• The police and AGC had assessed that Ms Parti stole from her employer
• This was based on the inconsistent statements she gave
• Ms Parti explained that there was a language barrier between herself and the investigators
• She did not understand what she was asked and investigators interpreted her inaccurately
• Mr Shanmugam listed some key inconsistent statements from Ms Parti

SINGAPORE  — Inconsistencies in Ms Parti Liyani’s statements made the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) sceptical about whether the domestic worker was being truthful then, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said.

And that was why, based on investigations, they concluded that there was reason to believe the Indonesian stole from her employer and they thus chose to charge her with theft, he added.

In her police statement, Ms Parti also admitted to taking 10 to 15 items of clothing without consent — an admission she retracted in court later. 

Mr Shanmugam made these comments in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 4) as he set out to address the questions raised by the conviction and subsequent acquittal of Ms Parti. She used to be the domestic worker of Mr Liew Mun Leong, who was chairman of Changi Airport Group before he retired in September due to the public backlash arising from the case.  

The outcome of the case prompted the public to question 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.

Addressing aspects of the criminal proceedings during a ministerial statement, Mr Shanmugam said that there were inconsistencies in many of Ms Parti’s answers, and some of her statements taken during investigations changed during the trial.

Besides getting charged, her inconsistencies were also enough to land her a conviction because the State Court found her “quite untruthful”, Mr Shanmugam noted. 

Ms Parti had explained that the contradictions were due to the language barrier between herself and her interviewers. 

At times, she did not understand the questions posed to her, and the interviewers did not interpret her responses accurately. 

She had given her first four police statements in Malay and only the fifth one was in Bahasa Indonesia, with the aid of an interpreter. 

She also said she was shown unclear photos of some of the items that the Liew family claimed she had stolen, and that was why she might have given the wrong answers. 

Mr Shanmugam said the police had believed in “good faith” that Ms Parti understood Malay.

The matter of language barriers was another factor that the High Court considered when deciding to acquit her.

While Ms Parti understood some Malay, the High Court noted that differences between Malay and Indonesian could create reasonable doubt on the accuracy of her statements.

Though there had been a breach in statement-taking procedures, Justice Chan Seng Onn said that it was not a “flagrant violation” and allowed these statements to still be admitted to the High Court.

Mr Shanmugam noted that her fifth and final statement was taken with help from an Indonesian language interpreter, covered most aspects of the case including those in previous statements and was therefore not affected by any translation issues. 

Nevertheless, he has asked the police to make sure that in future cases, the accused understand the statement-recording process, the purpose of a statement and that they have been asked what language they wish to speak in and that they can ask for an interpreter at any time. 

However, the internal review has found that grammatical errors are difficult to avoid, so Mr Shanmugam said the police need to make sure that any grammatical errors should not affect the interpretation and understanding of the statement.

THE INCONSISTENCIES 

The following are some of Ms Parti’s statements that Mr Shanmugam highlighted as inconsistent:

1. The DVD player 

• What she said in her statements: She told her employer, Mr Liew’s wife Ng Lai Peng, that she would take a spoilt DVD player back to Indonesia to fix it.
  In her second statement, she said that she did not tell anyone that she would take the device.

• What her lawyer submitted: She asked Mdm Ng three to four years ago if she could take the DVD player back to Indonesia to get it fixed. Mdm Ng said that Ms Parti could take it if she wanted to.

• What she said during trial: Ms Parti obtained the DVD player in 2012 or 2013 from the room of Mr Liew’s daughter May Liew. Ms Parti asked Mdm Ng for the DVD player because she wanted to bring it to Indonesia to fix it, and the latter agreed.

• What she said during cross-examination: She had asked Mdm Ng for the DVD player, assuming it could be repaired in Indonesia. Mdm Ng said in reply to her: “It’s up to you.”

2. Longchamp bags

• What she said in her statements: Ms Parti said that she had found the bags in a luggage bag at the rubbish disposal area.

• What her lawyer submitted: She found the bags discarded as trash in a large black suitcase outside one of the houses along Chancery Lane five to six years ago. They were worn out and used.

• What she said during trial and cross-examination: She found the Longchamp bags in a big bag near the rubbish bin at 49D Chancery Lane at the end of 2010 after the house there underwent a renovation.

3. Pair of black Gucci sunglasses

• What she said in her statements: In her second statement, Ms Parti said that the sunglasses were given to her by Mr Liew’s previous domestic worker. 

• In her fifth statement, she said that she found them in the cupboard of her room when she started working, and she did not know to whom they belonged.

• What her lawyer submitted: She found the pair of sunglasses in her room when she moved into the house and kept it in her room for eight years. She packed them in the boxes in a hurry when she was leaving for Indonesia and did not intend to take them dishonestly.

• What she said during trial: She found the sunglasses in her room when she started working at the house in 2007. She did not know why they were there, and she simply kept them.

• What she said during cross-examination: She maintained her account during the trial and said that she did not intend to take the sunglasses back to Indonesia. She disagreed that her previous statement dated Dec 4, 2016 referred to the pair of Gucci sunglasses.

4. Men’s clothing

Ms Parti was not consistent on whether she had permission to take 10 to 15 pieces of men’s clothing, Mr Shanmugam said.

• What she said in her statements: In her first and second statements, she admitted to taking 10 to 15 pieces of men’s clothing without informing either Mr Liew or Mdm Ng.

• What her lawyer submitted: There were fewer than 120 pieces of clothing found in her boxes, and some were given to her by Ms May Liew’s husband and Mdm Ng. She did not pack Mr Liew’s son Karl Liew’s clothes into her boxes.

• What she said during trial: Some of the clothes among the 120 were from the black bag that Mr Karl Liew had given to the family’s previous domestic worker and some of the other clothes belonged to Ms Parti. 

• What she said during cross-examination: When explaining the statements made where she admitted to taking 10 to 15 pieces of clothing without permission, Ms Parti said: “What I meant during the police interview (was that) I did not ask permission during packing only... (I did not ask permission when) taking the clothes because I got permission (to take) the clothes.”