• Ms Parti Liyani planned to complain to the MOM about her short termination notice period and not about her illegal deployment
• This was confirmed by a maid agent who was present at her termination
• Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said this is “quite different” from the inference the High Court made which formed the basis of her acquittal

SINGAPORE — Stressing that the High Court’s decision to overturn Ms Parti Liyani’s theft conviction is final, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 4) nonetheless that more evidence — albeit untested — has been uncovered relating to a key factor that contributed to the ruling. 

“Members must take this further evidence in its proper context: It is evidence untested in court. But since this has come up during the further investigations, as to whether the Liews (Ms Parti’s former employers) committed an offence, I am duty-bound to set out in this House because it is in my possession,” Mr Shanmugam told Parliament. 

The new evidence uncovered is that the foreign domestic worker’s threat to file a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) after being fired was over her short notice of termination and not her illegal deployment by her former employer Liew Mun Leong, who is the ex-chairman of Changi Airport Group. 

Ms Parti’s desire to complain to MOM about her short notice of termination was confirmed by a maid agent who was present at her termination, Mr Shanmugam revealed in his ministerial statement on the case, which received much attention nationwide and led to public questioning on whether there was improper influence in the authorities’ handling of the case. 

Mr Shanmugam said that the new evidence regarding Ms Parti’s complaint is “quite different” from the inference the High Court had made during the appeal, which formed the basis for her acquittal. 

Based on the evidence at the time of the appeal, the High Court inferred that Ms Parti was going to file a complaint to MOM about her being made to work illegally at the office and home of Mr Liew’s son Karl, giving rise to reasonable doubt that both father and son may have an “improper motive” for accusing her of theft. 

Mr Shanmugam noted that Justice Chan Seng Onn had said in his judgement that Ms Parti did not say what she wanted to complain to MOM about, but the judge had understandably inferred that it was going to be about her illegal deployment based on the evidence and submissions presented at that time. 

“The High Court didn’t have the benefit of this additional evidence. And I have said earlier that our purpose is not to reopen the High Court’s findings,” he said. 

Despite the new evidence, he said that the High Court’s decision is final and there would be no appeal. 

Ms Parti was originally sentenced to 26 months' jail in March 2019 but it was overturned by the High Court in September after she appealed. 

Mr Shanmugam also said that maid agents offered to help Ms Parti in filing the MOM complaint twice — first at Mr Liew’s house and then at the agent’s office — but she refused both times. 

She eventually did lodge a complaint with MOM about her being illegally deployed to work outside her employer’s home in September and October 2017, after she was formally charged by the Attorney-General’s Chambers for theft. 

During her trial, she testified that she wanted to complain to MOM about her being made to work illegally elsewhere. 

Besides inferring that Ms Parti’s threat to file an MOM complaint was about her illegal deployment, the High Court also said that her sudden termination was because the Liews hoped that she would not have enough time to make the complaint. 

Justice Chan said during his judgement that the Liews filed a police report just two days after she was terminated to prevent her from making the complaint. 

However, Mr Shanmugam said investigations showed that the Liews had been considering terminating Ms Parti since end-2015 because Mr Liew had already suspected her of stealing since then. 

His wife had gone to a maid agency then to get a new domestic worker but no firm decision was made until September 2016, a month before Ms Parti was terminated. 

Mr Shanmugam noted that the filing of a police report would not prevent Ms Parti from lodging a complain with MOM.

If the Liews were indeed most concerned about her going to MOM, filing a police report would be a way for Ms Parti’s complaint to surface, he pointed out.