clement_c Posted September 27, 2019 Report Share Posted September 27, 2019 (edited) I am so angry that i could not sleep after reading this news. I have went through similar incidents and i did not have the courage. I am now voicing out to people that should deserve what they should be given based on their action and nothing else. 23 Year Old Terence Siow Kai Yuan Molest Women got out of jail free because of his School Academic. This is very disappointing as it is really happening in Singapore in this Era. This is not Terence first time for molesting women, he was sent for counselling. And the reason he get caught now is that he touched the woman and followed her just to touch her again. How can this District Judge Jasvender Kaur just say these were minor offences - academic results showed he had the “potential to excel in life”. He is a Math Tutor, imagine he excel so much until he became a Principle or someone with higher status? He became untouchable and he knows that very well. Does this mean that in future, he can go touch all the women and his offences are ALL consider minor offences still? He mentioned that he cannot control his urge and also admitted that it was wrong to do it but he continue to do it anyway! Does it mean that whenever we cannot control our urge and having good grades will stop us from getting punishment? There are so many PLU(People Like Us) out there with good grades, creativity and even characters are denied still in this Era. Why not be more kind to PLU instead of those that are repeatedly making those horrible offences. I know life is unfair. But is it not the people around us or those that coexist with us trying to make it more fair? I wonder why study hard to be a lawyer? Because lawyer can earn a lot money or is to put those that deserve to be punished, get what they deserve. This lawyer is not doing her job very well. I am glad that there are someone in the government is doing the right thing: Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam said on Friday (27 September) that he was “surprised” by the verdict of a molest case, in which a university student was given probation after the judge rejected the prosecution's call for a custodial sentence. In a Facebook post, Shanmugam also revealed that officers at the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) told him that they disagreed with the verdict as well, and intend to appeal. Please be more kind to one another. There are many situation that we can forgive and move on. But sometimes, punishment must be given to someone for their actions. Do you guys agree that Quality/Attitude of a person still lose to people with better grades, money and looks? This is what i have seen and heard - Some companies have started to STOP seeing people resume/results. And even hired people based on their Attitude, Characters and ETC. But majority of the companies still have their traditional mindset of just looking for better grades candidates with horrible characters. I really hope that people with less fortunate out there will have more opportunities in life. Links - https://sg.news.yahoo.com/shanmugam-surprised-by-outcome-of-molest-case-involving-nus-student-agc-to-appeal-verdict-060510237.html https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/petition-nus-student-terence-siow-mrt-molest-case-probation-11948074 Please help to sign the petition if you want to make your first step to help others that are more vulnerable in this world: https://www.change.org/p/attorney-general-s-chambers-say-no-to-favorable-sentences-for-educated-sex-offenders Edited September 27, 2019 by clement_c Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted September 27, 2019 Report Share Posted September 27, 2019 If he is a first time offender, I agree that he deserves a second chance. I wonder what's so special about him that the judge makes such concession for him. Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innocentguy Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 Aiyah..nevermind la. Nowadays men in spore afraid to touch ladies till birth rate also becoming almost zero. Its either men too busy or not horny. So , i agree that this is a potential guy. Or there should be a story behind it. Could be the victim is a person whom he known ,blah blah blah n now she is accusing him molesting her? We don't know. So let it be la. Many bitches on road too. So, dont bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 Temasek Times [Click here] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Neh Neh Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 48 minutes ago, Innocentguy said: Aiyah..nevermind la. Nowadays men in spore afraid to touch ladies till birth rate also becoming almost zero. Its either men too busy or not horny. So , i agree that this is a potential guy. Or there should be a story behind it. Could be the victim is a person whom he known ,blah blah blah n now she is accusing him molesting her? We don't know. So let it be la. Many bitches on road too. So, dont bother. Same day i read a different news, the wife exclaims "My husband never touched me for 7 years after i rejected him once. Is it my fault?" I was angry to read this. That wife now turned to media that it is her husband fault whom did not to touch her. But at the very begining, in actual fact she refused to let her husband touched. This tells women are so good at twisting stories and play innocent games. Ya, so in the case of terrence siow, we only have heard one side story. It is hard to judge whom is in the "socially wrong" side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Second Chance Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 I believe very young offenders should receive a 2nd chance where it is suitable. In many cases very young offenders had never been given a 2nd chance in life. Many young offender's life had been destroyed as they were publicly shamed and their name and face published on the print media. I m not talking about "serious" crime but the lower end of criminal wrongdoings. In this episode I have the feeling the victim not happy with the outcome and start making a big WuHu. Honestly, I find the lady already silly, because during court she requested for a gag order (meaning not being named in the public who the victim is) and later she goes out and posts online disclosing who she is. Then, I tend not to support people, who seem to have an entitlement them being above the law. the case has not been fully through the court proceedings. Appeal was possible. Any victim has to wait for a final judgment. Lately, we are having a lot of people not being happy in criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, there is no 100% justice. Courts should make clear, the criminal punishment is not for the personal satisfaction of the victim but a reaction of the society on wrongdoings. If not the Courts will be going the wrong direction. The matter has been handled by a lady judge, I don't won't to say bias or something if a female judge. But this makes me a bit stumble. We have not been at the hearing. Maybe the victim evidence was not clear or even contradicting during the hearing. Yes, we all admit the guy has done wrong. Anyhow, the public "outcry" is making any new decision more difficult. For sure we don't want public "execution" of criminals as in the medieval. Let's not go back to stone age please. Just look how many jury in US made wrong decision and gave the death penalty to innocent people. I m not speaking out for molesters, don't get me wrong, I don't want molesters to get away and support if ladies (in fewer cases guys) take actions. I m not going to support any petition on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innocentguy Posted September 28, 2019 Report Share Posted September 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Guest Neh Neh said: Same day i read a different news, the wife exclaims "My husband never touched me for 7 years after i rejected him once. Is it my fault?" I was angry to read this. That wife now turned to media that it is her husband fault whom did not to touch her. But at the very begining, in actual fact she refused to let her husband touched. This tells women are so good at twisting stories and play innocent games. Ya, so in the case of terrence siow, we only have heard one side story. It is hard to judge whom is in the "socially wrong" side. See i told u. Ladies think they have something which stupid str8 men longing for. I noticed many gays on road like increasing nowadays n even married guys turn to men for fuck n pleasure. Im so happy that the molester given chance. The reason sounds logic to me.Hope many more chances given to offenders. Hell to women. Haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fatty Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 Is he cute? If he is, all are forgiven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted September 29, 2019 Report Share Posted September 29, 2019 41 minutes ago, Guest Fatty said: Is he cute? If he is, all are forgiven. Not as cute as Nicholas. Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeanMature Posted September 30, 2019 Report Share Posted September 30, 2019 Why give second chance when he is a second time offender ? Quote Don't read and response to guests' post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 Sadly, this guy is young and cute looking .... yet ..... council president! 😱 😧 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/yale-nus-suspends-student-who-filmed-upskirt-and-shower-videos-of-women-on-campus?cx_testId=20&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=5#cxrecs_s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Try and see Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 53 minutes ago, Guest Guest said: Sadly, this guy is young and cute looking .... yet ..... council president! 