the written statements which were read to Parti in English and/or Malay (not her native language of Bahasa Indonesia).
During the State Court trial, Police IO Amir admitted there is a difference between Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, and that he could have interpreted some of the Indonesian words in a different way.
Response: These insinuations rely on police statements taken on 3 and 4 December 2016, just after Parti’s arrest. Problems with both statements have been highlighted by the High Court and in this article here.
Parti was already given permission to take those items of clothing some time ago. Liew Mun Leong discarded old clothing items and Parti was told by Mrs Liew that whatever Karl Liew did not want, she was allowed to take. Parti’s so-called admission refers to her not asking for permission again when packing clothing in October 2016, because she already received permission to take those items earlier.
Question #2: Were there serious inconsistencies in Parti’s statements? Does this mean she was unreliable and there was a sound basis for charging her?
Response: If questions are put poorly, with police officers introducing cross-language ambiguity and imprecision about the items being discussed, it is only logical that answers may change across interviews. Such changes point to issues with the process, rather than to guilt or
dishonesty.
First, there was no translator for most interviews, and Malay differs from Indonesian in significant ways. It is unclear if the officer may have used Malay words like “mengambil” (“to take”) without clarifying he meant “mencuri” (to steal). These differences may not have been apparent in the written statements which were read to Parti in English and/or Malay (not her native language of Bahasa Indonesia).
During the State Court trial, Police IO Amir admitted there is a difference between Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, and that he could have interpreted some of the Indonesian words in a different way.
Second, the items in question were not properly presented to Parti. On 3 December, the officer gave only verbal descriptions. Later, on 4 December, there were unclear black-and-white pictures, then finally, during another session, coloured copies of photographs. Parti only saw the actual physical items days before the State Court trial began. If answers change when items become identifiable, the inconsistency does not come from the interviewee!
First no photos, then B&W photos, then colour photos (with clothes photographed in sets): Parti was only allowed to view physical items four days before her trial started.
First no photos, then B&W photos, then colour photos (with clothes photographed in sets): Parti was only allowed to view physical items four days before her trial started.
The clothing items were folded up and photographed in sets. This made it especially difficult for
Parti to identify items. For the first statement, the images were black-and-white, so it wasn’t even clear what colour
the items are. (P.S. Can you spot the black spaghetti strap dress with beads Karl claimed as his?)
Third, the interviews took place under poor conditions. On 4 December, Parti faced questions about over 100 items in two foreign languages (English and Malay) from about 1am to 5am: she was asked 108 questions. In Court, Parti testified that one police IO was “angry and banged the table”. Would the most honest person give perfectly consistent answers under these circumstances?
Question #3: Is it true that Parti Liyani did not ask for an interpreter during the recording of her statements?
Response: During the trial, Parti testified that she “did not feel comfortable” about the police IO speaking in Malay, but the “IO never given me any choice”. The Prosecutor then asked, “And you did not ask for a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter, did you?” To which Parti replied: “I did not know that I can request for Bahasa Indonesia interpreter in the lock-up.”
The Prosecutor also asked: “When IO asked you if you needed an interpreter, you declined, isn’t it?” Parti replied: “It is not true, he never gave me or mentioned—he never asked me whether I need or I want an interpreter.”
Question #3: Is it true that Parti Liyani did not ask for an interpreter during the recording of her statements?
Response: During the trial, Parti testified that she “did not feel comfortable” about the police IO speaking in Malay, but the “IO never given me any choice”. The Prosecutor then asked, “And you did not ask for a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter, did you?” To which Parti replied: “I did not know that I can request for Bahasa Indonesia interpreter in the lock-up.”
The Prosecutor also asked: “When IO asked you if you needed an interpreter, you declined, isn’t it?” Parti replied: “It is not true, he never gave me or mentioned—he never asked me whether I need or I want an interpreter.”
Question #4: Was Parti Liyani’s termination sudden? Did she want to complain about her illegal deployment?
Response: On 28 October 2016, Karl Liew told Parti Liyani that she was fired and had two hours to pack her things and leave the house. This was sudden, and a shock to Parti.
Parti was upset that she was given such short notice to leave, and pack all her things: she had worked for the Liews for nine years. She also mentioned that she wanted to make a complaint to MOM: Mrs Liew testified in Court that she heard this. Mrs Liew also testified that Karl heard it.
Response: On 28 October 2016, Karl Liew told Parti Liyani that she was fired and had two hours to pack her things and leave the house. This was sudden, and a shock to Parti.
Parti was upset that she was given such short notice to leave, and pack all her things: she had worked for the Liews for nine years. She also mentioned that she wanted to make a complaint to MOM: Mrs Liew testified in Court that she heard this. Mrs Liew also testified that Karl heard it.
Parti never said she wanted to complain to MOM because she was terminated abruptly. She said those two things, but separately.
As Justice Chan noted in his High Court judgment, “there was in fact ample basis for Parti to make a complaint to the MOM”.
As Justice Chan noted in his High Court judgment, “there was in fact ample basis for Parti to make a complaint to the MOM”.
Question #5: Would a police report by the Liews have stopped her from filing a complaint to MOM?
Response: While Minister Shanmugam claims Parti could have filed a claim from Indonesia, Parti was not aware that she could. It would also have been difficult for proper investigations to proceed as the MOM would usually require the complainant to give a statement in their presence.
Meanwhile, a police report with accusations of theft would severely jeopardize Parti’s chances of obtaining a job as a domestic worker in Singapore.
Response: While Minister Shanmugam claims Parti could have filed a claim from Indonesia, Parti was not aware that she could. It would also have been difficult for proper investigations to proceed as the MOM would usually require the complainant to give a statement in their presence.
Meanwhile, a police report with accusations of theft would severely jeopardize Parti’s chances of obtaining a job as a domestic worker in Singapore.