• Ms Parti Liyani’s theft case struck the nerves of many Singaporeans, Law Minister K Shanmugam said
• The case touched on fundamental questions on whether the principle of the rule of law is being upheld and whether there is equal access to justice
• He pointed to past investigations into powerful individuals suspected of corruption
• He also reminded Members of Parliament on the conduct that is expected of them

SINGAPORE — Action will be taken against any individuals if they have committed a crime, no matter their social status. And the need to uphold the rule of law in Singapore is a fundamental principle, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said.

“There has to be a ruthless intensity in upholding integrity,” he said in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 4), adding that Singapore has demonstrated this over the decades with examples of how high-ranking officials and civil servants have been taken to task. 

Mr Shanmugam was delivering a ministerial statement on the high-profile case of Ms Parti Liyani. 

She was accused of theft by her former employer Liew Mun Leong and sentenced to 26 months’ jail in March 2019, before the High Court overturned the sentence and acquitted her of all charges. 

The turn of events sparked a public outcry, raising questions about how her trial was conducted, if there were issues with the evidence-gathering process and whether there was subconscious bias given the vast difference in social status between the accused and her former employer.

Mr Liew is a prominent business establishment figure and was most recently the chairman of Changi Airport Group, as well as the former head honcho of several government-linked companies, until he resigned after the public backlash arising from this case. 

Addressing the House, Mr Shanmugam said that this theft case struck the nerves of many Singaporeans because it touched on fundamental questions on whether the principle of the rule of law is being upheld and whether there is equal access to justice. 

A fair, clean criminal justice system that ensures equal opportunities for everyone is the foundation of Singapore's society and that must be jealously guarded, he added. 

If Mr Liew was able to unfairly influence the proceedings because of his social status, that would have shaken Singapore’s foundations. 

While Mr Shanmugam acknowledged that there had been lapses in how the police investigations were carried out, he stressed that there was no improper influence because of Mr Liew’s social status. 

“It does not mean that there will be no abuse of power, no corruption. But when it happens, swift, decisive action must be taken.”

He pointed to past investigations into powerful individuals suspected of corruption, such as former Cabinet Minister Teh Cheng Wan, who killed himself before investigations were completed. 

The conviction of Mr Peter Lim, the former commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF), and Edwin Yeo, former assistant director at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), are other examples he cited. 

Mr Lim was jailed six months in 2013 for corruptly obtaining sexual gratification involving three different women, while Yeo was jailed 10 years in 2014 for misappropriating S$1.76 million.

“In most countries, commissioners of SCDF, assistant directors of CPIB are pretty much untouchable. But not in Singapore.

“The message is: It doesn’t matter who you are, if you do wrong, action will be taken,” Mr Shanmugam said. 

This does not apply just to corruption, but “soft” corruption and influence peddling as well, he added. 

Mr Shanmugam went on to quote founding Cabinet Ministers Lee Kuan Yew and Goh Keng Swee, who warned against the formation of an elite class that serves only to entrench themselves in power. 

He also brought up how systems in the United States and South Africa allow for private sector organisations to lobby their interests with politicians, and how these are examples of systems going awry. 

He reminded Members of Parliament (MP) on the conduct that is expected of them, and not to misuse their access to government ministers for any personal gain. 

If there is a sense that any MP might be involved in anything that does not seem right even if it may be legal, he will have a chat with the MP over a cup of coffee to resolve it. 

“When they leave, the issue is usually resolved. And if it’s not resolved, then they don’t remain as MPs,” he said. 

"But don’t worry, it doesn’t happen everytime whenever people come and have coffee with me," he added, to laughter from the House in a brief moment of levity during the delivery of the statement, which took over two hours. 

Nevertheless, Mr Shanmugam noted that connections between people who run in the same circles are inevitable given the country’s small size. 

“And so, we will always have to be very careful. Always remember we are fiduciaries. This is a sacred trust. We do this for the people… Be worthy of the trust people have reposed in us.”