😱 😧 https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/yale-nus-suspends-student-who-filmed-upskirt-and-shower-videos-of-women-on-campus?cx_testId=20&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=5#cxrecs_s Yeah, man!! He's damn cute! And looks quite buff too!! As punishment, he and Nicholas Lim should be filmed in the shower together, and then be forced to do a gay porn video with each other, and then the video can be circulated to all the gay websites!! https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/yale-nus-student-brandon-lee-upskirt-shower-videos-suspension-11969824 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Expose Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 Another photographer in training. Quote Shaun Ng Wei Xuan, 22, admitted in court on Oct. 3 to taking upskirt photos of women on at least 99 occasions over six weeks. Ng, who was a polytechnic student at the time of his offences, was caught while he was targeting a 17-year-old girl in Hougang Mall, in December 2017. The Singaporean pleaded guilty to two charges of intruding on a woman’s privacy to insult her modesty, according to CNA. https://mothership.sg/2019/10/news-singapore-crime-polytechnic-student-upskirt-photo-hougang-mall/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Expose Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 And another Quote Singaporean Oxford undergraduate charged with filming two women in toilet A man who allegedly filmed two women showering and using the toilet on separate occasions was charged in court with insulting their modesty on Wednesday (2 October). The 22-year-old Singaporean is accused of filming a woman showering in a room at Orchard Hotel on 2 December 2015 at about 1.30am, and filming another woman relieving herself in a toilet at a condominium in the east of Singapore on 23 December 2016, at around 8.30pm. https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singaporean-undergraduate-charged-with-filming-two-women-in-toilet-075840275.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 古墓派 Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 Aiyoyo, so cute one. Come come to my room and I will educate Brandon and Nicholas with my 欲女腥精 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimochi Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 Can perform 吸精大法 on me ~ https://www.tokyokinky.com/takuya-cho-teku-blow-job-masturbator-the-perfect-oral-sex-from-a-japanese-man-gay/ https://mobile.twitter.com/gentletop16/status/1049187336653746176 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimochi Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 28 minutes ago, Since u r here said: eeeewwwww Kimochi U seemed to want others to "perform" on u Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 4, 2019 Report Share Posted October 4, 2019 7 hours ago, Guest Try and see said: Yeah, man!! He's damn cute! And looks quite buff too!! As punishment, he and Nicholas Lim should be filmed in the shower together, and then be forced to do a gay porn video with each other, and then the video can be circulated to all the gay websites!! https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/yale-nus-student-brandon-lee-upskirt-shower-videos-suspension-11969824 https://temasektimes.wordpress.com/2019/10/02/is-nus-pervert-brandon-lee-bingxiang-a-pap-grassroots-leader/ ...grassroots organizations??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam8899 Posted October 6, 2019 Report Share Posted October 6, 2019 Bravo to the judge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almonds Posted October 6, 2019 Report Share Posted October 6, 2019 After the SG nasi lemak saga, I bet there are also other private groups where perverts like him share these videos and pictures. Too coincidental that many are in local universities, maybe there are even private cults that advocate such activities? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GachiMuchi Posted April 30, 2020 Report Share Posted April 30, 2020 Woman charged with allowing customer into salon for massage and masturbation during circuit breaker period By Lydia Lam 29 Apr 2020 12:08PM SINGAPORE: At a time when most non-essential businesses were ordered closed, a woman allegedly kept her beauty salon open and allowed a man to enter for massage and masturbation services. Jin Yin, 55, was charged on Wednesday (Apr 29) with failing to ensure her In-Style Beauty Salon at Block 34 Upper Cross Street was closed on Apr 10, three days after the start of Singapore's "circuit breaker" period to stem the spread of COVID-19. She is accused of allowing 67-year-old Chan Fun Hwee into the premises and providing massage and masturbation services to him for S$150 between 1pm and 2.30pm that day. Jin was also given two other charges of carrying on a massage business without a licence under the Massage Establishments Act and advertising the business. She paid an agent to put up an advertisement on Locanto.sg to offer massage and masturbation services, the charge sheet stated. Jin, who was unrepresented, told the court through tears that she wanted to plead guilty and that she was "in the wrong". She said she needed the money as her mother, who has since died, was suffering from cancer. She will return to court to plead guilty on May 13. For not keeping her premises closed under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations, she can be jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$10,000 or both. For each charge of carrying out an unlicensed massage business and advertising it, she can be jailed for up to two years, fined a maximum S$10,000 or both. Jin also faces enhanced punishments as she was previously convicted of similar offences, her charge sheets stated. Quote http://gachimuchi2008.blogspot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YELLOW BIRD Posted June 3, 2020 Report Share Posted June 3, 2020 SINGAPORE: A woman was fined S$7,000 on Wednesday (Jun 3) for letting a man into her condominium unit during the "circuit breaker" period for massage and masturbation services. Allowing people who are not from your household into your home during the circuit breaker is an offence under the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act. China national Cheng Fengzhao, 38, pleaded guilty to one charge of allowing the 51-year-old man, who was not from her household, to enter her home. A second charge of letting him in on an earlier occasion on Apr 19 was taken into consideration. The court heard that Cheng is a work permit holder who came to Singapore to work as a waitress. However, she has never reported to work as a waitress. Instead, she paid a monthly fee to unknown individuals to help advertise her sex services on different websites. Every 10 days, she paid an unknown man rental of S$100 per day to use the condo unit. At about 3pm on May 5, police officers raided the condo at Jalan Kemaman for vice-related offences. The police saw the 51-year-old man, who was not identified in court documents, walking into the condo and entering Cheng's unit. About 50 minutes later, the man left the unit and the police identified themselves. They searched the unit and found a second sex worker in the unit waiting for another customer. The police let this second man in. Investigations revealed that Cheng had arranged with the 51-year-old man, a regular customer of hers, to visit her on May 5 at 3pm. This was for her to provide massage and masturbation services for a fee of S$100. She did this despite knowing that she was not allowed to let other people enter her home during the circuit breaker period except in limited circumstances. Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Ti-Ting asked for a fine of at least S$7,000, noting that she must have been in close proximity with the customer and flouted the law for commercial gain. She said there was premeditation, as Cheng had made arrangements with the customer before the day itself. Cheng, who was unrepresented, told the court through a Mandarin interpreter that she knows she has done wrong in flouting Singapore's laws. "I do not have any qualification to earn a living," she said. "I'm sorry that I have committed an offence in Singapore." The judge asked why she did not work as a waitress as originally planned, and she said: "When I came here, I discovered there was no such job available." However, the prosecutor said Cheng had admitted to not turning up for work from day one. "During this period, there were many other people, Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, holding different kinds of jobs, who were also under the same laws," she said. Cheng could have been jailed for up to six months, fined up to S$10,000, or both for breaking a COVID-19 regulation. CNA has contacted the Attorney-General's Chambers on whether any action will be taken against the 51-year-old man. Cheng is the second woman to be charged for such an offence. In April, a woman was charged with letting a man into her beauty salon for massage and masturbation services. Jin Yin, 55, was set to plead guilty but had her plea rejected as she could not stop crying. She will return to court at a later date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest News reader Posted September 4, 2020 Report Share Posted September 4, 2020 Maid acquitted of stealing more than $34k worth of items from Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong's home https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/maid-acquitted-of-stealing-from-changi-airport-group-chairman-liew-mun-leongs "...The judge also found the testimony of Mr Karl Liew to be "highly suspect". Mr Karl Liew had claimed in court that various items of female clothing, allegedly stolen by Parti, belonged to him as he liked to cross-dress." Woo, kinky. Looks like TS for "All "MANLY" gays fall in immeidately!!!" has found her the other sister... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mith Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 (edited) these rich families are really the lowest class of people, cheap, blame, lie, cheat about small things in life! the pettiest of type!. could each siblings hire a maid on their own, and separately hire cleaner for offices and workplace... but instead deploy ONE maid to serve different households, and offices and stores! low class cheapskate. can easily discard expensive luxurious branded items like bags, and watches, yet when people pick up and recycle use, they accuse of stealing their properties! doing all these ugly things behind close doors, yet when their ugly faces were threaten to be expose for the public to see, quickly go about lying and destroying actual victim life with their money and power! really the lowest of the lowest scum! i would boycott all their businesses! Edited September 5, 2020 by mith Mssg-exchange, swimlife and Steve5380 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 High court also mentioned the 2 watches are counterfeit and the other one is free gift item. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest news Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 High Court acquits maid of stealing S$34,000 worth of items from CAG chairman Liew Mun Leong’s home By Louisa Tang Ms Parti Liyani, 46, and her lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani from Red Lion Circle, leaving the High Court on Sept 4, 2020. Grace Baey Published04 September, 2020 Updated 04 September, 2020 Ms Parti Liyani, 46, was sentenced to 26 months’ jail last year after being convicted Justice Chan Seng Onn ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the four theft charges beyond a reasonable doubt In acquitting her, he said her employers may not have filed a police report if she did not threaten to report them to the authorities for making her work at more than one household SINGAPORE — One-and-a-half years after being convicted of stealing S$34,000 worth of items from Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family, a foreign domestic worker has been acquitted of all charges by the High Court. Last year, a district judge had found Ms Parti Liyani, 46, guilty of four theft charges and sentenced her to 26 months’ jail. But on Friday (Sept 4), Justice Chan Seng Onn ruled that the district court had failed to consider several points, including the credibility of the testimony of Mr Liew’s son, Mr Karl Liew. Ms Parti, an Indonesian, worked for Mr Liew Mun Leong for about nine years until her employment was abruptly terminated on Oct 28, 2016. After she was fired, Ms Parti threatened to file a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) about how she was forced to work illegally at his son’s home and office. Mr Liew Mun Leong, who is also chairman of infrastructure consultancy Surbana Jurong, and his son made a police report against Ms Parti two days after firing her. They accused her of stealing items including 115 pieces of clothing, a DVD player, a Gerald Genta luxury watch, a Prada bag and Gucci sunglasses. Read also: Maid picked up items Liew Mun Leong’s family had thrown out, says defence lawyer She left for Indonesia the day she was fired and was arrested on Dec 2, 2016 at Changi Airport when she returned to Singapore. During her district court trial, Ms Parti denied stealing the items and said that they had been discarded, were meant to be recycled or belonged to her. REASONS FOR ACQUITTAL Justice Chan found that there was “ample basis” for Ms Parti to make the complaint and the Liews may not have reported her to the police without her threat. As the consequences of a complaint by Ms Parti would be serious, the judge said he believed that the Liews would be “very concerned” if she followed through with it. They thus had an “improper motive” in mounting the allegations against her, Justice Chan said. “There is reason to believe that the Liew family, upon realising her unhappiness, took the pre-emptive first step to terminate without giving her sufficient time to pack and complain to MOM,” he added. As for the chain of custody of evidence, the judge found that the police had delayed in seizing the items and the Liews had mishandled them. After Ms Parti was fired, Mr Karl Liew gave her three jumbo boxes and two hours to pack her belongings, which were then sealed with tape. He eventually agreed to pay for them to be shipped to Indonesia. When Ms Parti left for Indonesia later that day, Mr Liew's wife suspected that she had stolen thermal wear as well, so they checked the boxes the next morning. They spent two hours on this and took a 21-second video. They then took some items out of the boxes to use. Mr Karl Liew was also only able to identify 34 items from the video footage they took. There was thus a “real possibility of a mixup of items” and reasonable doubt that they were accurately documented in photographs taken five weeks later. The trial judge also did not consider expert evidence that was unchallenged by the prosecution, Justice Chan said. Many of the items appeared old, not functioning well or of much lower value than what the Liews testified them to be, the High Court judge said. For example, the Helix watch — originally valued by Mr Karl Liew at S$50 — was a free door gift. Mr Karl Liew was also “not only lacking in credibility but did not take the process of giving testimony seriously”, Justice Chan said. His evidence that he had several items of women’s clothing, some of which were for smaller-sized women, was “highly suspect”. He had testified during the trial that he liked to cross-dress. “I’m troubled by various aspects of Karl’s evidence that the (district court) judge did not appear to have considered,” Justice Chan added. He also said that Ms Parti did not have a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter with her when she was interrogated by the police and lacked the chance to view the “large number of physical items”. ‘I’M SO GLAD I’M FINALLY FREE’ After the hearing ended, Ms Parti — who has stayed in a shelter run by non-governmental organisation Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home) since her arrest — cried and hugged several Home employees. She told reporters through an interpreter: “I’m so glad I’m finally free. I’ve been fighting for four years now and I’ve been strong all this while.” When questioned on her future plans, she said that she would like to return home. However, she still faces a fifth charge of fraudulently possessing other alleged stolen items owned by unidentified individuals. Her pro bono lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani from Red Lion Circle, said that they are “ready to stand trial” on this charge. They will also speak to the Liews to seek compensation for Ms Parti’s loss of income over the last four years. The loss is assessed to be “several tens of thousands of dollars”, Mr Balchandani said. Asked if she had anything to say to her lawyer, Ms Parti hugged him and said: “I’m so grateful to Anil. I don’t know how to pay him back.” He replied: “I did nothing much except to repeat what she told me.” Justice Chan had commended Mr Balchandani, saying he “put in a lot of effort and showed a lot of dedication in his work”. The lawyer also represented Ms Parti during the district court trial. In a statement, Home said that they were “glad that justice has prevailed”. Migrant workers such as Ms Parti, who have been wrongfully accused, “are left waiting in a foreign country while investigations are ongoing” and often cannot work, it said. Some may choose to plead guilty due to the circumstances they face. “Home believes that every individual should be given a chance at a fair trial, and access to legal representation, regardless of their work pass status or nationality,” it added. Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/high-court-acquits-maid-stealing-s34000-worth-items-cag-chairman-liew-mun-leongs-home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest news Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 Note: in the lower court before appeal the maid received 26 months jail. Ex-maid of former CapitaLand CEO on trial for stealing more than $50,000 worth of items By Wong Pei Ting Published 23 April, 2018 Updated 24 April, 2018 SINGAPORE — An Indonesian maid who served the household of Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong claimed trial on Monday (April 23) over four theft charges. Parti Liyani, 44, allegedly stole items worth more than S$50,000 belonging to CapitaLand Group's founding president and former chief executive officer, and three of his family members – his son and daughter-in-law, Mr Karl Liew and Ms Heather Lim Mei Ern, and his daughter, Ms Liew Cheng May. The theft purportedly took place on Oct 28, 2016. TODAY understands that she had been abruptly fired the same day, before being sent back to Indonesia. The elder Liew reported the alleged thefts two days later, and Parti was arrested at Changi Airport on Dec 2 that year, when she returned to Singapore to seek work with another employer. The thefts reportedly took place at the residences of both the elder Mr Liew and Mr Karl Liew at Chancery Lane. According to the charge sheets, the bulk of Parti’s alleged loot belonged to his son Mr Karl Liew, a former private banker and undischarged bankrupt. They included a damaged Gerald Genta watch with a broken strap valued at S$25,000, two white iPhone 4s with accessories valued at S$2,056, 120 pieces of male clothing valued at S$150 each, a S$500 blanket, three S$100 bedsheets, a S$150 Philips DVD player, S$300 worth of kitchenware and utensils, a S$250 black Gucci wallet, a S$250 black Braun Buffel wallet, and a S$50 Helix watch. Parti also allegedly took his wife’s S$1,000 Prada bag and a pair of S$500 Gucci sunglasses with red stains on them. She was also said to have stolen a S$1,000 Pioneer DVD player and two S$200 Longchamp bags from the senior Mr Liew, as well as Ms Liew’s leather Vacheron Constantin watch with unknown value, a S$75 Swatch watch, S$775 worth of jewellery and fashion accessories, and a S$250 pair of Gucci sunglasses. Assistant Superintendent Tan Ru Long, who conducted preliminary investigations when the police report was first lodged, was the first witness to take the stand on Monday. He testified that a day after Parti was arrested, he had gone to the victims’ houses to look at the items they recovered. It was not stated in court how or when the items were recovered. Items belonging to Ms Liew were seized as she was not in Singapore to verify if they were hers. ASP Tan took photographs only of the items recovered by the rest of the family members as “seizing results in revictimising”, he told the court. Before Parti was released on bail on Dec 4, 2016, ASP Tan testified that he had also seized some items from Parti’s hand carry luggage. Parti, who had worked in Singapore since 1996 and had been employed by the elder Mr Liew for eight years, had been waiting for more than a year for her trial to begin. She is currently staying at a shelter provided by non-government organisation, Humanitarian Organization for Migrant Economics. The hearing in this first tranche of trial will stretch till Wednesday. If convicted, Parti could be jailed for up to seven years and fined. Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ex-maid-former-capitaland-ceo-trial-stealing-more-50000-worth-items?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_03092019_todayonline Losing cherished personal items hurt, says Changi Airport Group’s chairman who accused maid of theft By Alfred Chua Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/changi-airport-groups-chairman-accuses-domestic-helper-theft-3-boxes-items-uncovered-home?