Parti Liyani case: Karl Liew investigated for possible perjury, other crimes; decision on further action soon

• Mr Karl Liew has been investigated over possible perjury or other crimes in relation to the Parti Liyani case, Mr Shanmugam said
• The outcome will be announced soon, he told Parliament
• An appeal judge cast doubt on the credibility of Mr Karl Liew’s evidence in the trial of Ms Parti on theft charges

SINGAPORE  — The authorities have completed an investigation into Mr Karl Liew, the son of businessman Mr Liew Mun Leong, over possible perjury and other criminal offences, and the outcome will be announced soon, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 4). 

The investigation came after an appeal judge raised questions about Mr Karl Liew’s credibility as a witness in a criminal case against Ms Parti Liyani, a foreign domestic worker accused of theft by the older Mr Liew, who is her former employer. 

“Investigations have been completed. A statement will be announced later this evening based on the investigations,” said Mr Shanmugam, who was making a ministerial statement on Ms Parti’s case.

Ms Parti was initially sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment but she appealed and the High Court overturned the initial verdict and acquitted her of all charges. 

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

Mr Liew Mun Leong was most recently the chairman of Changi Airport Group, as well as the former head honcho of several government-linked companies, until he resigned, saying that he did not want his “situation” to be a distraction to the companies in question.

The evidence provided by Mr Karl Liew during the trial was highlighted by the High Court Judge, with Justice Chan Seng Onn stating in his judgement that there were “serious doubts on Karl’s credibility”. 

Not only were there inconsistencies in his statements, some claims he made also did not check out with the rest of his family members, court documents showed. 

Hence, the High Court gave the statements of Mr Karl Liew little weight and disregarded all of his evidence given that Ms Parti’s liberty was at stake, noted Mr Shanmugam. 

In addition, the High Court also “disbelieved (Karl Liew’s) evidence and thought he was being untruthful”, Mr Shanmugam said.

“There are many aspects of Karl Liew’s conduct and evidence which are highly unsatisfactory, which raise scepticism, based on what he said at the trial. He appeared not to be a credible witness,” he added.

Some examples of Mr Karl Liew’s inconsistent statements include: 

• He initially claimed all 120 pieces of clothing that Ms Parti stole were all his, including women’s clothing

• However, he could not recall whether some items, such as a black dress and a red blouse, were his or whether he had worn them

• He also said that he sometimes wore women’s clothes, an assertion Justice Chan said was “highly unbelievable”

• However, his mother, wife and sister said they have never seen Mr Karl Liew in women’s clothes

• Mr Karl Liew said his father gave him a S$50 Helix watch, but his father said he had never owned such a watch

• Mr Karl Liew said that his family gave him a S$250 Gucci wallet but none of them could recall doing so

• Mr Karl Liew said he bought bedsheets from a retailer called Habitat in the United Kingdom, but later conceded that it had the label of Swedish furniture retailer Ikea

• His wife also did not recall seeing the bedsheets