Parti Liyani Released Pointed Statement After Karl Liew Was Sentenced to Jail

By
Lim Xuan Qi
-

Last Updated on 2023-04-18 , 5:14 pm

The Parti Liyani saga has dragged on so long, but it’s not in vain—the end is in sight as justice finally prevails, with Karl Liew sentenced to jail for lying in court.

In response, Ms Liyani released an edited version of a victim impact statement that was initially meant to be given to the judge at Karl Liew’s hearing, but was not submitted due to it not being required for sentencing.

Quick Overview

To briefly recap the case, Parti Liyani was originally sentenced to 26 months’ jail after being convicted of four charges of theft and one charge of fraudulent possession of property.

The case shot to fame partly because her employers were high-profile millionaires—she worked for Chang Airport Group’s former chairman Liew Mun Leong and his family for around nine years.

They accused her of stealing their items in boxes she packed to take home, upon termination of her employment. The family claimed that she stole $34,000 worth of items, ranging from expensive watches to clothing, accessories and electronic devices. 

She was arrested upon her return to Singapore, when she came back in search of a new job.

In an unexpected turn of events, however, she appealed her sentence and managed to prove her innocence. She was acquitted of all her charges, finally setting her free.

Her employer, Liew Mun Leong’s son Karl Liew, wasn’t so lucky. He’d lied in court when he falsely testified that two of the items, a red blouse and cream polo T-shirt, belonged to him.

Karl Liew later pleaded guilty on 30 March to giving false information to a public servant, and was sentenced to two weeks’ jail.

Parti Liyani’s Statement

On 14 April, after Karl Liew’s sentencing, Parti Liyani released her statement on a website dedicated to her case.

She had hoped that the statement would be given to Honourable District Judge Eugene Teo, who presided over the case, to aid in making his decision against Karl Liew. 

However, she was told by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) that the statement was not required, and was not offered an explanation as to why.

In her statement, she spoke about the economic and social impacts she faced due to the case. 

Upon her return to Singapore, she was not allowed to work but had to stay in the country until her case was concluded.

Although she luckily received assistance from the local charity Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) in accommodating her, she was still unable to earn an income for four years.

According to her, she came from a poor family in Indonesia and would consistently give part of her earnings to them; her lack of income therefore impacted her mother “every day for four years”. 

Despite HOME’s assistance in raising $28,000 for her, it was not enough to make up for what she could’ve earned in four years.

She further elaborated on the material impact of the case, since Karl Liew was still under investigation and a few of the items involved that belonged to her, like the shirt and blouse, could not be returned.

“I was more deprived of my rights to access my personal belongings,” she wrote.

Social Impact Of The Case

The second part of the statement talks about the social impact of the case, worsened by the widespread media coverage. 

According to her, some articles were translated into her native language, Bahasa Indonesia, and she was worried her ageing mother would hear about the case and her “tarnished reputation”, which she tried to conceal from her family.

It also caused her to lose friends in Singapore, because they lost their trust in her.

She thanked Justice Chan Seng Onn, the judge that had presided over her appeal and acquitted her, for recovering her reputation. She also expressed that she was grateful justice prevailed.

Then, she pointedly addressed former employer Karl Liew, criticizing him and his family for being unremorseful. She added that she had not received an apology from the family at all, and Karl Liew had only admitted his guilt when slapped with legal charges. 

“Since the day Liew Mun Leong filed a report to the police to the day the hearing at the State Court concluded, never once Karl showed any seriousness in giving honest evidence,” she wrote. “Karl Liew, as all other people residing in Singapore who are obligated to obey the law, should have treated the entire legal process seriously.”

She ended the letter by saying that she hoped her case “shall be the last” and that no one else would have to go through what she did in the future.

Jail For Karl Liew

Nevertheless, it seems like justice has finally won, and Karl Liew faces jail time for his crimes.

In court on 14 April, Karl Liew was sentenced to two weeks’ jail by a district judge, though both the prosecution and defence had only sought a fine of S$5,000. 

However, the judge decided that the fine was not enough—the financial penalty would barely put a dent in his fortune, after all—and sent him to prison instead.

Karl Liew’s lawyers had called for just the fine, because their client was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a neurodegenerative disorder that worsens over time.

Although the judge acknowledged this, he said that a letter from Singapore’s prisons confirmed that they could accommodate Karl Liew’s condition in jail.

He also stressed that the matter was grave, because Karl Liew had not only falsely reported an offence, but also furnished his claims with fake statements to the police and in court under oath.

“It is abhorrent for the justice system to result in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person, and efforts to prevent that must be taken,” the judge said.

Here’s a simplified summary of the South Korea martial law that even a 5-year-old would understand:

Read Also:

Advertisements
 
Lim Xuan Qi
Email: [email protected]