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_03092019_todayonline Parti Liyani, 44, allegedly stole items worth more than S$50,000 belonging to CapitaLand Group's founding president and former chief executive officer, and three of his family members. Published 16 August, 2018 Updated 17 August, 2018 SINGAPORE — Changi Airport Group’s chairman Liew Mun Leong, 71, said it was “most hurting” when he found that some of his personal belongings he held dear had gone missing from home. One of these was a compact powerbank for charging mobile devices — a gift to him from a French university that invited him to give a guest lecture. “It disappeared after a few days. I was very upset,” he said. Mr Liew took the witness stand in court on Thursday (Aug 16) to testify against his former Indonesian domestic helper, who is accused of stealing valuables and other items from his home. Parti Liyani, 44, also known as “Yani” to his family, faces four theft charges. She had been the live-in help for eight years at Mr Liew’s home on Chancery Lane near the Dunearn Road area. She allegedly stole a damaged Gerald Genta watch with a broken strap valued at S$25,000, two white iPhone 4 models with accessories valued at S$2,056, 120 pieces of men’s clothing items valued at S$150 each, a S$500 blanket, three S$100 bedsheets, a S$150 Philips DVD player, S$300 worth of kitchenware and utensils, a S$250 black Gucci wallet, a S$250 black Braun Buffel wallet, and a S$50 Helix watch. These items were allegedly found a day after her termination, in three sealed boxes in the family home. They were left behind by her to be sent back to Indonesia. Read also: Domestic worker ‘tried to get Liew Mun Leong’s family to ship stolen items to her’ Telling the court what else he lost, Mr Liew said that there was a bag he bought from Tokyo in Japan, which he claimed he “took a long time to buy”. “It never (surfaced) in the house again,” he added. Mr Liew said that he travels three to four times a month, and “had a propensity to buy bags” on these trips. Some were “not very expensive” Longchamp bags that cost him around S$100 or so each. The ongoing trial, which started in April, has seen Mr Liew’s wife Ng Lai Peng and their son Karl testify against the helper. At the dock for the first time on Thursday, Mr Liew said that he had “no issues” with Parti and he believed that she had “coped reasonably well” with work. “I treated her very well… gave her additional days off during Chinese New Year… gave her some money when she travelled.” Then, his belongings began to go missing. While Mr Liew already had some suspicions about Parti for years before her dismissal, his wife was “disinclined to terminate the maid”. “I don’t let people go unless there is a reason to distrust them. I tend to ‘over-trust’ people,” Mr Liew told the court, adding that he “tolerated” Parti “for many years”. Then, on Oct 28, 2016, he finally decided to do what he had always wanted to do. While he was flying back to Singapore from Russia, he gave instructions to those at home — including his wife and son — to terminate Parti’s employment contract. She was given just two to three hours to pack. He touched down in Singapore on Oct 29, the same day Parti’s boxes were opened up, though it is unclear if he was present at home when they were opened. When the family realised that the boxes contained items belonging to them, they decided to make a police report on Oct 30. After she was dismissed from work, Parti was immediately sent home to Indonesia, but was arrested upon her return to Singapore two months later. In the cross-examination on Thursday which lasted more than four hours, defence lawyer Anil Balchandani quizzed Mr Liew in great detail on several points. He questioned if Mr Liew had “trumped up” the statement he gave to the police, given that there were some mistakes in the police report that Mr Liew acknowledged. “There is no motivation for a person like me to go against a maid,” Mr Liew rebutted. “There is no reason for me to fix anyone up.” Mr Anil put it to Mr Liew that he saw his belongings in the box that he presumed were stolen and he never really thought about what had happened. “I saw things that were lost…(and) I am confident (they were) stolen,” Mr Liew replied. “There were only three of us at home (for some time). When things went missing, if it wasn’t me, not my wife, then who else could it be?” Insisting that the items in the three boxes were all stolen from the family, Mr Liew also “categorically objected” to the assertion that some of the items were either discarded by the family, or handed down to Parti, or misplaced. He claimed that the family “did not expect her to leave behind three boxes”, because she already sent some items back. Mr Anil charged that Mr Liew dismissed Parti because he did not want her to return to lodge “a complaint against the family”, and “because she knew the intimate running of (his) family”, but Mr Liew denied these allegations. The trial resumes on Friday. Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/changi-airport-groups-chairman-accuses-domestic-helper-theft-3-boxes-items-uncovered-home?cid=h3_referral_inarticlelinks_03092019_todayonline Liew Mun Leong’s ex-maid found guilty of stealing items worth over S$30,000 By Alfred Chua Published 20 March, 2019, Updated 20 March, 2019 SINGAPORE — There was no reason the family of Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong "would conspire to frame" their domestic helper for theft, a District Judge said as she delivered the verdict for a 19-day trial which began nearly a year ago. Parti Liyani, 45, an Indonesian who had worked for the household for more than eight years, was found guilty of stealing S$30,000 worth of items from various members of the family — including Mr Liew, his son Karl Liew, his daughter May Liew and his daughter-in-law Heather Lim. Parti, represented by defence lawyer Anil Balchandani, denied stealing the items, and also alleged that her former employers had brought the "false allegations" against her to prevent her from returning to Singapore. In delivering her verdict on Wednesday (March 20), District Judge Olivia Low found Parti guilty of four theft charges, adding that she did not find any reason to believe that the Liews and their driver would want to frame the helper for theft. "(The Liews) had in fact compensated her for the termination and (were) even willing to pay for the shipping of her items back to Indonesia,” District Judge Low said. "On the contrary, the modus operandi of the accused was to take a variety of items from different family members thinking that these would go unnoticed by them,” she added. Parti’s employment was terminated on Oct 28, 2016, because Mr Liew Mun Leong had by then suspected her of stealing items from the family. Read also: Maid picked up items Liew Mun Leong’s family had thrown out, says defence lawyer The next day, the family opened three sealed boxes that were meant to be sent to Indonesia and found many items that belonged to them. Parti was arrested when she returned to Singapore on Dec 2 that year, and her bags were found to contain more items belonging to the family, including Longchamp bags, branded watches and two iPhones. During the course of the trial, various members of the Liew family took the stand, including Mr Liew, his wife Ng Lai Peng and their children. District Judge Low said that she found the prosecution witnesses, which included the Liew family members, to be “largely credible and consistent”, even though they might have differed slightly on details of their items. FAMILY CONTACTED BY PARTI’S REPRESENTATIVES In her oral grounds, the judge noted that members of the Liew family and their driver Robin were contacted by Parti’s representatives. Madam Ng, for example, said that she was contacted a few times by the defence to “go out and talk about the case”. The Liews’ driver also testified to receiving missed calls and a text message from Mr Balchandani to “return his call” and that “there is no reason to be afraid”. The judge also noted that Parti attended a civil hearing where Mr Karl Liew was testifying. Parti looked at him and giggled, “which he perceived to be a message of intimidation”. CHARGE AMENDED, DEFENCE PROTESTS On Wednesday, before she was to deliver her verdict, District Judge Low told the court that one of Parti’s charges would be amended. This was in relation to items belonging to Mr Karl Liew. The judge said that she had “some reasonable doubt” that all of the 120 clothing items listed in the charge sheet belonged to Mr Liew. It was thus amended to show 115 items instead. Two wallets said to be Mr Liew’s — a Gucci and a Braun Buffel — were also removed from the charge sheet. Mr Balchandani protested against the changes and applied to recall five witnesses to the stand, including Mr Karl Liew. District Judge Low dismissed the application, stating that it was “an attempt to further delay the trial and frustrate justice”. Another charge against Parti under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act was stood down at the start of the trial. Parti returns to court on Monday (March 25) for sentencing. For theft, she could be jailed up to seven years and fined for each charge. STOLEN ITEMS Mr Liew Mun Leong’s items: One Pioneer DVD player valued at S$1,000 One brown Longchamp bag valued at S$200 One blue Longchamp bag valued at S$200 Mr Karl Liew’s items: 115 pieces of clothing valued at S$150 each One blanket valued at S$500 Three bedsheets valued at S$100 each Kitchenware and utensils worth S$300 One Helix watch valued at S$50 One damaged Gerald Genta watch with a broken strap, worth S$10,000 Two white iPhone 4s, with accessories, valued at S$2,056 Ms May Liew’s items: One leather Vacheron Constantin watch, value unknown One Swatch watch valued at S$75 One silver-coloured ring with blue shiny stones, worth S$150 One pair of silver earrings with a white opaque stone, worth S$150 One earring, worth S$75 Fashion accessories amounting to S$400 A pair of black Gucci sunglasses valued at S$250 Ms Heather Lim’s items: One purple Prada bag worth S$1,000 One pair of black Gucci sunglasses valued at S$500 Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/liew-mun-leongs-ex-maid-found-guilty-stealing-items-worth-over-s30000 Changi Airport Group chairman’s former maid jailed 26 months for theft By Louisa Tang Published 25 March, 2019 Updated 25 March, 2019 SINGAPORE — A domestic helper was jailed for 26 months on Monday (March 25), after she was convicted last week of stealing more than S$30,000 worth of items from the household of her employer, Changi Airport Group's chairman Liew Mun Leong. Parti Liyani, 45, who is from Indonesia, has worked in Singapore since 1996. She was with the Liew household for more than eight years before Mr Liew terminated her employment in October 2016, when he suspected that she was stealing from him. Parti’s lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, told the court on Monday that she intends to appeal against her conviction and sentence. District Judge Olivia Low increased her bail amount from S$10,000 to S$15,000. She will return to the State Courts on April 24 for a pre-trial conference to deal with a last outstanding charge under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. It was stood down at the start of the 20-day trial. When she was arrested on Dec 2, 2016 after returning to Singapore, items belonging to various members of the Liew family were found in her bags, including those of Mr Liew, his son Karl Liew, his daughter May Liew and his daughter-in-law Heather Lim. Read more at https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/changi-airport-group-chairmans-former-maid-jailed-26-months-theft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mith Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 low class rich family! boycott their businesses!. spend your money elsewhere! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 2 hours ago, mith said: these rich families are really the lowest class of people, cheap, blame, lie, cheat about small things in life! the pettiest of type!. could each siblings hire a maid on their own, and separately hire cleaner for offices and workplace... but instead deploy ONE maid to serve different households, and offices and stores! low class cheapskate. can easily discard expensive luxurious branded items like bags, and watches, yet when people pick up and recycle use, they accuse of stealing their properties! doing all these ugly things behind close doors, yet when their ugly faces were threaten to be expose for the public to see, quickly go about lying and destroying actual victim life with their money and power! really the lowest of the lowest scum! i would boycott all their businesses! but isn't it worse troubling a poor maid just for taking revenge on her potential challenge to report them to the authorities? putting her behind bars, troubling her life and not allowing her to move on. they could have attended to her while she was packing and watch what she packs into the boxes. The judge should have doubted the "story" from onset as it would be quite uncommon for some employer to continue engaging a maid for 8 years when they noted that she stole items. That sounds already not very persuasive to me. Usually it goes, once you stole something, you're fired in these jobs. Who would continue employing a dishonest maid for 8 years. And don't forget, the maid was working since 1996 in Singapore. Would any maid be able to have such a long working period if she had been dishonest? Just wonder why this did not ring alarm bells with the first trial judge? Mssg-exchange and And then 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fab Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 (edited) On 9/4/2020 at 12:57 PM, Guest News reader said: Maid acquitted of stealing more than $34k worth of items from Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong's home https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/maid-acquitted-of-stealing-from-changi-airport-group-chairman-liew-mun-leongs "...The judge also found the testimony of Mr Karl Liew to be "highly suspect". Mr Karl Liew had claimed in court that various items of female clothing, allegedly stolen by Parti, belonged to him as he liked to cross-dress." Woo, kinky. Looks like TS for "All "MANLY" gays fall in immeidately!!!" has found her the other sister... So sandalous scandalous. It could be his way of coming out pubicly publicly. Edited September 5, 2020 by fab Quote 鍾意就好，理佢男定女 never argue with the guests. let them bark all they want. 结缘不结怨 解怨不解缘 After I have said what I wanna say, I don't care what you say. 看穿不说穿 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 1 hour ago, Guest Guest said: But ... but .... but ..... these are EXACTLY the type of foreigners that we want to attract into this country here!!!! They bring "goooooood" jobs to attract more foreign trash like YOU to service them!!! So why are YOU complaining?? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest just a maid Posted September 5, 2020 Report Share Posted September 5, 2020 My questions here will be: Had the maid to spend 4 years in jail during the trial due to the allegedly wrongful accusations by her former boss? The opening of the boxes without the maid's consent has already been a privacy violation. Did the Ministry of Manpower condone such behaviour of violating the privacy and did not take any action? Are maids simply handled like slaves without any personal rights? The boxes should have only been opened while the police had been around. But the fact that the previous employer of the maid had opened it themselves in fact later saved the maid with the outcome of her acquittal. If you read the newspaper articles carefully, you will note this attitude and bias (even from the judge): "She is a maid, you can't believe maids". And this is one of the points, courts here are always very quick to deliver judgments. I would not wonder on other cases where people were jailed but in fact innocent. I want to send a "thank you" and word of appreciation to the lawyer defending the maid as he handled the matter "pro bono" (without any pay). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 13 hours ago, Guest just a maid said: My questions here will be: Had the maid to spend 4 years in jail during the trial due to the allegedly wrongful accusations by her former boss? The opening of the boxes without the maid's consent has already been a privacy violation. Did the Ministry of Manpower condone such behaviour of violating the privacy and did not take any action? Are maids simply handled like slaves without any personal rights? The boxes should have only been opened while the police had been around. But the fact that the previous employer of the maid had opened it themselves in fact later saved the maid with the outcome of her acquittal. If you read the newspaper articles carefully, you will note this attitude and bias (even from the judge): "She is a maid, you can't believe maids". And this is one of the points, courts here are always very quick to deliver judgments. I would not wonder on other cases where people were jailed but in fact innocent. I want to send a "thank you" and word of appreciation to the lawyer defending the maid as he handled the matter "pro bono" (without any pay). If the family offered to pay for the shipping of the items into Indonesia, of course they have the rights to inspect the items to be sent. What if she starts shipping 20kg of drugs in those boxes? Who will be responsible? If there are really drugs in those boxes, the maid will at most be considered to be a drug mule, while the entire family who paid for the transportation will be the druglords. As for the lawyer who handled the case "pro Bono" (regardless if that is even true or not), he even had the guts to call up the plaintiffs one by one and even sending them messages. What is this? Threats? Lawyers should deal directly with lawyers, instead of going straight to clients! The previous judges had already removed a few items off from the theft list, and that's more than fair to her. If the maid can actually earn enough money to be in possession of a $10k watch, it is time for the whole Singapore to consider cutting the salary of the maids across the entire country. Your lack of reasoning really stinks of one character, and that's "Disclosed Yourself". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WheelofTime Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 Domestic helper found not guilty of stealing S$34,000 of items from Changi Airport Group chairman Justice prevailed but the domestic worker had to suffer over the past few years to get her conviction overturned. What is the deal with that Karl Liew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kinky Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 On 9/5/2020 at 5:23 PM, fab said: So sandalous scandalous. It could be his way of coming out pubicly publicly. AGC says further action may be warranted in case where ex-maid was acquitted of stealing from CAG chief (From left) Ms Parti Liyani, Mr Liew Mun Leong and Mr Liew's son Karl Liew.PHOTOS: ST FILE PUBLISHED 1 HOUR AGO UPDATED 30 MIN AGO AGC says further action may be warranted in case where ex-maid was acquitted of stealing Looks like a cute grandma when in drag suitable for those with acquired taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 "In delivering her verdict on Wednesday (March 20), District Judge Olivia Low found Parti guilty of four theft charges, adding that she did not find any reason to believe that the Liews and their driver would want to frame the helper for theft." What will happen to this Olivia Low? 🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted September 6, 2020 Report Share Posted September 6, 2020 Just wonder whether the Changi Airport chairman can remain at all his positions once his "deeds" are public domain. Wonder whether he took revenge with other employees at one of the companies, when the employees raised issues or objected him. Can such boss be trusted? Is that what "meritocracy" stands for? With such personal flaws are you surely the best of all candidates for these jobs? Having my doubts.... mith 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mith Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 (edited) consumers actual has so much power but do not exercise them, we are spending mindlessly and unnecessarily supporting all these seedy people in turn making them rich! i mean, surely, spend when necessary. do so wisely too... why support these low class low moral scum! there's always alternatives. for instance, i stop buying breadtalk after all their cheating antics, and irresponsible acts of disposing their factory wastes into the environment etc etc. they were caught so many times already, nowadays, look at their super shrinked size bread which cost minimum of $2.20 to $3.20! so many other brands and tastes out there! COME ON PEOPLE! im going through the liews business, and will avoid at all cost! Edited September 7, 2020 by mith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wonder Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 What is Karl’s BW name? This is one of the strangest things, how can evidence not be bagged and tagged? Don’t they watch tv series like Law & Order to know about chain of custody? Quote Justice Chan found that there was a break in the chain of custody of evidence. This creates a reasonable doubt as to whether some of the allegedly stolen items discovered by the family on Oct 29 were accurately documented by the photographs taken by the police some five weeks later. During this period, the family was told by the police that they were free to use the items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wonder Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Quote During a virtual press conference on Friday, Ms Parti’s lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandan, revealed that he and his assistant have had police reports filed against them by the Liew family, accusing them of harassment, while they worked on Ms Parti’s case. Adding to the difficulties was how he received court-related documents very late. For example, photographs of items Ms Parti was accused of stealing were only given to him on the first day of the trial, according to the lawyer. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/findings-high-court-judge-who-acquitted-maid-theft-warrant-further-investigations-agc I thought all evidence is shared with defence as part of discovery? So late then give can ask for continuance or purposely delay? #watchtoomuchlawandorder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singalion Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 3 hours ago, mith said: consumers actual has so much power but do not exercise them, we are spending mindlessly and unnecessarily supporting all these seedy people in turn making them rich! i mean, surely, spend when necessary. do so wisely too... why support these low class low moral scum! there's always alternatives. for instance, i stop buying breadtalk after all their cheating antics, and irresponsible acts of disposing their factory wastes into the environment etc etc. they were caught so many times already, nowadays, look at their super shrinked size bread which cost minimum of $2.20 to $3.20! so many other brands and tastes out there! COME ON PEOPLE! im going through the liews business, and will avoid at all cost! The problem is more on what you can trust and what not. The second problem is where to you start and where do you stop. Do you check every textile item you buy to wear? Where is it manufactured? Who is behind? My problem with Breadtalk was more their refusal to publish whether they use Trans Fat in their products or not. Not sure if they ever published whether their products are transfat free. Then I thought they are anyhow overpriced (from start). The business model was, be at a heavily frequented spot. Did you know they used artificial baking smell to attract people? I don't think you can avoid Changi Airport, once you are traveling. Your office or some facility management might be run by Surbana or Capitaland. You do a course at CDAC? Got some shares at the SGX? It is probably not possible to avoid any of those SG companies... Here is a list of LIEW MUN LEONG appointments (probably he is holding much more positions): Chairman of Changi Airport Group. Mr Liew was the founding Group President and CEO of CapitaLand Limited. He is currently the Chairman of Surbana Jurong Private Limited. Mr Liew sits on the boards of Singapore Exchange, Singapore-China Foundation Ltd and the Chinese Development Assistance Council. He also chairs the Board of Temasek Foundation Nurtures CLG Ltd, the Management Advisory Board of NUS Business School and the NUS School of Continuing and Lifelong Education (SCALE) Industry Advisory Board. He is a Senior International Advisor of Temasek. Comment: His best position is probably on the Continuing and Lifelong Education, ha ha. Seems he forget this for himself in character building and soft skills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_M Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Get back to the topic. Out of topic post will be removed! All Xenophobic post moved to Flaming room Quote http://www.facebook.com/gachimuchi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mate69 Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 a much-needed rebalancing of the human ecosystem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reports Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Activist Kokila Annamalai: Former domestic worker Parti Liyani’s case ‘a cautionary tale’ about ‘lack of due process’ for accused migrant workers in S’pore’s criminal justice system 4 September 2020 While the High Court’s decision to acquit former domestic worker Parti Liyani may be seen as “redemptive”, her case serves as “a cautionary tale” to other accused migrant workers about the possible “lack of due process” for them in the Singapore criminal justice system, said activist Kokila Annamalai. She was previously found guilty of stealing over S$34,000 worth of items belonging to Changi Airport Group (CAG) chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family. Justice Chan Seng Onn, in allowing Ms Parti’s appeal against her conviction and jail sentence of two years and two months, branded the Liew family as having “improper motives” against Ms Parti. In a Facebook post on Friday (4 September), Ms Kokila — citing Justice Chan’s findings — questioned how the Liew family will be held accountable for purportedly having framed Ms Parti. “If, in fact, they framed Liyani, as her defense team argued, how will they be held accountable for this? Karl Liew’s testimony was described by the judge as “highly suspect” – but will he have to account for his actions? What does reparations for four years of Yani’s life look like, and who will provide it?” She stressed. Ms Kokila also highlighted how Ms Parti was arrested upon arrival for alleged theft of the items when she returned to Singapore to seek new employment. Ms Parti was subsequently subjected to hours of questioning using dubious evidence such as “blurry, black-and-white images of the items she was accused of stealing” and was not provided with a translator at the time her statements were recorded by the police, Ms Kokila noted. The activist also criticised the police’s alleged failure to conduct an independent evaluation of the cost of items Ms Parti was accused of stealing and their decision to accept the Liew family’s valuation, such as how a broken watch was valued at the guesstimated price of a new watch. “Yani’s original sentence of 2 years and 2 months was because the value of these items was accepted by the court, despite the defense presenting expert witnesses who testified otherwise,” said Ms Kokila. The decision to prosecute Ms Parti, in fact, was questionable, given that there were breaks in the chain of custody and that the items never left the Liew residence the entire time, she added. “Will the AGC be asked to explain their decision to prosecute her? Why did District Judge Olivia Low find her guilty last year, and give her such a long sentence?” Ms Kokila questioned. Noting that non-government organisation Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics (HOME) and Ms Parti’s pro bono defence team — led by her counsel Anil Balchandani — had “poured a lot of scarce resources into” her welfare while she was unable to work in the last four years, Ms Kokila said: “What is the state’s responsibility towards vulnerable individuals who might be victims of malicious prosecution?” “If a migrant worker is required to stay in Singapore for legal proceedings, either as a witness to a case, or because they’ve been charged with an offense, what is the state and society’s duty of care towards them? “Yani has spent the last almost four years at the HOME shelter, unable to work. If HOME had not found someone to put up her bail ($15,000!), both when she was initially charged and after she was convicted, pending appeal, she would have spent 3 years and 9 months in jail. “If HOME and her pro bono lawyer Anil Balchandani (what a star!) had not fought alongside Yani for years, finding the money to hire expert witnesses, finding the courage to go up against a daunting system and a powerful family, Yani’s chances at clearing her name and staying out of prison would have been terribly slim,” She stressed. Ms Kokila urged for reforms to be made to Singapore’s criminal justice system in light of the “incalculable harm” inflicted against Ms Parti and her loved ones as a result of her prosecution and conviction. “Countless migrant workers confess to crimes they didn’t commit and serve time in prison because they don’t believe they can get justice, and because it can take longer to fight the case than to serve the time. “We might see Yani’s case as redemptive, but it is a cautionary tale to many workers about how long and hard one has to fight – without income, without freedoms, without being able to see your family, and against a bureaucratic, intimidating system,” said Ms Kokila. Mr Anil today told the High Court that he will apply for compensation to be paid to Ms Parti in the wake of her unemployment for the last four years as a result of the case. In the previous hearing on Ms Parti’s appeal against her sentence on 1 November last year, Mr Anil submitted to the High Court before Justice Chan that Judge Low had “completely erred” in accepting certain evidence put forth from the prosecution’s end, and for her to “just carve out what was convenient for her” in relation to the items included in the charge. “Although allowable under Section 138 … of the CPC, it did a grave injustice to the defence, because the defence could only prove certain items and to establish her credibility,” he said. Mr Anil pointed out that consent was given to Ms Parti for some of the items, while some others were “actually owned and purchased” by the former domestic worker herself. Ms Parti’s lawyer submitted that Mr Karl had previously claimed to have bought kitchen utensils in 2002 in the UK, and a family member had attempted to corroborate this claim by testifying that Ms Parti had helped Mr Karl unpack them when he returned to Singapore in 2002. However, Parti was only employed by Mr Liew in 2007, Mr Anil pointed out. Further, she was able to identify the pricing and dates of purchase pertaining to the utensils, as she was the one who had purchased most of them at a secondhand store, except for one bought using NTUC rewards. An independent witness named Ms Teo had testified that a black handle knife that was part of the kitchen utensils in dispute above could only have been made in 2006, speaking from the perspective of the manager and director of Jarmay Enterprises, the firm that made the knife. Judge Low, however, had decided to set aside Ms Teo’s evidence as the latter had alleged harassment from the defence lawyer despite only having been issued a writ to attend court once, according to Mr Anil. Further, Mr Anil highlighted that the utensils were stored “in a box covered with a sheet” at “the back of the house”. If Karl claimed they were his, he could have taken them back or taken them because they were his, argued Mr Anil and noted that Mr Karl had not done anything regarding the kitchen items for 14 years. Mr Anil also highlighted that a quilt cover from IKEA belonging to Ms Parti has the same pattern as a bedsheet Mr Karl said he had bought at Habitat in the United Kingdom as a student. The lawyer argued that his client had, in fact, bought both the quilt cover and the bedsheet, and was able to provide information on the price, location and the approximate time she bought the items. Mr Anil argued that it was wrong for Judge Low to have removed the quilt cover from the list of items in Ms Parti’s charge — the District Judge reasoned that it was not an item of men’s clothing — as doing so does not address his client’s reasonable evidence regarding the matching IKEA quilt cover and bedsheet. Judge Low, according to Mr Anil, even said that it needs to be proven that “Habitat does not sell IKEA items”, which to the lawyer is an indication that the judge “was not accepting facts that are before her”. Mr Karl, said Mr Anil, had also lied about two wallets previously included in Ms Parti’s charge, and said they were given by his relatives. However, the lawyer pointed out that Mr Karl was unable to answer other questions regarding the wallets, which Judge Low had acknowledged. His client, on the other hand, said that the wallets were given by her domestic worker friend Dia Kapi, the latter of whom testified that she bought them at Takashimaya and Paragon. Ms Dia was also able to identify certain tears in the wallets. Pointing out that Mr Karl is “not a stranger” to the judicial process, Mr Anil also referred to a 2017 case the younger Liew was involved in where he was found liable of deceit making false representations to businessman Alan Zhou about the latter’s investments in China. Mr Karl was a business partner of Mr Zhou at the time. Justice Audrey Lim said in 2018 that she found Mr Karl “to be a dishonest and evasive witness whose evidence was riddled with inconsistencies”. She found that contrary to Karl’s claim that Mr Zhou had transferred the investment funds without his prior approval, he was in fact “aware of the transactions and money transfers… as he was copied”. Mr Anil argued that Justice Lim had found him to be an unreliable witness, as stated in her written judgement. His client, on the other hand, has been consistent in her evidence and was largely able to recall details regarding the price of the items. Mr Anil also alleged that the police report filed by the Liews against Ms Parti — a few days after she left the country — was possibly made due to Ms Parti expressing her intention to make a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower regarding her illegal deployment at Mr Karl’s home at 39 Chancery Lane and his office at Killiney Road. Mr Karl had purportedly asked Ms Parti to clean his house at 39 Chancery Lane, which Mr Karl resided with Ms Heather and their children after they had moved out of Mr Liew’s family home at 49 Chancery Lane in Mar 2016. In addition, Ms Parti was also asked to clean Mr Karl’s office in Killiney Road at a point of time for a period of a year until the office closed. This was again the case when Ms Parti was asked to do outside Mr Liew’s family home for Karl’s home and told Mrs Liew that the workload was “too much” for her. A week or two afterwards, Ms Parti’s employment was terminated. “That is something that we believe would have hurt the Liews’ interest, a complaint [by Ms Parti to MOM],” Mr Anil charged. Ms Parti, on the other end, “is a vulnerable person” defined within Singapore laws, and “is not in any position to make assertions”. When prompted by Justice Chan as to what form the remuneration took and to what extent Ms Parti was compensated for her work in the aforementioned places, Mr Foo said that she was paid around S$20 to S$30. The judge further probed if the amount was meant for one day, to which Mr Foo replied that it was “for the service performed in question”. Justice Chan responded with an analogy to illustrate whether the remuneration made for Ms Parti’s additional workload was fair: “$20 to perform 100 hours of work is peanuts”. He suggested that the value of compensation must be reasonable, putting aside the issue of whether the work Ms Parti was asked to do was legal. Background of the case Ms Parti was convicted in March last year of stealing items belonging to Mr Liew and his family — his son Karl Liew in particular — after her employment was terminated on 28 Oct 2016 and before being repatriated to Indonesia. Mr Liew had asked Mr Karl to oversee the termination and repatriation process as the former was abroad at the time. During the District Court trial, Mr Liew had testified that he suspected Ms Parti of stealing for years when he discovered that certain items went missing at his Chancery Lane house. Ms Parti’s termination was made purportedly after she had stolen a portable power bank gifted to him by a university in France that had invited him to give a guest lecture back in 2015. Prior to being sent back to her home country, Ms Parti was given only two hours to pack her belongings despite having worked for the family for almost nine years. Mr Liew subsequently reported the purported theft on 30 October the same year after returning to Singapore. Less than two months later, Ms Parti was arrested at Changi Airport on 2 December upon her return to Singapore. District Judge Olivia Low sentenced Ms Parti to two years and two months of jail, following which Ms Parti made her appeal against the conviction and the jail sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reports Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Liew Mun Leong His biography says he has 24 years of experience in the “private sector.” This is a somewhat surprising definition of private sector since it appears to have been mostly with CapitaLand, a Temasek spin-off and subsidiary. In 2007 he received a bonus of $21 million when CapitaLand made a record profit of $2.76 billion which is not bad for someone who went straight from the Civil Service to heading a GLC and rather better than the “peanuts” of a paltry one to two million dollars that one receives as a senior civil servant. Even $21 million, about 400 to 500 times the median income at that time, was and is undoubtedly paltry compared to what his boss, the PM’s wife, received and continues to receive as the head of Temasek, though she is less eager to let Singaporeans know what she earns. If you take the proportion of the profits of CapitaLand that Mr Liew received and assume that Ho Ching gets the same percentage (about 1% or slightly under) then Ho Ching’s remuneratrion must be around $100-150 million per year, suggesting that the Taiwanese news network was quite accurate in their assessment. For those unfamiliar with the details of the case, Mr Liew, while abroad, decided to sack his maid,who had worked for him for nine years, in October 2016 and she was given two hours to pack before being sent back to Indonesia. After being terminated Ms Liyani apparently threatened to lodge a complaint with MOM about being forced to clean the home and office of his son Karl, which is illegal under MOM rules for Foreign Domestic Workers. She also asked the family to ship her belongings, which were in three “jumbo” boxes, back to Indonesia after she had gone. The next day the family opened the boxes and claimed that many of the items allegedly belonged to members of the household. On October 30th Mr Liew returned to Singapore and together with his son made a police report. The police then took till December 3rd to visit the alleged crime scene, a day after they arrested Ms Liyani on her return to Singapore from Indonesia. Despite the obvious concerns about the veracity of the evidence, since the Liews could have put anything into the boxes after the maid left and then filmed themselves removing them from the box, Ms Liyani was convicted of four counts of theft and sentenced to 26 months in jail by District Judge Olivia Lum. Fortunately she had a probono lawyer and was backed by migrant worker NGO HOME. She has now succeeded in her appeal after Justice Chan gave her the benefit of the doubt. What is remarkable is that the district judge convicted her despite the obvious flaws in the prosecution case and her contention that their police report was an attempt to stop her making a complaint. The Attorney General’s Office and the police, who are often extremely reluctant to prosecute even straightforward cases when ordinary individuals are the victims, seems to have bent over backwards to help the Liews. The sheer scale of Mr Liew’s arrogance in thinking that he could so casually ruin a “little” person’s life and have her thrown into jail beggars belief. Also that they would feel the need to behave like psychopaths in a compulsive desire to win at all costs against someone with an infinitesimal fraction of their wealth and life chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reports Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Sunday Emails from a Chairman (Vol. 5) by Liew Mun Leong January 8, 2019 For Christmas, my boss gave all of us books. Specifically, he gave us Volume 5 of Sunday Em@ils from a Chairman and wrote a note recommending certain chapters to each one of us. Since he asked us immediately after Christmas if we’ve finished it (spoiler alert: no one had), I decided to move this book to the top of my reading list, just in case. Like the title says, Sunday Em@ils from a Chairman is a collection of emails that Liew Mun Leong sent out, divided into five parts: Core Values, Leadership and Pragmatism: This was perhaps the most useful section for me. Over several emails, Liew Mun Leong talks about his leadership philosophy. Basically, he draws a line between pragmatism (being flexible and open to ideas but holding on to core values) and practical (everything is up for negotiation). The distinction is interesting and I think reminding myself to be pragmatic in the workplace will be useful. Unsurprisingly, chapters from this section were recommended to me. Changi Airport and the Aviation Industry: These emails are more focused on Changi, its history, and the potential growth in the aviation industry for our region. That said, these emails also contain nuggets about how we can prepare for the future and the importance of giving people a chance to implement their ideas. International Perspectives: The third section is called International Perspectives but a large chunk of it is about China, its development, and the One Belt, One Road/Belt and Road Initiative. Liew Mun Leong is largely positive about China and while I gained a sense of appreciation about how much China has developed in such a short time from his recollections, I think he’s a bit optimistic about the political intentions of the Chinese government. But to be fair to him, I’ve been a bit sceptical ever since I’ve learnt about the social credit system, the Nauru incident, and China detaining Canadians because of the Huawei arrest, so it’s very possible that he’s right about China and I’m just influenced by all the things I read (no sarcasm here because I do not have the ground experience he does). Engineering and Project Management: Only three emails in here, but it’s pretty interesting and I’ve gained a newfound respect for project managers and engineers! Personal Reflections: Here, he talks about art, food, and how to stay healthy! Definitely interesting reading, although I would have liked to know his thoughts on work-life balance (or was that covered in an earlier volume?) The appendix of the book is basically a transcription of interviews with him, but if you’ve read the emails, then most of the main points would be covered. Overall, I thought this book was interesting and surprisingly relevant to my working life. This is one of the books that you should read if you want to reap the benefit of years of experience without having to go through it. I’m actually really glad that my boss gave this to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reports Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 AGC says further action may be warranted in case where ex-maid was acquitted of stealing from CAG chief Published Sep 6, 2020, 7:04 pm SGT Updated Sep 6, 2020, 7:49 pm Dominic Low SINGAPORE - The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) will study the High Court judgment by Justice Chan Seng Onn following the acquittal of a former domestic worker of stealing from Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family. This is to assess what further action, if any, ought to be taken in this case, the AGC said in a statement on Sunday (Sept 6). In arriving at his decision, one of Justice Chan's findings was that there was reason to believe that the Liew family took the pre-emptive step of terminating the maid's employment suddenly and without giving her sufficient time to pack, in the hope that she would not use the time to make a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower about her illegal deployment to work for Mr Liew's son Karl, it said. He found that when she had threatened to complain to the MOM after her sudden termination, the senior Mr Liew and Mr Karl Liew lodged the police report to prevent her return to Singapore to lodge a complaint with the ministry. He also disbelieved the evidence of several members of the Liew family on various issues, it added. The AGC will study the judgment to assess what further action, if any, ought to be taken in this case, in the light of Justice Chan's comments, said the AGC. "His findings do raise questions which warrant further investigations." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reports Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Maid accused of theft, then acquitted: CAG chief's daughter's two watches were counterfeit ones Published Sep 6, 2020, 5:00 am SGT Ms Parti Liyani was accused of stealing two watches, various fashion accessories including rings and earrings, and a pair of Gucci sunglasses from Mr Liew Mun Leong's daughter, Cheng May. Ms Parti said she had found the watches in Ms Liew's rubbish bin. They were counterfeit; one, a "Vacheron Constantin", had been bought from a Shanghai street vendor in the 2000s, while the other was a Swatch that Ms Parti said she found in 2012. Ms Liew said she had not discarded the watches. Justice Chan, however, accepted the defence's argument that "as an investment banker from an affluent family, it makes it probable that May had discarded these counterfeit watches given her 'social status' by 2012". As for the fashion accessories, Ms Liew said she last saw them in 2004 before leaving for the United States and did not throw them away after she returned in 2010. Ms Parti said she bought some of the earrings and found most of the accessories in Ms Liew's rubbish bin in 2011 or 2012. Buying counterfeit items and bringing back to Singapore??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest reports Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 Accused of theft, then acquitted: Police report by CAG chief's family was to stop maid from complaining to MOM, says judge Published Sep 6, 2020, For the nine years from 2007 that she worked for Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family, Indonesian Parti Liyani had a relatively harmonious relationship with its members. They gave her generous red packets and raised her monthly salary from $300 to $600. However, from time to time, she clashed with her employer's son, Karl, over her household chores at the Chancery Lane family home. Things got more heated when Mr Karl Liew moved out with his family in March 2016 to a house nearby. The domestic worker was told to go there to help with the chores, as well as clean his office in another location. It is disputed how often Ms Parti was asked to do the extra work. Mr Liew Mun Leong's wife, Madam Ng Lai Peng, said she paid the maid $20 on each of the three occasions she asked her to work at her son's house. But Ms Parti, 46, said she cleaned Mr Karl Liew's office once a week for about a year. She said she received $10 for two to three days of work, and the payment was not regular. Disputes arose over her refusal to clean a toilet at his home and to cook extra food for him. On Oct 28, 2016, when Mr Karl Liew told Ms Parti she was fired, she replied: "I know why. You angry (sic) because I refused to clean up your toilet." Two days later, while she was back in Indonesia, Mr Liew (Mun Leong) and his son (Karl Liew) made a police report after the family allegedly found their belongings in three boxes, which Mr Karl Liew had agreed to pay to ship to her. In his judgment, Justice Chan Seng Onn noted that "some time prior to her termination", Ms Parti had expressed unhappiness at being made to do additional work. "There is reason to believe that the Liew family, upon realising her unhappiness, took the pre-emptive first step to terminate her employment suddenly without giving her sufficient time for her to pack, in the hope that Parti would not use the time to make a complaint to MOM." Once she made clear - upon being fired - her desire to complain to MOM, the Liew family "followed up with the police report to ensure her return would be prevented", said the judge. "In my view, the Liew family might not have made a police report had Parti not made her express threat on Oct 28, 2016 to report the matter to MOM." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted September 7, 2020 Report Share Posted September 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, Guest reports said: Maid accused of theft, then acquitted: CAG chief's daughter's two watches were counterfeit ones Published Sep 6, 2020, 5:00 am SGT Ms Parti Liyani was accused of stealing two watches, various fashion accessories including rings and earrings, and a pair of Gucci sunglasses from Mr Liew Mun Leong's daughter, Cheng May. Ms Parti said she had found the watches in Ms Liew's rubbish bin. They were counterfeit; one, a "Vacheron Constantin", had been bought from a Shanghai street vendor in the 2000s, while the other was a Swatch that Ms Parti said she found in 2012. Ms Liew said she had not discarded the watches. Justice Chan, however, accepted the defence's argument that "as an investment banker from an affluent family, it makes it probable that May had discarded these counterfeit watches given her 'social status' by 2012". As for the fashion accessories, Ms Liew said she last saw them in 2004 before leaving for the United States and did not throw them away after she returned in 2010. Ms Parti said she bought some of the earrings and found most of the accessories in Ms Liew's rubbish bin in 2011 or 2012. Buying counterfeit items and bringing back to Singapore??? https://sg.news.yahoo.com/freegans-arrested-theft-dumpster-diving-065947848.html Singapore The law on abandonment in Singapore is currently unsettled. Lawyer Ronald Wong is of the opinion that the concept of abandonment may not be recognised here: “As a matter of policy, it would be problematic if where someone disposes property, whether intentionally or accidentally, it would be deemed that he no longer has any right to the property. It would be prudent to take the Williams v Philips approach [in English law] whereby a person is taken to make a ‘gift’ of property in their rubbish to the rubbish collection company. And if there was an unintentional disposal, then there was no intention of such a gift, and the title to the property remains with the person. If it were any other way, the practical and legal repercussions would be quite severe, with everything ranging from the losing of valuables to corporate espionage (people dumpster-diving for documents etc.)” In this case, the daughter has clearly stated that she did not throw it away, which can also mean that she never had the intentions of throwing it away in the first place, regardless if she did it or not. Therefore, the title to the property, regardless if it was fake or not, remains with the original owner. So, by this account alone, there is already an admission of theft by the maid herself, when the maid said that she "found most of the accessories in Ms Liew's rubbish bin in 2011 or 2012". What more is there to argue? Jail the maid!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts