Review of the Case of Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor 2020 SGHC 187

Mr Speaker: Minister for Home Affairs and Law Mr Shanmugam.

2.36 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to speak on this.

Sir, in March 2019, Ms Parti Liyani – and I will refer to her as Ms Liyani – was convicted in the State Courts on four theft-related charges. She was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment. She appealed to the High Court against her conviction and sentence, and on 4 September 2020, she was acquitted on all the charges by the High Court.

A number of questions have been raised following her acquittal. They centre around: how did the Police and Attorney-General's Chambers or AGC handle the case? How should the State Court Judgment be assessed, given the High Court’s views?

These are important questions. There has been much attention on this case. Members have filed questions. Many news reports and commentaries on this, since September.

There has been interest because underlying these questions, which are specific to the case, there is a broader, more fundamental question:

(a) Did a powerful man, Mr Liew Mun Leong, and I will refer to him as LML, work the system to his advantage?

(b) Did the Police and AGC unfairly prosecute Ms Liyani, because LML was the complainant?

(c) Did Ms Liyani get a fair trial in the State Courts?

(d) Do we have one law for the wealthy, socially connected, and another for the rest of society?

This fundamental issue is at the heart of many of the questions that have been raised. And that question is of central importance to us. The credibility of our system, the foundation of our society depends on us ensuring that there is Rule of Law and the Law applies equally to all.

If that principle is compromised, then Singapore is compromised. It is a basic duty of the Government to ensure that that principle is upheld and I take it very seriously. And so it is good that we deal with this, with the questions that have been asked.

I will start first with the case: the investigations, the conduct of trial and the specific questions which have arisen, relating to the case – it will be Part 1 of my Statement. I will then move on to Part 2 which will deal with the fundamental questions as I have put them. And in Part 3, I will deal with the questions that Members of Parliament have raised.

May I suggest two things, Sir. It is not going to be a short speech. And at the end of Part 1, it may be appropriate to take a break and then come back for Parts 2 and 3.

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr K Shanmugam: At the end of Part 1, but certainly by end of Part 3, we will probably know what is happening in the US. [Laughter.]

Let me start with the facts. The facts are as follows.

Ms Liyani was an Indonesian domestic worker working in Singapore since 1997. According to her, LML was her third employer. But MOM records show that LML was in fact her seventh employer. She worked for LML from March 2007 until 28 October 2016. Her employment was terminated on that day. In Court, the following was said – and I am setting out what was said, not commenting whether it is true or false.

Over the years, the family’s possessions went missing. LML gave examples such as a bag he bought from Tokyo, his jogging shoes, a number of Longchamp bags. He suspected Ms Liyani of stealing but did not take action as he could not be sure. A specially designed power bank from France, that was gifted to LML, “disappeared” a few days after he had received it.

Subsequent investigations showed that this may have happened in May 2016. By then, the only occupants in the house were LML, his wife Ng Lai Peng – whom I will refer to as NLP – and Ms Liyani. Though some others may have had access to the house, LML then decided to terminate Ms Liyani’s employment.

In this context – and I should add and I will come back to this later – subsequent investigations also showed that earlier, in late 2015, the Liews were looking to replace Ms Liyani because they thought she was stealing things. But no firm decision was taken. In September 2016, they decided to terminate her employment and told the maid agency.

Once a replacement helper was available, they decided to let Ms Liyani go. LML was travelling, he told his wife to arrange for people to be around and serve the notice of termination.

On 28 October 2016, at about 11 am, Karl Liew – I will refer to him as Karl – LML's son, went to LML’s residence at 49 CL with employment agents and this was at LML’s request. Karl told Ms Liyani they were sending her back. No reasons were initially given. Ms Liyani asked for reasons.

Karl told her that “there are missing items in the house and the only people staying in the house were my father, my mother and you”. She was asked to pack her belongings and given two months’ salary as compensation, in addition to that month’s salary.

Ms Liyani asked for boxes to pack her things. These were provided to her. She packed them with some assistance from the Liews’ other employees. She sealed one box with tape and wrote her address on it. The other two boxes were sealed by two other employees of LML. Karl agreed to pay for the boxes to be sent back to Indonesia.

Ms Liyani left the house with the employment agent and returned to Indonesia that night. The replacement helper commenced her employment at LML’s house on the same day, 28 October 2016. When he got home, Karl told his wife Heather Lim – and I will refer to her as Heather – about what had happened. Heather told him that the boxes should not be sent back without knowing what was inside them.

On 29 October 2016, in the afternoon, NLP, Karl and Heather opened the boxes. They said they found items which belonged to them which they had not seen for years. They spent about two hours going through the items. They also took a 21-second video. LML returned to Singapore some time on 29 October 2016. He spent a short time going through the contents of the boxes.

On 30 October 2016 at 3.54 pm, LML lodged a Police report at Tanglin Police Station.

On 4 November 2016, a Police Gazette was issued. I will come back to this later and deal with the Police Gazette or PG.

On 2 December 2016 at about 9 pm, Ms Liyani returned to Singapore. She was arrested at the airport based on the PG. Ms Liyani said in her statement to the Police, that she came back to visit a friend and go sightseeing thereafter, and she planned to return to Indonesia before going to Hong Kong to work. Later in Court, she said that she, in fact, returned to Singapore to look for her agent and seek employment. When she was arrested, some items were found on her. These are listed in Annex 1, Table A to my Statement. [Please refer to Annex 1.]

The Liews said these were also stolen items. These items were seized and subsequently included in the charges against her.

I will now deal with how the investigations were conducted by the Police, how AGC assessed the case and proceeded.

LML had lodged a Police report, as I said earlier, on 30 October. The Police report stated that over the years, the family's belongings had gone missing. They suspected Ms Liyani. They terminated her employment on 28 October and they found some of the items packed in her boxes.

LML's statement was then taken. Initial investigations showed that Ms Liyani had left Singapore on 28 October itself. LML had set out in his Police statement the items which he said had been stolen. The items were, according to LML, found amongst Ms Liyani's belongings in the boxes.

Theft is an arrestable offence. The Police needed to trace Ms Liyani to investigate further. Where there is reason to suspect that an arrestable offence has been committed, the Police will try to find the alleged offender and, if appropriate, arrest the person. If the person is at a known address, the Police can go and interview the person. If there is no known address or if the person is believed to have gone overseas, then a PG will be issued. And so, a PG was issued in this case. Ms Liyani was believed to have gone overseas.

On 2 December, at about 9 pm, as I said earlier, she was arrested at the airport. On 3 December, the Police went to the Liews' houses. They first went to Karl's house. One of the three boxes had been moved there. Karl told the Police the items in the box were his. The Police were told that the box containing Karl's items had been brought back to his home.

The box contained an assortment of items – clothing, bedding, kitchen ware, utensils. Items were taken out, laid out, photographed. These photos were used in recording the various statements taken subsequently. The physical items were not seized.

The Police then visited LML's house. The Police were told that the two boxes had remained there. NLP had recovered some items from the boxes – jewellery, accessories, watches, Gucci sunglasses. The Police seized 51 items. Twenty-one items eventually formed the third charge. They were said to belong to LML's daughter, Ms May Liew, and I will refer to her as May. These items are set out in Annex 2. [Please refer to Annex 2.]

The Police did not seize all the items. They were seen as daily use items. The Liews claimed these items. Photographs were taken in lieu of seizure. Items found in those boxes are set out in Annex 1, Table B.

The Police then continued their investigations. They took statements from Ms Liyani, the Liews and other witnesses. The matter was then referred to AGC.

I will now set out how AGC proceeded in coming to the charging decision.

When AGC receives a file from a law enforcement agency, the prosecutors will assess whether a charge is appropriate and what action, if any, should be taken. The assessment and decision are usually cleared by a Director. Files are typically cleared at the Director level, not usually brought up to a higher management – by which I mean the Deputy Chief Prosecutor, the Chief Prosecutor, the Deputy Attorney-General or Attorney-General, or AG – unless they involve more serious or sensitive crimes or where AG's consent to prosecute is expressly required.

Ms Liyani's case was no different. It went through the same routine and the charging decision was cleared at the Director level. The events leading up to the charging decision were as follows.

On 5 June 2017, the Police sent the file to AGC with their investigation findings and recommendations. Such theft files are routine matters handled by AGC. Over the last three years, AGC has dealt with an average about 3,000 reports every year for theft in dwelling and theft as servant offences.

The file was reviewed by two Deputy Public Prosecutors or DPPs. They asked the Police to investigate a number of further points. The police did that and returned the file to AGC with further findings. The DPPs then reviewed the file. They sought further clarifications, and the file was then sent back to the Police for further investigations. The Police conducted further investigations. Then, they sent the file back to AGC. DPPs reviewed the evidence again.

This back and forth between the Police and AGC is again normal. In many cases, DPPs will look at the material and ask further questions. Because of the system in AGC, depending on which officer is on duty, it would be different DPPs who look at the same file and that was what happened here as well.

From the Police and AGC's perspective, this was handled as a routine theft case. There was no attempt by anyone to influence them. A Police report was filed and the matter was dealt with as such reports are usually dealt with. I will come back to this.

AGC decided to charge Ms Liyani for two main reasons: there was sufficient evidence which showed that theft offences were likely to have been committed; and second, it was in the public interest to prosecute. Let me explain this.

The evidence before AGC at that time was as follows: the Liews had identified all the items in the charges as items belonging to them and gave some detail. In contrast, based on what AGC saw, Ms Liyani gave answers which raised many questions. I will highlight some of these.

Ms Liyani claimed that she had found some jewellery in May's trash. May stated that she would never throw jewellery away. She would give unwanted jewellery to the Salvation Army or friends. AGC's assessment was that the evidence of May was more believable.

Ms Liyani also claimed that she had found items such as a Prada bag, two Apple iPhones, a pair of Gucci sunglasses in the trash. AGC did not find this to be credible. The list of items that Ms Liyani said she found in the trash are in Annex 3 and those are the photographs that have been circulated to Members. [Please refer to Annex 3.]

Ms Liyani also expressly admitted to taking some items – 10 to 15 items of clothing. Let me explain this.

In her first statement dated 3 December 2016, Ms Liyani was asked how she came into possession of male clothing. She said the clothing belonged to her employer. She said she took the clothing because the clothes were small. She assumed the employer's son Karl would not want the clothes. She did not ask Karl whether she could take the clothes. She admitted to taking the pieces of male clothing in early 2015.

In her second statement dated 4 December 2016, Ms Liyani said, "I only took about 10 to 15 pieces of men's clothing belonging to my employer's husband. I admit that I took it without informing my employer or her husband". And she also said, "I only admit to taking the 10 to 15 men's clothing belonging to my employer's husband without consent" and "I did not steal any other items."

Her statement that she did not steal any other items is also very significant. Prima facie on the statements, this would appear to be theft. AGC assessed the case based on this and other material.

I should add that under cross-examination in Court, Ms Liyani said she was only given permission to take these items if Karl did not want them, but she did not ask Karl, meaning she just took the items.

Ms Liyani also gave contradictory accounts to the Police on several other items. These inconsistencies are set out in Annex 4. [Please refer to Annex 4.] I will highlight two instances of inconsistencies as illustrations.

One Vacheron Constantin watch and a Swatch watch – in her statement dated 4 December, Ms Liyani said these watches were gifts from a friend. However, in a later statement of 29 May 2017, she said she found these watches in May's trash.

A pair of Gucci sunglasses – in her statement dated 4 December 2016, she said this was a gift from LML's previous helper. In a later statement of May 2017, she said she found it in her room at LML's home when she first started working for LML.

I should add, later in Court, Ms Liyani was asked about these contradictions. She gave explanations. Her explanations are also set out in the table at Annex 4.

Putting together Ms Liyani's apparent inconsistencies, her answers on the jewellery and the other items, which she said she found in the trash – like the Prada bag, the two Apple iPhones, a pair of Gucci sunglasses – her other questionable answers, her admission to taking some male clothing without permission, AGC's view was that there was a case to prosecute.

At that stage, the Liews' position was that the items were theirs. AGC also took the view that there was a clear public interest in prosecuting Ms Liyani. Two reasons: one, it appeared that Ms Liyani had stolen many items, including some seemingly expensive items; and two, it appeared that she had been stealing for years and it was not an impulsive spur-of-the-moment decision.

So, the questions for Members in this House, in this case, is, on what I have set out – what material evidence did Police and AGC have? What does that show? Was there a basis for AGC's view that the case ought to be prosecuted? That is why I have set out this material in some detail, so that Members can assess for themselves the basis for the decisions that the Police and AGC came to.

I will now move on to the trial.

The trial was heard in the State Courts over 20 days, from 23 April 2018 to 17 January 2019. The DPPs who conducted the trial were different from the DPPs who had previously been involved in the charging process. Ms Liyani was represented by counsel assigned under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme, or CLAS, for both the trial and the appeal. I will come back later to CLAS.

Let me now turn to the State Court's judgment. The trial judge found serious inconsistencies in Ms Liyani's evidence between what she said in Court and her previous statements. The State Court noted that Ms Liyani had various versions in relation to specific items. Ms Liyani said different things in her statement compared with what she said in evidence in chief in Court and then sometimes, changed her version under cross-examination. I have earlier referred to Annex 4, which sets out these inconsistencies and also her explanations for these inconsistencies.

The State Court found Ms Liyani's evidence on some items to be implausible. For example, the two old white iPhones – she said she picked up the two phones from a rubbish bag. These were iPhone 4 models, probably about six years old as of 2016. The State Court preferred the Liews' evidence that they would not discard old mobile phones as they were used as spare phones or as hard drives to keep photographs.

Jewellery – Ms Liyani said that most of the jewellery was picked from May's rubbish in 2011 or 2012 and she did not seek permission to take them. May identified the items as hers and provided circumstances of how and why she purchased them. The State Court preferred May's version as it was more detailed and she came across as honest and forthright.

Ms Liyani said that a purple Prada bag and Gucci sunglasses with red stains were found in a rubbish bag. The State Court accepted Heather's evidence that these items were never discarded. The trial judge said the modus operandi of Ms Liyani was to take a variety of items from different family members, thinking that this would go unnoticed.

On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ms Liyani on all charges. The High Court's decision was premised on two key findings.

First, there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews had an improper motive for making allegations against Ms Liyani. Second, there had been a break in the chain of custody of the items, which were said to have been stolen. In addition, the High Court also expressed doubts about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, in particular, Karl. It also expressed doubts on the extent to which Ms Liyani's statements given to the Police should be used against her. I will deal with all four points.

I should say this – as a rule, we do not comment in detail on Court decisions. Sometimes, we deal with specific issues that can arise from decisions or comments; and when decisions raised broader questions, then, this House has discussed the relevant judgments, like the City Harvest case. In this case, the High Court's comments have given rise to the questions I have referred to earlier. These questions require us to go back and carefully analyse the judgment.

It is difficult to discuss the law enforcement and legal processes, here in Parliament, based on the High Court's comments without a proper understanding of the comments. We also cannot make an assessment of whether the comments require us to change any of our current processes without looking carefully at the relevant parts of the judgment.

So, I will therefore be looking at parts of the High Court judgment to give the Government's views on them, and based on that, I will set up what gaps there were in the investigations, conduct of the trial and also say what more could or should have been done.

But as we do this, let me make three points clear and reiterate what I have said earlier.

First, the High Court's decision is final, on the acquittal; there is no appeal.

Second, I am making no comment as to whether the High Court's decision can be relied upon, or whether the Judge’s comments can be relooked at in other proceedings, for example, in any proceedings that Ms Liyani or others are or may be involved. There are Rules of Evidence relating to these matters.

Third, in this case, we have had to deal with the questions raised, whether there were or are any systemic issues with our law enforcement processes, and for that purpose, we have to discuss the Judgment, the Government’s view and also look at some additional factual material, which we came to know of after the Judgment was delivered. It is, therefore, a narrow, specific purpose. This exercise is not one of reopening the Judgment, and I should emphasise that. We are going into detail only because it is necessary for the purposes I have explained.

So, let us start with, first, the motive point. The Judge said at paragraph 52 of the Judgment, and I quote, "the Police report was made just two days after Parti made explicit to two members of Liew’s family of her intention to lodge a complaint to the MOM about being required to work illegally at Karl’s residence at 39 CL and at Karl’s office"

There are two points here. First, did Ms Liyani steal? And second, what was the Liews’ motive in making the allegations?

If it is shown that there is a reasonable doubt that the Liews had an improper motive, then what they say about Ms Liyani and the theft of items could become questionable. In this case, the High Court came to a view on motive that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews filed the Police Report, to prevent Ms Liyani from filing a MOM complaint against them for having deployed her to work outside their house.

Motive appears to have been a key factor in the Judgment and we have looked carefully at what the High Court said at paragraph 52 of the Judgment, that Ms Liyani had made explicit to two members of LML’s family her intention to lodge a complaint to MOM about being required to work illegally at Karl’s residence at 39 CL and at Karl’s office.

The evidence is that as Ms Liyani was packing her things on 28 October 2016, she said she was going to complain to MOM. She did not say what she was going to complain to MOM about. The High Court did note this and said that Ms Liyani did not actually say that she was going to complain about having been made to work at Karl’s house or office. Thus, when the High Court said Ms Liyani had made explicit to two members of the Liew family she was going to complain about having been made to work outside LML’s house, the statement was an inference that the High Court has made based on the evidence and submissions before it.

Based on this, the High Court also said LML and Karl must have been concerned and, therefore, there is reasonable doubt as to whether they had a motive to make allegations and a police report against Ms Liyani. The Court, in fact, said this threat by Ms Liyani on 28 October 2016 to lodge a complaint with MOM was, I quote, "most critical".

Second, the Court then said the Liews filed the "urgent" Police report on 30 October 2016 to ensure that Ms Liyani’s return would be prevented, and so that Ms Liyani cannot file a complaint to MOM.

Third, the Court said that the termination of her employment was sudden, so that Ms Liyani would not have time to complain to MOM.

I will deal with all these three observations that the Court made because it is these observations on the Liews’ motive which have primarily led to questions in this case on whether there was any improper influence by LML on the agencies, which is the question centrally before us.

When Ms Liyani said on 28 October 2016 that she was going to complain to MOM, what was she referring to? Annex 5 sets out what Ms Liyani seems to have said and this is based on subsequent investigations. [Please refer to Annex 5.] The subsequent evidence is that she said, and I quote, "I want to complain because you gave me too short notice". She thus seemed to have actually said more than what was in evidence in Court. Annex 5 also sets out why this part of what she said was not in evidence in the State Courts and I will come back to this later.

How and why was this subsequent evidence obtained? After the High Court's decision was issued, there were internal reviews, as announced. AGC also directed the Police to conduct further investigations into whether any offences had been committed by the Liews. This information that I have set out, and other information, was obtained in the course of those investigations, which arose from the High Court's decision. So, I emphasise that, as a result of the High Court's comments, further investigations were conducted against the Liews. It was in the course of those investigations that this information came out.

As stated earlier, the evidence is that LML had been thinking of terminating Ms Liyani’s employment for some time, prior to October 2016, because he suspected Ms Liyani of stealing. He told NLP of this. The further investigations, conducted after the High Court's decision, show that NLP told the maid agency by end of 2015 that she wanted to get a new helper. She told the maid agency that she suspected Ms Liyani of stealing. She went to the agency a few times to review bio-data of possible replacement helpers, but NLP did not make a firm decision.

Sometime after LML received the power bank in May 2016, it disappeared. LML then decided to terminate Ms Liyani’s employment and told NLP. NLP visited the agency in September 2016 and chose a replacement helper. Ms Liyani was dismissed on 28 October 2016 because a new helper had become available on that day.

According to LML, he had agreed with NLP that Ms Liyani would only be dismissed once a replacement was found. Based on what the maid agent has said to the Police, the new helper arrived in Singapore on 25 October 2016. On 26 October 2016, after checking with the maid agent on the status of the new helper, the family decided that Ms Liyani would be dismissed on 28 October 2016.

On 28 October 2016, after Ms Liyani was told that her employment was terminated, Ms Liyani said "I want to complain because you gave me too short notice". One of the maid agents who was present then, confirms this. He says, after Ms Liyani was told that her employment was terminated, Ms Liyani "shouted that she wanted to complain to MOM about the short notice of termination". Ms Liyani did not say that she wanted to complain to MOM about anything else.

As can be seen, this is quite different from the inference that the High Court had made. But the High Court understandably and naturally went on the basis of the evidence and the submissions made to it. The High Court did not have the benefit of this additional evidence. And as I have said, our purpose is not to reopen the High Court’s findings.

Further investigations also revealed that on 28 October 2016, the maid agents offered twice to assist Ms Liyani with lodging an MOM complaint but Ms Liyani declined. First time was at 49 CL when Ms Liyani first said that she wanted to complain. And the second time was at the agent’s office before they left for the airport. Ms Liyani declined on both occasions.

Ms Liyani lodged her complaint about illegal deployment after she was charged in September and October 2017. As can be seen from Annex 5, the Prosecution did not obtain or put forward this evidence because the issue had not been raised by the Defence in its Case for Defence or at the pre-trial conference. These points were thus not inquired into.

Prosecution, in general, puts forward the evidence it needs for the charges and to deal with the points that the Defence says it is going to make or raise. When a new point gets raised during the trial, Prosecution will have to assess how to proceed. In this case, the matter was raised when witnesses were on the stand and in Submissions. The Prosecution did not see a need to deal with the issue by bringing in new evidence for the reasons set out in Annex 5. Annex 5 is a Note prepared by AGC. I asked them to give me a Note, setting out how this point on Motive was handled in Court and the position that AGC took.

I want to emphasise a few points. How a trial is handled, what evidence is led, is a matter for the lawyers involved to decide. I have myself been in such situations. When the other side raises a new point, do you deal with it by going back and checking if there is further evidence or do you treat it as irrelevant, or do you deal with it in Submissions? It really depends on the situation and the facts, the Counsel’s assessment.

So, we are not here discussing the specifics of how the trial was conducted, and whether how it was conducted was right or wrong. My task before this House is to set out what happened, what we have found out since the High Court's Judgment and, based on that, examine whether there are any systemic issues, and whether there was any influence-peddling.

I also emphasise 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 committed an offence, I am duty bound to set this out in this House because it is in my possession. So, I cannot come here and go through the facts without telling you that we have this further information which only came about because the further investigations into the Liews’ conduct was directed by AGC.

I will now deal with the second point that the High Court made, that the Liews filed the Police report to try and prevent Ms Liyani from making an MOM complaint.

Making a Police Report will not prevent Ms Liyani from returning to Singapore. The High Court made the same point to Defence counsel during the hearing. Indeed, in this case, it did not stop her from returning to Singapore.

And making a Police Report will also not prevent Ms Liyani from filing a complaint with MOM if she was serious about doing so. She does not even have to be in Singapore to do that.

If an MOM complaint was a key concern, filing a Police Report and having Police investigations is possibly a sure way for such a complaint to be raised. Should Ms Liyani attempt to return, Police investigations would also require her to remain in Singapore, once again offering her a further opportunity to pursue an MOM complaint against the Liews.

The High Court has also said that LML’s reasons for filing the Police report were "curious". LML had stated that he was lodging the Police report "for record purposes as he was afraid that her boyfriends might cause a nuisance or break into [his] apartment".

Looking at it in this House, Ms Liyani had left and had asked for three boxes to be sent to her. The Liews had opened the boxes and were not going to send them to her. They said they found items belonging to them in the boxes. They also said that they were concerned that Ms Liyani's boyfriends in Singapore might try to retrieve the items.

In the circumstances, is it understandable that a Police Report is filed? Is it possible to think that Ms Liyani or persons acting on her behalf will ask what happened to the items and may accuse the Liews?

I put forward these points on filing the Police Report because for our purposes, in this context, the question is not whether the High Court is right or wrong but, rather, the question is how did the AGC and Police proceed? Is there anything so obviously wrong about the filing of the Police Report that should have been apparent to the Police and the AGC?

On the material before them, did the Police and AGC have good reason to proceed on the basis that this was a routine theft case? That is the central question; not whether the High Court was right, wrong; State Court, who says what. Did AGC and Police proceed in good faith, based on the material before them and what was before them?

So, I am putting these points across, so that Members can place themselves in the shoes of Police and AGC and think of these points. And it is for the same reason that I will go through some of the other points which I will come to, but I may not keep repeating these points about why I am going into detail. But as long as Members understand the purpose of much of what I have said, and will say, the detail that I am setting out is broadly to help understand what was the basis on which Police and AGC proceeded in this case – did they have good reason to proceed, what did they know before the trial – and we are looking at that to see whether, systemically, anything was wrong.

The third point that the High Court made relates to the termination of Ms Liyani's employment. The High Court said the termination of Ms Liyani's employment was sudden, since there was no evidence of items that had gone missing in the period around 28 October 2016 which necessitated the "immediate and sudden termination" of Ms Liyani's employment when LML was overseas. Thus, the High Court said this sudden termination was less likely to be because of items that went missing "over the years" and more likely to be due to fear of Ms Liyani's complaint to MOM.

I have set out the way this point came up and how this point had been dealt with in evidence at the trial and what subsequent investigations showed.

The investigations showed that the decision to terminate Ms Liyani's employment was not sudden. It was being considered from late 2015. The Liews decided upon a replacement helper in September 2016 for the reasons set out earlier. Ms Liyani's employment was terminated on 28 October 2016 because the replacement helper became available then. The Police did not go into this earlier. There was no reason for the Police to believe that the termination was for reasons other than the alleged theft.

I will now deal with a couple more points on the motive issue.

The High Court used different terminologies to describe the Liews' motive. It said "reason to believe", "reasonable doubt", "an improper motive", "the improper motive", it referred to "the existence of an improper motive". So, it is not clear, was there only a reasonable doubt that the Liews had an improper motive, or is the Court saying the Liews actually, in fact, had an improper motive. It cannot be both. Lawyers will know that.

I think it will be a fair assumption that the High Court intended to say that there was a reasonable doubt and not that in fact, it found, that there was an improper motive. It means that the High Court says there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the Liews had an improper motive, and not that they in fact had an improper motive.

The High Court also rejected the allegation that the whole of the Liew family were acting in collusion, based on the improper motive.

This view on motive appears to have considerably influenced the High Court in assessing the witnesses' credibility as well. The High Court said this at various points in the judgment. So, that is the first reason why Ms Liyani was acquitted.

I will now come to the second major reason for the High Court acquitting Ms Liyani.

The High Court said that there was a break in the chain of custody of the items which were alleged to have been stolen by Ms Liyani. The items which were recovered from the boxes, are set out in Annex 1, Table B. The items which were recovered from Ms Liyani, upon her arrest, are set out in Annex 1, Table A. The break in the chain of custody applies to the items recovered from the boxes, and not the items seized from Ms Liyani.

When you refer to the items in the boxes – I have set out the facts earlier – the High Court found that there had been a break in the chain of the items from 29 October 2016 when they were found in the boxes by the Liews, to 3 December 2016 when the Police visited the scene. The Liews were also using the items in the boxes during this period. The High Court therefore said the case of theft is not proven because it cannot be proven that Ms Liyani took them. There could have been interference when the boxes were with the Liews.

These items can be classified into two categories: one, items which Ms Liyani admitted to packing in the boxes, or otherwise admitted to taking; and two, items which she did not specifically admit to packing into her boxes. Where Ms Liyani admitted to packing the items, or taking the items, then it really does not matter whether there was a chain of custody, or whether that chain of custody was broken, because she clearly intended to take these items. Where she admits to packing the items, or taking the items, then the only question is whether it belongs to the Liews or to Ms Liyani, or for some reason, she is entitled to keep the items.

We have identified the items which Ms Liyani does not admit to packing into her boxes, namely the two DVD players, some of the clothing said to belong to Karl, three bedsheets and one blanket said to belong to Karl. Looking at the facts, the High Court's view that there was a break in the chain of custody is understandable in respect of these items.

A fourth charge relates to items in Heather’s possession, comprised solely of items seized from Ms Liyani, including a Prada bag and a pair of Gucci sunglasses with red stains, when she came back from Jakarta. The break in chain of custody does not apply to these items. I have gone through the break in chain of custody in some detail because this was the second major reason the Judge gave. But more importantly, because it relates directly to what the Police did, or did not do.

For Members' understanding, it is useful to know which items are affected by the break in the chain, which items are not so affected, and that several items are not affected by the break in the chain. This is because there has been a misunderstanding amongst some, that all the items are affected by the break in the chain of custody.

We have set out at Annex 6 how the issue of chain of custody affected the various items in the charges. [Please refer to Annex 6.]

If we remove those items possibly affected by the break in chain of custody, there would still be four theft charges against Ms Liyani. As regards the items that were affected by the break in the chain, there is no question – the Police should have acted faster. The Police admitted that there was a lapse in this area of investigation and I will come back to this later.

Third, the Liews' credibility. The High Court spoke about this. The High Court had doubts about the Liews' credibility, in particular, it highlighted Karl's evidence. It noted the following points about Karl's evidence.

One, Karl did not clearly identify some pieces of clothing in the second charge, such as a black dress as having been in his possession.

Karl also had difficulties with some of the other items of clothing, like a cream Polo t-shirt and a red blouse.

The High Court found Karl's claim that he wore women's t-shirts suspect – I am using the High Court's words.

Karl testified that a Gucci wallet and a Braun Buffel wallet belonged to him and were gifts from his family. However, none of his family members could recall gifting him those specific items. High Court disbelieved his evidence and thought he was being untruthful.

The High Court disbelieved that a Helix watch was a gift from LML. That was Karl's evidence. LML denied having owned such an item.

Karl agreed that a pink knife that he had earlier said he had purchased before 2002, was likely manufactured after that date. The High Court said this affected Karl's credibility and his claim to ownership.

The High Court disbelieved Karl’s evidence that he had bought a bedsheet in the UK, from Habitat and that High Court said he had, I quote, "fabricated his testimony". The bedsheet had the same pattern as a quilt cover which had an IKEA label. Karl's wife, Heather, also testified that she had never seen the bedsheet in her room or on her bed.

A Gerald Genta watch – Karl said initially the value was $25,000. Defence experts put the then current value at $500, given its state: a chronograph pusher was missing, date malfunctioned and the strap needed replacing.

There are two issues here: whether Karl's evidence can be relied upon to convict Ms Liyani; and two, whether Karl was being dishonest.

The High Court chose to give little weight to what he said and said he was unreliable. Given that Ms Liyani's liberty was at stake, I think many lawyers will understand that the whole of Karl's evidence was disregarded, as the High Court did.

The second point – was Karl being dishonest? The High Court thought so.

Arising from this case – and this is an important statement of policy – AGC has decided that hereafter, if any judgment or decision issued in the course of any legal proceedings, contains findings that there may have been perjury or other serious offences, AGC will seriously consider whether there should be further investigations, proceedings, in respect of those indicated offences.

Karl has been investigated as to whether he committed any criminal offences, including perjury. Statements have been taken from Karl on the following points: whether the items highlighted by the High Court had been in his possession; his explanations for his inconsistencies during trial, regarding these items; the investigations have been completed. A statement will be announced later this evening based on these investigations.

Before I move on from the issue of credibility, let me say a few words about both Ms Liyani and the Liews. As I have said before, I am making these points to provide better context to deal with the questions that we are discussing and to better understand the basis on which Police and AGC proceeded.

I want to be brief because there are on-going investigations and proceedings. For the benefit of Members, we have prepared a table which sets out the different items; the evidence, including the inconsistencies in evidence of both Ms Liyani and the Liews, and the explanations, the State Court's views; and the High Court’s views. This is set out at Annex 7. [Please refer to Annex 7.]

Broadly speaking, Ms Liyani gave a number of reasons for her inconsistent answers: one, she did not understand the questions posed; two, the interviewers did not understand her answers or did not record her answers accurately; for example, when she admitted to taking the 10 to 15 items of male clothings; three, she meant to say something different from what was recorded in her statement; four, she was shown unclear or blurry photos of some items, so she might have given the wrong answers because she could not recognise the items properly; five, there was a black bag in her room, which contained items left behind by the previous helper of the Liews' which the previous helper did not want, and the items from that bag may have been packed into the boxes inadvertently by those who were helping Ms Liyani to pack.

As for the Liews, Karl gave inconsistent answers in some areas. And in some instances, the testimony of one of the Liews was either contradicted, or at variance with the evidence of another family member.

There was some debate on the value of some items. An expert witness said that the Helix watch was of "no value", and the Vacheron Constantin and Swatch watches were counterfeit and had no value. This testimony was not directly contradicted. The Defence also put in some articles on Dumpster Diving, suggesting expensive items, like branded bags do get disposed of in the trash in Singapore and thus, Ms Liyani could have picked them up from the trash cans.

The argument is that Ms Liyani could have found, for example, the Prada bag and the jewellery which May says were hers, in the trash. There are various aspects of Ms Liyani’s evidence which prima facie, raise scepticism. There were inconsistencies in many of her answers. Answers changed from one statement to another and from her statements to her evidence in Court. Several aspects of her evidence in Court also raise questions. Items which were said to be found in trash, for example. I will leave Members to reach their own views.

The Police and AGC thought she was untruthful. Based on the Police investigations. They assessed that she did steal and that is why she was charged. I am giving you this summary to let you know how the Police and AGC assessed the matter. And, of course, when they did so, they did not have the benefit of her evidence in Court. The State Court found her to be quite untruthful.

The High Court gave her the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by Karl's improbable, unreliable statements; some other inconsistencies in the Liews' testimonies and their conduct. And for other reasons, relating to the reliability of Ms Liyani's statements, if there were issues with the statement-taking, then that affects the question of whether there were in fact inconsistencies in her statements.

Moving on to the Liews, there are many aspects of Karl's conduct and evidence – some of which I have dealt with – which are highly unsatisfactory, which raise scepticism based on what he said at trial. He appeared not to be a credible witness. Filing a Police report, making claims on items need to be taken seriously. It does not have to be a comprehensive account, but it must be done with careful consideration. Looking at the evidence, the impression one gets is that there seems to have been a cavalier attitude on the part of the Liews in the way some items were identified as belonging to them and in the way values were ascribed to some items.

It is natural to expect that you will know and take your duties seriously when you file a Police report. Be careful in what you say and do, commensurate with your knowledge and experience. When you claim an item, you make sure it is yours. When you ascribe a value, make sure you have a basis.

Questions do arise about how one or more of the Liews have conducted themselves on these and other aspects. I do not want to say more. There is more I would have liked to have said. I have not made any comments about honesty. I have been somewhat restrained because of the investigations and I have referred to a statement that will be issued tonight as a result of the investigations.

In this context again, the key issue for us is to go back to the Police and AGC. They had the statements from the Prosecution witnesses. There was a prima facie case. They did not know that Karl or others would be inconsistent. The inconsistent evidence from Karl and other witnesses came at trial. That is not an unusual occurrence. It happens quite – I would not say quite frequently – but not infrequently. It depends on the cross-examiner, it depends on how much they had thought about it and other reasons.

But it happens often enough, in civil cases as well as criminal cases. So, there is nothing unusual about that either.

I will now deal with the fourth reason given by the High Court in acquitting Ms Liyani. A total of five Police statements were recorded from Ms Liyani. She gave the first four statements in Malay. She gave her fifth statement with the aid of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.

Section 22(4) of the CPC requires a written statement to be read over to the person who gives it. This is usually done in English. When the person does not understand English, it must be read over in a language that he or she understands. The High Court found that there had been a breach of section 22(4) of the CPC, because Ms Liyani had not been given a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter for her first four statements.

The High Court also said that this was not a "flagrant violation". So, the statements remained admissible in court. They remained as evidence, though the Court will decide what weight to give to it.

In this case, the Police officers believed in good faith that Ms Liyani understood Malay. She had worked in Singapore for over 20 years. The recorder asked Ms Liyani in Malay whether she wished to give her statement in Malay or in Bahasa Indonesia. She chose to speak in Malay. There is no significant difference between Malay and Bahasa Indonesia in the asking of that question. She did not ask for an interpreter during the recording of her statements. The recorder testified in Court that he was able to communicate with her, without any difficulties.

The High Court recognised that she understood some Malay, though the extent of her understanding was unclear to the Court.

The High Court said that differences in the two languages could create reasonable doubt on the accuracy of the statements recorded.

As I said earlier, the Police believed in good faith that Ms Liyani understood Malay. And the Police accept that there are differences between Bahasa Indonesia and our Malay. And in specific words, some words, they could mean different things, in the context of this case and that can make a difference if Ms Liyani did not know the different meanings.

Section 22(4)(b) of the CPC makes clear the key requirement is that the interviewee understands what is being said.

A Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was provided in recording her final statement and when the charges were served on her. The final statement dealt with the majority of the areas covered in the previous statements recorded from Ms Liyani and the items in the charges that were tendered.

So, on that basis, her final statement is not affected by any issues relating to interpretation.

At trial, Ms Liyani said that she may not have understood some aspects of the final statement because it was read back in a mixture of Malay and Bahasa Indonesia, and that the interpreter was "talking too fast".

The High Court dismissed that claim. The statement reflected that it had been read back in Bahasa Indonesia, and Ms Liyani had affirmed that to be correct and true.

I will now, Sir, deal with the specific issues that have been pointed out by the High Court in respect of the Police investigations, AGC and the State Court's judgment.

I have earlier set out the facts that the Police had, after the investigations. They disclosed a prima facie case of theft. Police act in public interest.

There are about 250,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore, employed by more than 200,000 families. When there is a complaint of theft, Police need to be fair to both the employer and the domestic worker. It means Police will have to investigate properly when there is a prima facie case and let AGC decide whether to prosecute. If as a rule, Police take no action and if it is known that Police would not take action, Members can work out what the consequences will be for themselves, as in you can think and work out the consequences what such an approach will mean.

We have to approach this with the perspective of both the 250,000 foreign domestic workers, to be fair to them but also to the 200,000-odd families who employ them. If they believe that their employees have stolen or done something wrong, what are they supposed to do? It could be any one of these families. So, we have to be very careful in how we deal with this.

Police investigated about 66,200 criminal cases in 2016. I am referring to 2016, for illustrative purposes. And they were handled by about 1,100 IOs. Of the 66,200 cases, 14,122 were theft-related offences, in 2016. They resulted in 6,128 arrests.

If we drill down to theft as a servant, under section 381 of the Penal Code, there were 500 arrests in 2016 of whom 246 were foreign domestic workers. So, theft as servant cases involving foreign domestic workers, roughly one every 1.5 days or two every three days. Of those 246 arrests, 58 were prosecuted – 24%. So, three in four not prosecuted; one in four prosecuted. Who gets prosecuted? It is based on investigations and assessment by Police and AGC. And also, even when there is some case but if it is not clear, sometimes, warnings are given.

I have explained earlier the reasons for the prosecution in this case.

The case was handled by the Police like they handle any routine theft case. It was handled by the IO and cleared by his immediate supervisor. I say IO when he was out, one or other IOs did handle it as well, but at the level of the investigation officer, cleared by his immediate supervisor. This was a routine matter, cleared via normal channels.

The matter was not considered or brought to the attention of anyone senior, at any time. Except that many of us came to know about it, when it was reported in the media. I will come back to this later.

So, the question is, was there a clear, prima facie case for the Police to investigate? There was such a case. The Police had a duty to investigate. If any Member feels that Police should not have investigated, I would be happy to hear and understand their perspective.

The High Court commented on investigative processes, pointed out three aspects, which it felt were deficient. I will deal with all three.

First, that there was a gap between the Police report being filed on 30 October 2016 and the Police looking at the items, on 3 December 2016. The scene should have been visited by the Police close to the time of the Police report. This was a lapse, which affected some, but not all, of the items in the charges.

In terms of the acquittal, the High Court also acquitted Ms Liyani in respect of the items not affected by the break in the chain. So, the break in itself may not have affected the outcome given the High Court's reasoning.

However, there can be no excuse for this lapse on the part of the Police officer. It is a breach of a legal requirement; it is also a breach of Police protocol, both of which require the Police to respond to a crime scene promptly, or as soon as practicable.

The broader objective of these requirements is to ensure the integrity of relevant evidence by securing it into Police custody or otherwise obtaining a proper record of it.

Whether there has to be a seizure in any specific case must depend on the facts of the case, the nature of the exhibits and evidence. However, even if there is no seizure, it is necessary to obtain a proper record of the evidence, such as by careful photography of the items.

In this case, careful photography, soon after the Police report was filed, may have been good enough. But that was not done.

I said there can be no excuse. I have nevertheless asked for an explanation as to why this has happened. I am told that the officer involved had a number of other on-going cases, prosecutions, arrest operations and a very personal matter that he had to deal with. He seems to have been under a lot of pressure. He was in a predicament. It is a situation that many Home Team officers find themselves in. It is a reality of what our officers go through.

Nevertheless, internal investigations are being carried out in relation to the conduct of the officers involved in this case and action will be taken, as necessary.

I must say, Sir, I have noticed in various parts of the Civil Service, quite a lot of our officers are under work pressure. I have mentioned it at other points in this House. It is a general situation in some workplaces, many workplaces in Singapore with tight manpower issues, particularly in several areas of the Civil Service.

I have asked for a review of the workload of Police investigation officers, though quite frankly, there is no easy solution because fundamentally, it is a manpower issue. Technology has helped, will help, but that has limits.

The Police are also looking into online case management systems, to prompt officers on next steps in investigative workflows and ensure accountability and minimise the risk of lapses in investigations.

Next, I turn to photos. The second point that the High Court made about the Police was that "poor quality" black-and-white photos were shown to Ms Liyani.

Police agree that colour photos would have been more effective. Colour photos were shown to Ms Liyani in her final statement when a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter was also provided.

Police will take on board the High Court's comments, which are fair.

The Police's review has shown that the layout of the photographs was also not satisfactory. Some photos featured multiple items in a single photograph, with some overlapping and partially obscured.

The third point the High Court made: the inaccuracies in recording the statements, the pace at which the questions were asked and the time when one statement was taken. And thirdly, the provision of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter.

I have dealt with the interpretation issue earlier. On this issue, I have said to Police officers we need to make sure accused persons understand the statement recording process, what it involves, what is required of them. I have asked the Police to ask what language the person wishes to speak, which they do, but also explain briefly what the process entails and the purpose of the statement. And that the accused may ask for an interpreter at any time and that this should be recorded as part of the statement.

The High Court also pointed out that there were inaccuracies in the way questions were phrased and there were grammatical errors.

Police have said to me that it is difficult to make sure there are no grammatical errors. But I think everybody agrees they need to try and make sure grammatical errors, if any, should not affect the interpretation and understanding of the statement itself.

The Police accept the point made about the time when statements are taken. Sometimes, the timing is inevitable, because of the legal requirement to release a person under investigation, within 48 hours. The Police will have to make an assessment on whether the person is capable of understanding the questions at the time the statements are taken.

As I have said, Police will take the comments on board.

The High Court also made observations about the AGC on how the functionality of the DVD player was demonstrated in Court. AGC has filed an affidavit explaining its position on record.

The matter is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings. And thus, I will refrain from commenting on this. I have been given a detailed note by AGC. I can set out the position, but I prefer not to. The disciplinary proceedings are by nature, disciplinary. There are possible penal sanctions. There will be full account of what the DPPs did, at the Disciplinary Tribunal or DT. The key question before us is whether there was any improper influence on them.

Minister Indranee has discussed this with Mr Pritam Singh, the Leader of the Opposition, who was also concerned that we should not go into this in Parliament. Let the DT handle it. The proceedings are penal in nature. I think lawyers will understand why we take this approach.

AGC has also identified specific areas where it needs to improve. I will mention two areas.

First, the valuation of items that are the subject of property offences. In this case, the valuation of the items in the charges were derived from the Liew family's estimates. This has been the general practice hitherto, to rely on the complainant's assessment of the value. There are currently no formal guidelines for Prosecutors on the issue of valuation. Prosecutors are expected to use their judgement and discretion. AGC is developing guidelines on this issue. Independent assessment of the value of the items may have helped in respect of some of the items in this case.

Second, AGC is also looking at how it prepares for trials and will seek to learn from this and other cases.

There is a further, but general and important point. Prosecution's overarching role is to ensure that justice is done and not to win the case at all costs. The point is not being made by reference to this case. It is a general point. AGC has consistently emphasised this point to all its officers and will continue to do so. The Attorney-General himself has also publicly stressed his Chambers' commitment to the principle of even-handed justice, in his speeches at the Openings of the Legal Year, and elsewhere.

Now, I will move to the High Court's views on the State Court's judgment.

First, some background on cases dealt with by the State Courts. The State Courts deal with most of the criminal cases in Singapore. The appeals go to the High Court. About 10% of these appeals succeed, for instance, in setting aside the convictions or reducing the sentence. Ms Liyani’s case falls in that 10%.

This 10% of cases – there can be different views on evidence, on law, the exigencies of trial process, for example, witnesses say different things or something new turns up. The High Court disagreed with the Trial Judge's assessment of the evidence and made observations.

With that as background, I will say the views expressed by the High Court fall within the range of cases where an Appellate Court disagrees with a Lower Court.

In some of these cases, the Appellate Court does take a different interpretation of the evidence, draws different inferences, comes to different conclusions. That is the function of the Appellate Court when it takes the view that the Lower Court has made an error.

In 2018 and 2019, there were 16 appeals by the accused against conviction, when the Appellate Court disagreed with the Lower Court and reversed the decision. Nine were appeals from the State Courts to the High Court and seven were appeals from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. So, even between the High Court and Court of Appeal, there are differences of view.

For example, in one of the cases Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v PP & anor [2019] 1 SLR 440, chain of custody issues also arose. In another case, PP v GCK [2020] SGCA 2, the State Court convicted the accused for outrage of modesty. He was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment, three strokes of the cane. The High Court reversed the conviction, and acquitted the accused, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence. On a criminal reference, the Court of Appeal reinstated the conviction but substituted the original sentence, with a sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane.

So, our State Court: one view. High Court: different view. Court of Appeal: a different view again.

The question for us, as I have said more than once, is not which Court was right or wrong. The key question: was the case conducted fairly in both Courts?

The State Court heard evidence from 12 Prosecution witnesses, four Defence witnesses, including Ms Liyani, over 20 days. It had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, consider their evidence, Ms Liyani’s submissions, and it made its findings. The High Court considered the Lower Court’s findings and Ms Liyani’s further submissions over three days and came to a different view.

This became a long and somewhat complex, or complicated, case. The Record of Proceedings runs to almost 3,700 pages.

I have brought this House through some of the issues in detail, as I said earlier, to give Members a slightly better appreciation of the evidence. The matter was thoroughly ventilated and considered by both the State Courts and the High Court. It was one of those 10% of cases where the Appeal Court disagreed with the Lower Court.

Sir, I have covered the points specific to the case. Let me now set out what happened in summary: one, there was clear evidence for the Police to investigate and for the AGC to prosecute this case; the Police and AGC dealt with this case like they deal with other theft cases.

There are questions about some aspects of one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, the claim of ownership of some items and the valuation by them – that appears to have been quite cavalier, to say the least.

Questions also arise about Ms Liyani’s conduct and evidence. The High Court gave Ms Liyani the benefit of doubt because it was troubled by one or more of the Liews’ evidence and conduct, and because there were questions relating to her statements.

There are aspects of trial preparation where Police and AGC can improve.

Finally, the key point: there was nothing improper nor any undue pressure on the Police or AGC at any stage of these investigations and proceedings and no evidence of any personal connection between the Liews and any Police officer, DPP, Judge involved in this case.

I have gone through all of this because we have to show the Police and the AGC did not act arbitrarily, or as the result of the influence of a rich and influential family.

Those were the accusations that circulated immediately after the learned Justice Chan issued his judgment – that there was a grave miscarriage of justice, and AGC and the Police were asked to apologise.

What I put forward to this House show that the Police and AGC had good grounds to charge Ms Liyani. They certainly did not act at the behest of the Liew family. And this is how our system is supposed to work – Police and AGC made up their assessments based on the evidence.

The State Court agreed with the prosecution and convicted Ms Liyani. The High Court disagreed, overtuned the conviction, felt there were reasonable grounds to doubt the motives of the Liew family in making the Police report. Again, this shows how our system works.

The rest, Sir, I will deal with in Part 2. What I have said is the fundamental question relating to our systems. And I wonder, Sir, if this is an appropriate time to take a break.

Mr Speaker: Sounds like it would be. Order. I propose to take a break now and take the Sitting at 4.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Review of the Case of Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor [2020] SGHC 187

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Minister K Shanmugam.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, in Part 2, I will go to the broader questions that I identified, which is an inquiry, or rather, the questions I have dealt with in Part 1 inquiring into how the investigations and prosecution were conducted. Here, I want to go into the broader questions. The key question is whether the case was handled differently because of the status of the complainant or if there has been any improper influence.

Really, if I were to put it this way – did LML in any way influence these proceedings or was the case investigated and prosecuted in accordance with the rules like any other case?

I have said it earlier and I will reiterate. I can be categorical. There was no influence by LML. It was treated as any other theft case and handled accordingly. We have checked with the IOs, their supervisor, the DPPs and their director. They have confirmed this. There was no pressure or influence exerted on them by LML or anyone acting on his behalf, and they handled this case as they have handled other theft cases.

I will now deal with the Police. I have set out how the Police handled the matter and what they took into account. It was dealt with by the IOs. Decisions were taken by them, together with their immediate supervisor. The case did not come to the attention of the senior management either at the Police or in my Ministry. No one senior has spoken with or been influenced by LML or any of the Liews on this case. Meaning, as I said, it was dealt with by the IOs and their immediate supervisor and no one beyond that. No one lobbied or exerted pressure either on the IOs or on the supervisor, or on anyone in a position to influence the investigations.

Turning to AGC, I have explained how the matter was dealt with by AGC. It was dealt with by DPPs and cleared at the level of a Director. Again, neither LML nor anyone acting for them, approached AGC or had any contact with AGC in this case. AGC dealt with Police.

There have been some questions asked specific to the Attorney-General, that he was on the Board of Directors of Capitaland between 20 November 2000 and 2 January 2006 when LML was the President and CEO. As a result, did AG in any way influence the proceedings? The answer is no. AG did not know of these investigations or proceedings until the case went for trial.

There is a further point. AG resigned from the Capitaland Board with effect from 2 January 2006. He resigned because he had a difference of viewpoints with LML on some issues. When AGC conducted its internal review on this matter, AG recused himself. AG felt that given the history of differences he has had with LML, the perception of fairness may be affected if AG oversaw the review. Thus, AG had nothing to do with this case at any stage. The case was conducted by the State Courts in open Court in accordance with the Rules.

This case is, in fact, an illustration of how the Rule of Law applies. A foreign domestic worker is charged, the High Court acquits her, the Complainant is a wealthy, powerful person, but all are equal before the Law. It does not matter who the parties are, Justice according to the facts and the Law as the Courts see it.

We may agree or disagree with the State Court's or High Court’s decisions and conclusions, but that is a different matter.

If you look at it at a systemic level, at the highest level, you talk about the criminal justice system – we have the Police who investigate in accordance with the legal framework for Police investigations. AGC make the charging decision based on available evidence and public interest. The Trial Courts consider the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal issues. The Appellate Courts review the decision of the Trial Court. The case shows that the criminal justice system, as a whole, works.

If you drill down to the next level, we have "systems". For example, these would comprise investigative protocols, SOPs for how the Police and the DPPs operate. I have mentioned some errors that were made, we have to try and strengthen the "systems" at that level, try and prevent re-occurrence. I have also mentioned the challenges.

Besides these levels to the system, there will always be the risk of mistakes by individuals. These lapses will have to be dealt with.

Sir, the idea of Rule of Law is central to our ideas of fairness, equality and justice. It is even more important in the current zeitgeist that is sweeping through countries. Societies around the world are grappling with debates on inequality, a sense that the elite are creaming off most of the economic benefits and bending the rules and systems to their advantage, and in the process buying off, suborning those in Government. People are fed up with unfair structures; equal opportunities are drying up.

In Singapore, we are not in the same situation. Our active intervention in socio-economic issues has helped most people to benefit. But our people know we must jealously guard the availability of equal opportunities. We must ensure that everyone has a fair shake. We must be alert, guard against the wealthy and the powerful taking unfair advantages.

If a significant section of our people feel that the system favours some, or that it is unfairly stacked against them, then Singapore will lose its cohesion and it cannot succeed. Thus, it is essential that we have a fair system, that we have a clean system, that we have a system that gives opportunities to all.

These are our fundamental concerns. If LML did unfairly influence the proceedings, then it will be a hit to our foundations and it will be a hit to our sense of fairness, equality and justice. And a dent to Project Singapore itself because Singapore is built on these ideals.

We have always been jealous about guarding against such corrosion. It does not mean that there will be no abuse of power and no corruption. But when it happens, swift, decisive action must be taken.

Members will know successive Governments have been clear about this. There has to be a ruthless intensity in upholding integrity. Mr Lee Kuan Yew set the tone. The case of Mr Teh Cheang Wan is a prime example of the approach. He was one of the most senior Members in Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s Cabinet. But when corruption allegations surfaced, Mr Lee directed the CPIB to conduct investigations. Mr Teh was placed on leave of absence. He ultimately chose to end his life rather than face trial or corruption charges, which the AGC had then yet to settle. Mr Lee said at that time, and I quote, "There is no way a Minister can avoid investigations and a trial if there is evidence to support one."

These were the values of our Founding Generation and these are and have to be our continuing values. They have been scrupulously stressed and adhered to by the two succeeding Prime Ministers. They are like religious commandments. There cannot be any compromise. When there is a breach, action is taken, will be taken. Let me refer to some cases.

In 2012, you had Peter Lim, Commissioner of SCDF – in fact, he was Commissioner of SCDF when I was Minister for Home Affairs too – convicted of corruption charges for receiving sexual favours with three different women, sentenced to six months' imprisonment, dismissed from public service following disciplinary proceedings.

In 2013, you had Mr Edwin Yeo, Assistant Director of CPIB, misappropriating money, jailed for 10 years for criminal breach of trust or CBT as a public servant and forgery.

In 2007, you had Mr TT Durai, CEO of the National Kidney Foundation, convicted for corruption, sentenced to imprisonment; appeal to the High Court dismissed.

In 2012, you had Mr Howard Shaw, then-Executive Director of the Singapore Environment Council, convicted for obtaining commercial sex with minors; had asked for a nominal fine based on testimonials of his good character and social standing. Court found no exceptional circumstances; 12 weeks' imprisonment. Sentence was to provide a strong deterrent to others.

Peter Lim was a senior Home Team officer. In many countries, his actions would not have attracted criminal punishment. In most countries, Commissioners of SCDF, Assistant Directors of CPIB, are pretty much untouchable. But not in Singapore. The message is it does not matter who you are, if you do wrong, action will be taken.

But it is not only corruption that we must guard against. We must also guard against what I call soft corruption and influence peddling.

Let me quote what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee have said. In 1984, Mr Lee said, and I quote, "We exercised power as trustees for the people, with an abiding sense of our fiduciary responsibility. Our honour, our sense of duty made us exercise power scrupulously. We have curbed, restrained, prevented any distortion of policies which would have been inevitable if the personal interests of the few in charge were allowed full rein. This is the case in many new countries.

When those in office regard the power vested in them as a personal prerogative, they inevitably enrich themselves, promote their families, favour their friends. The fundamental structures of the modern state are eroded, like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked them. Then, the people have to pay dearly and long for the sins and crimes of their leaders.”

And as early as 1961, the late Dr Goh warned about the risks, that groups of elites might create an environment that would favour one community at the expense of another. In an article in Nanyang University journal, 1961, he said, and I quote, "To achieve an honest and energetic administration appears easy in theory. In practice, very few of the young and emergent nations have achieved this. Even in the most advanced and leading societies, whether communist or democratic, the problem of nepotism is a recurring one and can only be countered by constant vigilance.

In advanced societies, it is not so much open nepotism that is to be feared, but the insidious 'old boy' type whereby no illegalities are committed, but in which the pinnacles of power, influence and wealth are the reserve of those born into the right families. In underdeveloped countries, the matter could be more serious. A system may arise in which the dominant majority, whether of families, clans or even entire communities, arrogates to itself not only the openings to the seats of power, but also the avenues by which individuals can fit themselves out for such positions of power. The dominant majority is thus able to point out that those outside of the charmed circle just do not have the necessary qualifications to be admitted to this elite group.

Thus, many able and aspiring people are denied the opportunity for the full use of their abilities."

I personally find these words very powerful, insightful and have more than once quoted this speech of Dr Goh in my own speeches because Dr Goh, I think, has identified precisely a serious, insidious risk in any society including ours. We are not that special that we can be immune to these risks. We have to constantly make sure that we do not allow it. We have to be very careful to try and stamp it out wherever it appears, and make no mistake, make no mistake. It will keep appearing in big and small ways.

This is again something successive Prime Ministers have been vigilant about. One illustration of that is the letter that the Prime Minister sends out at the start of each new term of the House. Most Members are aware of the letter. I have put it in Annex 8. [Please refer to Annex 8.]

I will quote parts: "the context each time may be different but the subject remains constant. Integrity, honesty and incorruptibility are fundamental. We must never tire of reminding ourselves of their importance. One vital factor to retain the trust of Singaporeans all these years is honesty and integrity.

The reputation for clean, incorruptible government is one of our most precious assets. I cannot stress strongly enough every Member of Parliament (MP) must uphold the rigorous standards we have set for ourselves, do nothing to compromise them, never give cause for allegations that you are misusing your position, especially your access to Ministers. A few will cultivate you to obtain benefits for themselves or their companies, to gain respectability by association with you, or to get you to influence Ministries and Statutory Boards, to make decisions in their favour. Personal favours, big and small, are just some of the countless social lubricants which such people use to ingratiate themselves to MPs and make you obliged to them. At all times, be seen to be beyond the influence of gifts or favours.

Separate your public political position from your private, professional or business interests. MPs who are in business, who occupy senior management positions in companies or who sit on company boards, should be especially vigilant. You must not exploit your public position as Government MPs, your close contacts with the Ministers, or your access to government departments and civil servants, for your personal interest or the benefit of your employers. Your conduct must be always above board. We have held our position because our integrity has never been in doubt. Always conduct yourselves with modesty, decorum, dignity."

I can tell Members this. This is all not just nice sounding advice. Even before it reaches the kind of conduct referred to in the Prime Minister’s letter, if we feel that there is some conduct that requires a closer look, we do take a closer look. I am referring here to conduct which is not criminal, not a breach of ethics, but which in our view should be avoided; something that may be legal but, for example, lead eventually to something which is not of so good odour.

When we sense that, I usually have a chat with the relevant MP. They come, have a cup of coffee with me. When they leave, the issue is usually resolved. And if it is not resolved, then they do not remain as MPs. But do not worry, it does not happen every time people come and have coffee with me.

If it is criminal, of course, there will be prosecution. And there have been MPs and ex-MPs who have been prosecuted. If there are breaches of other rules, the respective professional or regulatory bodies will take action, as they have done. We do not intervene or try and stop any of this.

I have dealt with this at some length because we must understand these are fundamental values. And if we do not keep them, we will be in trouble. In Singapore, in this context, we have a more challenging environment because we are a small place. A lot of people know each other – many educational, professional, work-related, social familial connections. Same schools, colleges, Universities, time spent in National Service, other connections. People interact with each other frequently. We try and look for the people on the basis of merit and they will often, because of their careers and education, have deep connection with many others whom they interact with.

The way we handle this – make sure the persons appointed are men and women of character. They have the moral fibre to do the right thing.

Earlier I had said, the Attorney-General recused himself from the review because of his history with LML. What will the position be if he was, in fact, a close friend of LML? We will expect him to disclose that and recuse himself as well from any decision making. This is how the system works.

Let me give a few examples. Prof S Jayakumar, when he was Minister for Law, what were his connections? When he was Dean, Law School, the then-AG’s wife had been his Vice-Dean. Former Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong had been his law school contemporary. Former Commissioner of Police Goh Yong Hong was also his law school contemporary. And the succeeding Commissioner of Police Tee Tua Ba was Prof Jaya’s law student. The Attorney-General and I were his law students as well. I had spent 22 years in private practice; I worked with many Senior Counsels, senior lawyers, appeared before many Judges.

Our small size means these connections and interactions are inevitable. And so, we will always have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. This is a sacred trust. We do this for the people. We do the right thing. Do not allow any corrosion of public interest. Act with honour. Be worthy of the trust people have reposed in us. It is critical that, whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessment.

And have we lived up to those standards? Members can ask that question honestly. What is the lived reality for Singaporeans? How much corruption do people encounter here? We rank highly on credible international indices, for absence of corruption, for rule of law, for the way our system functions cleanly. This is a country known for all these – and that continues to be the case.

What happens if you allow the system to go awry? What happens when you allow influence peddling? What happens when you allow corruption, abuse of position, abuse of power? Let me just give a couple of examples.

First, the US. Influence peddling has become part and parcel of politics and governance. The US Supreme Court has said: “Ingratiation and access embody a central feature of democracy.” Not against the law for officials to set up meetings, host events, call other officials on behalf of lobbyists. Big businesses extensively lobby regulators, using middlemen.

I personally think this is not good for the healthy functioning of society. Lobbying itself in the US is a massive business. Big Pharma, for example, spent US$4.45 billion on lobbying alone over the last 22 years. And it works. One study found that regulators were 45% less likely to initiate enforcement action against banks that lobby versus banks that do not.

The experience of South Africa offers another example. In South Africa, "State Capture" is a buzzword because of how private interests have exerted influence over government decision-making and used this influence to plunder the state. Corruption scandals involving the former President and the Gupta brothers are the most famous examples. It is, of course, an extreme example of the system going awry.

The critical question for us: how do we ensure that the system stays clean, that we do not allow what Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Dr Goh Keng Swee warned against? We have a media that highlights these issues. See the number of articles that have appeared on this matter in the Singapore media - accountability, because a well-educated, aware population that holds us accountable; and Parliament, where we have these issues to be openly discussed, debated. All these are essential. But these factors are also present in many countries where influence peddling is, nevertheless, a cancer.

We have avoided that slippery path because, in addition to the above, we have had in our three Prime Ministers the strong will to ensure a clean system and the decisiveness to act when something goes wrong. And always, always, regardless of your rules and regardless of your systems, the rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, then your systems can work well. And we have got to make sure of that. And if it starts, then very few things can save such a country.

In this case, if we had seen anything wrong by way of influence peddling, swift, open, transparent action would have been taken.

Sir, I have spoken at some length on the case and on the broader issues. Now I will deal with the questions Members have raised by way of Parliamentary Questions, or PQs, which I have not already dealt with.

Mr Murali Pillai, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Vikram Nair, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and Mr Derrick Goh have asked a number of questions about the High Court’s observations, the agencies’ processes, the internal reviews and related questions. Part 1 of my Statement has covered these points. Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Derrick Goh have also asked for some information on foreign domestic workers, theft cases, Court proceedings.

I have said earlier, Police investigate around 14,000, in fact, 14,122 theft-related cases – I think that was in 2016. For the specific offence of Theft as a Servant, an average of 528 arrests annually, about 48% of them are foreign domestic workers. On average, about 70, or 27% of the 255 foreign domestic workers, were prosecuted. We do not track data on how many of them claimed trial or how many of them had legal representation.

At the same time, on the reverse side of the coin, from 2015 to 2019, 115 employers were prosecuted for committing offences against foreign domestic workers. This includes cases of physical and sexual abuse. Sixty-five persons have been convicted, 21 cases are pending.

Mr Louis Ng asked if foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders can be accompanied by non-legal personnel, similar to the Appropriate Adults, or AAs, scheme, for Police interviews. From 2015 to 2019, an average of 2,741 foreign workers on work permits were arrested each year as potential accused. Interviews have to be done quickly. I have earlier said Police are already very stretched. Let us not stretch them further. It will be a very difficult exercise. Appropriate Adults attended to 2,300 activations in 2019. These cases involved minors and mentally vulnerable persons.

If we had to provide AAs for every foreign worker interviewed, we would have to minimally double the current volunteer pool, provide the training and resourcing; and some may require more than one statement, and this will become a real constraint and load on the Police. And each time you have an interview, you have to look for an Appropriate Adult. Interviews will be delayed if the AA is not available. Evidence could go missing. There are other issues.

The foreign workers are adults. The key is for Police to make sure that the foreign workers understand the questions and their answers are properly recorded. And it has to be open for scrutiny in Court, which it is.

So that Members can understand the load on our officers, I will share the following. As I said earlier, Police investigated 66,200 criminal cases in 2016 and they were handled by 1,100 IOs. Just to give Members a sense, the ratio of Police officers to population – I have spoken about this previously in the House and I am here referring to Police officers in general, not just IOs – New York at 0.42%, London at 0.34%, Hong Kong at 0.39%, Singapore at 0.23%, including full-time National Servicemen.

If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would need 9,100 more officers. My entire Police force today comprises 13,200 Police officers, including National Servicemen. If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we would have to have 9,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as London, we would need 6,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as New York, we would need 11,000 more officers.

So, Members can understand and appreciate the load on our officers and, as I have said, I have spoken about this in the House more than once. And my concern is that there is a limit to how much our officers can do with increasing workload and increasing expectations, but without a proportionate increase in manpower.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked how many State Court Judges had previously worked as prosecutors in the AGC and whether the Ministry will review the policy of separation of duties. This point has come up previously and let me put it this way.

The total number of lawyers in our Legal Service and Judiciary, excluding High Court Judges, is 801. That is a relatively small number. In this context, the question is: why are officers posted between the State Courts and other parts of the Legal Service? Can there be independence if they are liable to be cross-posted?

Let me quote something quite dated. Mr A P Rajah, a former Speaker and High Court Judge, said in 1963: “He thinks that if you are a DPP, then you cannot be a good District Judge; if you are a District Judge, then you cannot be a good DPP; if you are a first-rate DPP, then you cannot make a first-rate Assize Judge. He seems to suffer from that misapprehension. Merely to say that because one has been a DPP and that, therefore, when he gets on to the Bench, he is going to side with the prosecution, is not correct and is not fair to the profession.”

I am not suggesting that Mr Lim Biow Chuan or anyone else is under any misapprehension. I think it is a fair question. And this was said in 1963 when the number of officers was much smaller. What is the situation now? Today, all movements in the Legal Service are overseen by Personnel Boards and/or Committees all chaired by the Chief Justice, and the Legal Service Commission, of which the Chief Justice is the President.

The Legal Service Commission takes the view that rotation has three major benefits.

One, it provides access to a larger pool of talent to select State Court Judges with the right blend of temperament, knowledge and experience.

Two, it develops Legal Service Officers (LSOs) into well-rounded officers by exposing them to, and training them in, different fields of legal work and allowing them to learn about their strengths and weaknesses. And this benefits the Legal Service and Singapore, no matter where the LSOs are posted in future.

Three, this also gives flexibility, for instance, to accommodate LSOs who want to try different types of work, or LSOs who have a change of heart about their preferred line of work. Judges who have prosecutorial experience will bring added knowledge to the work.

However, significant changes have also been made. In 2014, the Prime Minister announced greater specialisation in the Legal Service. There are now two separate career tracks for the middle ranks of LSOs. One is the “Legal” track and the other is the “Judicial” track. LSOs on the Judicial track are posted to jobs within the Judicial Branch and they are assessed by a separate Judicial Branch Special Personnel Board headed by the Chief Justice.

The Prime Minister explained why this was done: “We need a first-class Legal Service that in turn calls for a first-class personnel management system to attract and retain the best people, to remunerate them fairly with reference to the market, to groom talent systematically and prepare them for leadership positions and to imbue officers with the right values and commitment to Singapore." Up to now, we have always decided to stick to the integrated model because we had too few officers to support two separate services and we believed that LSOs would have a better career path in one single integrated service.

But it is timely for us to review the position again, in the light of changing circumstances. First, because the Legal Service is much larger, so officers can specialise without conscribing their career prospects. Second, because the scope and complexity of work, whether in the Government Ministries, whether in AGC or in the Courts, the scope of work has in all cases grown enormously in the Government, in the Ministries – there are more responsibilities. Hence, we need more specialist and expert skills than ever before.

Thus, the Legal Service Commission or LSC introduced two separate career tracks for LSOs up to Grade 3 – the "Legal" and "Judicial" tracks. Eligible officers can elect to specialise along either track. They will then be posted to jobs within either the Legal Branch or the Judicial Branch.

To oversee the two career tracks, two new Personnel Boards under the LSC – the Legal Branch Personnel Board and the Judicial Branch Personnel Board – were established. These Boards manage the LSOs in the respective Branches.

However, even as we promote more specialisation, it is critical that the Legal Service operates as an integrated whole. The specialisation into the two tracks is for the middle ranks of the Legal Service. Junior officers starting out on their careers will still be posted to different departments and across branches to develop them in different fields of legal work.

Beyond Grade 3, the senior officers at Grade 2 and above will still be managed by the Legal Service Commission because at that level of seniority, there will only be very few officers and it is necessary to continue with the integrated model to provide better career options and flexibility in deployment to meet the needs of the Service.

The approach we have adopted strikes a balance between specialisation and integration, with safeguards for judicial independence. The system is working well. And we think that this is what is good for Singapore.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked whether there can be an expedited trial process for foreign economically vulnerable accused persons and he has also asked about the interpretation services in SPF.

First, on the trial processes, the median time taken in the Courts for a criminal case from being first charged in Court to judgment is 15 months – median. Depends on the nature of the case, availability of counsels, DPPs, how long the trial itself takes, documents, witnesses, challenges that the Prosecution and Defence make, and time taken for deliberation.

The State Courts, as I said earlier, handle about 600 criminal trials per year. We have 55 judges to handle these trials. Again, it is a very heavy load for the State Courts. About a quarter, 22% of these cases, involved foreigners.

If we expedite a case for a foreign person, then a Singaporean accused will have to wait even longer, if we take Mr Leong Mun Wai's suggestion. So, having a criminal case pending, why should we make Singaporeans suffer disproportionately more?

If I can give one example. We had a 51-year old Singaporean accused person charged in March of this year for two counts of shop theft. He claimed trial to the charges against him and was remanded. In June 2020, AGC assessed that his remand period, three months at that point, might outstrip his possible sentence even if he were to be convicted. At the Public Prosecutor's request, the trial was brought forward and conducted on an urgent basis. A two-day trial was conducted, after which he was convicted and sentenced to 16 weeks' of jail.

There will be many other cases like this but even if there is no specific remand situation, if you bring forward some people in the queue, the others in the queue will have to wait longer. And I do not think it is fair to Singaporeans to do what Mr Leong Mun Wai has suggested.

Second, on the interpretation service, I have given a fairly extensive answer. The Police currently employ a pool of interpreters for the three official working languages – that is, Chinese, Malay and Tamil – as well as more common local dialects – Hokkien, Teochew and Cantonese.

The Police will engage the services of interpreters if the interviewee is unable to understand the language used by the interviewer or vice versa. For foreign languages, the Police will engage the services of foreign language interpreters on an ad hoc basis. There is a framework to assess the suitability of interpreters, which includes their qualifications and relevant work experience.

As regards Ms Liyani in this case, she was asked. She said she could speak in Malay. The point is: does the interviewee understand the language being used? And as I said earlier, the Police have been told – they must really check this.

Mr Zhulkarnain and Mr Leong Mun Wai have asked about increasing legal aid for accused in criminal cases; and secondly, increasing the honoraria paid for lawyers under CLAS. Ms Carrie Tan has specifically also asked if we will consider having a public defender scheme to defend accused persons in criminal cases.

Let me give Members some background to the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme or CLAS. CLAS aims to provide legal aid to persons facing non-capital charges. It is administered by the Law Society's Pro Bono Services, or LSPBS. This scheme was started in 1985. The initiative came from the Law Society, senior lawyers, in particular the late Mr Harry Elias. And it was an outstanding initiative by the profession.

There is in place a framework, an assessment process, means and merit tests applied in each case to try and ensure that funding is targeted, allocated to applicants who are most vulnerable and who genuinely need assistance.

The Government pays 75% of CLAS' operating costs. This goes towards general operating costs, including staff salaries and overheads. This was decided in 2014. I announced it and it started from 2015.

Where the accused are Singapore Citizens or PRs, the money can also be used to pay honoraria. CLAS funds the remaining 25% of its costs through private donations. Law Society pays some. And this sum is also used to defend foreigners who need criminal legal aid.

But I should make clear. I have referred to honoraria. The honoraria that is paid is extremely nominal. It is effectively pro bono.

It is a system where the Government funds some part; the private sector funds some part, through cash donations, lawyers giving their time.

Should we change the model and go for full Government-funded criminal legal aid? Let me first give Members a sense of the experiences of other countries. I will just give the experience of two countries though we can look at many countries' experiences.

The United Kingdom, or at least England and Wales, offer a fully government-funded criminal legal aid scheme which comprises both a public defender scheme with in-house government lawyers and a legal aid scheme that outsources cases to private lawyers.

There has been much public debate and outcry in the UK over these schemes for various reasons, including abuse and escalating government costs.

First, there has been much unhappiness over the large legal aid fees, especially evident in cases where legal aid was spent on lengthy trials for defendants who were ultimately convicted. For example, three men who were accused of the murder of a policeman known as Andrew Harper. When they tried to evade arrest, he tried arresting them, they killed him, it cost the UK taxpayer S$817,000 in legal aid fees in 2008. And they were convicted of manslaughter in the end.

Another case was that of Ben Butler and his partner Jennie Gray, who were convicted of murdering Butler's six-year-old daughter and of child cruelty. Both were granted nearly S$2.64 million in legal aid expenses, covering both their criminal cases and a custody battle with the child's grandparents.

There have been many reports about rich defendants who received legal aid as their assets were frozen, but they remained wealthy enough as the state did not manage to seize all their assets.

Around 50 defendants with more than S$1.76 million in illegally obtained assets were found to have received legal aid in 2012. One of these was Virendra Rastogi, a London metals trading tycoon, who owned a S$10.55-million home, arrived in court every day in a chauffeur-driven car and he received S$8.79 million worth of criminal legal aid. These defendants were ordered to repay their legal aid costs but some failed to pay up despite court demands.

Given the large legal aid costs, it has been difficult for the UK government to sustain this level of spending. The government has had to implement drastic cuts to legal aid budgets since 2012, but these reforms were strongly opposed by the legal industry. Lawyers deemed the reformed fee schedules to be inadequate, went on strikes in 2014 and again, in 2018, to oppose cuts, disrupting court proceedings and delaying the resolution of criminal cases.

In one case, a convicted drug dealer was allowed to keep his alleged $7.9 million fortune because of delays in finding a legal aid lawyer to represent him in confiscation hearings. The lawyers' protests eventually resulted in more watered down reforms, continued escalating legal aid costs for the government and legal aid lawyers won a $40 million fee rise after the 2018 strike.

You must note: once you make legal aid a requirement, then you cannot proceed with the case until you find a lawyer who is willing to handle it for the fees that he proposes.

If we take Ms Liyani's case as an example, the Defence Counsel has estimated that if full fees were charged, it could have cost about $150,000. If we make criminal legal aid a requirement, then the taxpayers will have to pay that amount or whatever the Defence Counsel requires. It could be more, it could be less, or have the trial postponed until a lawyer is found.

This is what is happening elsewhere. So, I welcome suggestions but Members, please look at these points. And then, when you make your points, maybe offer concrete suggestions on how we can avoid what has happened elsewhere, if we want to go down this route.

My second example is Hong Kong. Hong Kong has a fully government-funded public defender scheme that outsources part of its cases to private lawyers and the Law Society. Hong Kong spent a total of $217 million on both civil and criminal legal aid in 2017. Hong Kong has also experienced escalating legal aid budgets due to continued increase in lawyers' fees of around 4% to 10% every year.

This is why we have been very careful.

We also looked at the situation in Australia, New Zealand – raised similar issues. I would go into them, but we knew it can get very costly and very difficult to manage.

So, in our situation, we have actually been very fortunate because our legal profession has worked with Law Society, the Government. We have got CLAS. It has been a cooperative relationship and a strong public spirit. We make Singapore a vibrant legal centre. It means our lawyers do well in the other areas and we are able to encourage the pro bono spirit at the same time.

Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked can we increase the honoraria that is paid to lawyers under CLAS. My preference is to keep the probono spirit. A mix of lawyers employed specifically by CLAS, small number; lawyers from private sector, coming in – I think it is a better approach.

So, our approach has been legal aid for those who truly need it with public and private partnership, tapping on the excellent pro bono spirit of our lawyers. And should we give it up?

But I will say this. We are also not completely satisfied with the current model. There are some hard questions. How can we better help those who cannot pay for lawyers and yet, make sure that we do not go down the road that other countries have travelled?

Last year, we reached the five-year mark since the enhanced CLAS was announced in 2014. As I said earlier, CLAS was originally initiated in 1985 by the late Mr Harry Elias, together with a group of lawyers, to better help those who could not pay for a lawyer.

In 2015, pursuant to my announcement in 2014, we enhanced CLAS, with the support of the legal profession and we started reviewing the enhanced model last year which is the five-year mark since we made the first announcement. We have been considering different possibilities, including possibly a public defender's office.

CLAS today covers the lowest 25% in terms of household income. Should we expand that number? I am happy to hear from Members. We will consider suggestions seriously.

I should also mention that in 2014, when we announced the enhanced CLAS, some in the legal profession were very concerned that this was going to eat into their rice bowl. There was some disquiet. We received a petition from some lawyers – not that few – about the possible adverse effect of the enhanced CLAS on their work, on their livelihoods.

Then Senior Minister of State Indranee Rajah and I met some of these concerned members from the criminal bar in 2014. We showed them the figures – that we were not going to take away their work, that we were helping those who could not have gone to them anyway. People need to be helped and that is central to the Government's mission.

Our profession has 781 firms who have between one and five lawyers in the firm. Of these 781, 233 firms practise criminal law. In terms of lawyers, there are about 750 lawyers who practise criminal law. Many depend heavily on the smaller value legal work on criminal cases. We should aim to have a structure that helps those who truly need help but does not become an unacceptable strain on the treasury. For those who can afford to pay for lawyers, the taxpayer should not have to pay for them.

In this context, the public defender's office, assisting together with the means and merits test, seems like a good option. Law Society is in principle supportive of expanding criminal legal aid in order to enhance access to justice. However, the Law Society's council has expressed strong concerns on the impact on paid work, especially for small firms. They had doubts as to whether this proposed expansion that the Government has been discussing with them would so neatly capture Singaporeans who could not afford lawyers' fees. The criminal bar representatives have counter-proposed to expand the coverage of offences, rather than increase the means test coverage.

We will continue discussions and decide.

The primary factor will be, as I have said, to ensure that those who cannot afford lawyers can get access to justice without the situation becoming fiscally difficult for the taxpayer and the Government is discussing but in principle prefers the approach of a public defender's office.

So, the answer to Ms Carrie Tan's question is yes. We have been and we are considering seriously a public defender's office. We will study the details and feasibility of this further in consultation with the Law Society and the criminal bar.

I have used the term "public defender's office" assuming that everyone understands what it means. Maybe I should explain. "Public defender's office" means the Government pays for the lawyers, employs the lawyers in a separate structure, and they act in criminal cases to defend the accused; with a suitable means test and a suitable merits test.

"How many officers? How big? How much?" are conversations we have to have with MOF, amongst others. But in principle, we will have to first discuss it with the profession and then talk to MOF and deal with the issue. But in principle, our approach, I think, might have to go down that route and at least my Ministry, MinLaw, is in favour of this approach.

Finally, a Committee of Inquiry. Mr Leong Mun Wai has asked for a Committee of Inquiry to consider the conduct of the Police and AGC in relation to Ms Liyani's case. I assume his concern is whether there was any undue influence by or on behalf of the Liews on the Police or AGC in this matter.

Sir, Committees of Inquiry under section 9 of the Inquiries Act, which sets out the list of purposes for which a Committee of Inquiry may be appointed – accidents involving deaths, serious injuries, serious property damage, incidents that may endanger public safety or public health, conduct of a Ministry department, statutory body falling under the responsibility of the Minister, conduct of any officer employed by such Ministry department or statutory body.

I think it will be clear to Mr Leong if he had looked at section 9 that I do not have the power to appoint a Committee of Inquiry in respect of AGC because it is not an agency that reports to me. Now that I have shown the Member this, I think he will acknowledge his request is legally not doable.

Let me make a set of broader points. If the Member really wants another inquiry into this matter, then what will be necessary is a Commission of Inquiry, not a Committee of Inquiry. That is very high level, headed by a Supreme Court judge or someone qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.

I am prepared to recommend to the Cabinet that we have a Commission of Inquiry but the Member should first tell us what he wants this Commission of Inquiry to look into and he should confirm that he will come to the Commission of Inquiry and state his position.

I say this for the following reasons. The officers involved, both AGC and the Police, have confirmed categorically no improper pressure. Ms Liyani's case was dealt with as a routine case. I have set out the facts, what has happened. It shows clearly there was a good prima facie case to proceed. There is also the Disciplinary Tribunal which will inquire into the complaint against the AGC officers.

Thus, before we have a Commission of Inquiry, which is a serious matter, will take up resources, lots of time, more and more work, the Member should specify what part of this matter continues to reasonably make him believe and question that undue influence was used, by the Liews? What exactly by reference to what the Police did and what AGC did? I would like him to tell us, Sir, before I carry on.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong.

5.06 pm

Mr Leong Mun Wai (Non-Constituency Member): To answer the Minister, first of all, I am aware there is a difference between a Committee of Inquiry and a Commission of Inquiry. The reason I raised a question is to try to first establish a principle. Do we all agree that there is a need to have an independent inquiry into this case?

Secondly, as to why I think it is still important to have an independent inquiry is that, the more I listened to the animated presentation and speech or Statement by the Minister, the more I found that there are a lot of information regarding the case that could be further investigated and further interpreted, and come up with a more informed judgement of the whole situation.

Of course, the Minister had provided a lot more information today, which I fully appreciate. I did not have those information when I raised this question and proposition but still, after listening to the Minister, I think that there is still a need to have an independent inquiry. As to what form it takes, I think the Minister has explained. Maybe we have to go to the level of the Commission of Inquiry.

I think Singaporeans are expecting that we do further investigation into this case, not just about the influence peddling but also about the systemic aspect of the whole criminal justice system, that maybe we need to look at various aspects which, actually, the Minister has enlightened us tremendously today. For example, the evidence gathering, contamination and when the Court refers to – I am not a lawyer, no legal training but I was told by lawyers it could be called evidence contamination and all those things. And also, about how AGC had made the decision and about whether there is a need to have a public defender's office and all that.

All these things, I thought, are very enlightening, but I think it requires more discussion so that we can come up with a better system. It is not just influence peddling that we are talking about here. I hope that answers the question, Minister. Thank you, Speaker.

Mr K Shanmugam: Not quite. First, let us settle this. I do not understand why if you knew the difference between a Committee of Inquiry and a Commission of Inquiry, you have asked me to do something that is not possible. It does not make any sense, but let us move on.

All I want to know, the public defender's office, for example, the Commission of Inquiry will have nothing to do with that. It is a policy statement. So, Mr Leong, can I ask you, a Commission of Inquiry is a serious business. We are not shying away from it. I am prepared to recommend it. That is not the issue. But as I said, it is not a question of making some broad and vague statements. You are a representative of the people. We take it seriously. This is serious business. It is not a question of saying, "I am not a lawyer. Lawyers said something about contamination of evidence".

I have set out in the House what has happened. I would expect you to be able to tell me based on what you have heard which part leaves you concerned with either the influence peddling issue or any other issue. I mean, waht do we have a Commission of Inquiry on the entire legal, the Police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So, can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you? What aspect?

I assume you have read the judgment. I assume you have read the key material. I assume you knew that there was something specific or a set of specific issues that you want to focus on – which is why you asked. So, what are those issues? What is it that you want the Commission of Inquiry to look into which has gone wrong?

Is it the translation issue? I have told you what happened with the translation. Is it the fact that they took five weeks – the Police – to go and look for the items. I have told you what has happened and I told you there are disciplinary proceedings against the officer. So, what is it exactly that you are looking for? And I will be prepared to recommend to the Cabinet to hold a Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong. Please be specific in your responses.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Minister, I think one issue, for example, after listening to your Statement, specifically, I was thinking, for example, you mentioned about the Police having taken five weeks to attend to the evidence. You said that there were some lapses but nevertheless, the manpower situation is very tight. I think that is my interpretation. I may be wrong. So, to me, even if the manpower situation is tight, do they need five weeks to attend to the evidence, for example.

I am quoting this as an example, because I think there are many aspects as I said just now that need further investigation so that we can come up with whole integrated and overall look at the whole systemic aspect of of the criminal justice process, so that we can come up with a better solution. That is the reason why I have recommended that we have an independent inquiry.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Leong, if it is the five weeks, I have told you, I said to the House, there is no excuse for the five weeks. I said there is no excuse but I asked for an explanation. The Police do not in any way seek to defend it, but we gave an explanation. I said there are manpower issues but that is not an excuse and the officer is facing disciplinary proceedings.

So, what is it about the five weeks that concerns you? Is it that he was unfairly influenced? Is it something else? He should not have taken that length of time. He will be disciplined. His reasonings will be gone into and he will be dealt with.

If it is about the five weeks, I am not prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry for that purpose, because the question you asked does not make sense to me. Is there any other issue that you are concerned about?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: I thank the Minister for the question. If that is the case for the five weeks, then we will take it as that. For another aspect, for example, you have been trying to interpret LML's behaviour and his family's behaviour. Their interpretation could also be further, sort of, investigated and analysed.

For example, in terms of the misbehaviour, it is quite common that when we have the maid at home, we do actually have some leeway for her to do certain things, to the extent that sometimes she takes something and you know —

Mr Speaker: Mr Leong, we can call an inquiry into any issue. So, you have been asked, what specific issues do you have that warrants asking for this Commission?

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, may I intervene?

Mr Speaker: Please do.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Leong, I have said that there are 250,000 foreign domestic workers and about 200,000 families. How they interact with each other cannot be the subject of a Government Commission of Inquiry. The Government Commission of Inquiry has got to look at Government institutions and organs.

I have talked about the motive issue. I have explained why it is not to cast doubt on anything but to say we had to investigate because the High Court made some observations. As a result, we made the investigations. Now I have the information in my hand, I have no choice but in duty of frankness, I have got to put it to this House. But I explained what was the evidence that AGC and the Police had, so that Members understood what was the prima facie evidence that Police and AGC had.

It is legally not possible to hold a Commission of Inquiry to look into the conduct of employers and maids. That is not the business of the Commissions of Inquiry.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, Minister, I understand that. At the same time, you have an interpretation of the motive and you have the benefit of having new information.

Mr K Shanmugam: The interpretation of motive has got nothing to do with the Government, Government organs. I have just explained why that was put forward. It has got nothing to do with how the Police proceeded. It has got nothing to do with how AGC proceeded. It is something that has come out in the course of the investigations, subsequent investigations. How is that a subject matter of a Commission of Inquiry?

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Yes, but then when there is new information, coupled with the information that came out of the Court process, do we not have to get to the bottom of it? You have provided one interpretation —

Mr K Shanmugam: The High Court has acquitted Ms Liyani. That is final. This House is now dealing with whether there was any improper influence exerted on AGC or the Police. I have given you the facts. I have given you categorical confirmations as to at which level this was handled. I have also said as a result of the High Court's comments, the investigations, some facts came out which we are disclosing to you. I have also said later this evening an announcement will be made as to what are the next steps to be taken as a result of those investigations.

I am not prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry to look into this issue of motive. It cannot properly be the object of a Commission of Inquiry.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, Minister, I think what I am trying to drive at is that the whole case probably requires more investigation and interpretation of the facts. So, if you think that is enough then I will withdraw my proposition or recommendation for an independent inquiry.

Mr K Shanmugam: I have to say, Mr Leong, it is not right to come here and say, "I think that a Commission of Inquiry is necessary. I cannot tell you why. I cannot tell you what my concerns are. I cannot pinpoint anything. I make no allegations. But in general, you know, it is good to have a Commission of Inquiry." Commissions of Inquiry do not proceed that way.

Let me put it on record. I have no problem recommending such a Commission of Inquiry. Obviously, I am not saying this without having consulted with my Cabinet colleagues. Cabinet will be prepared to recommend a Commission of Inquiry. We have nothing to hide, completely transparent about this issue. But it is not, in law, they would say, micawberism. It is not because something strikes your mind and suddenly you get this idea, that we have Commissions of Inquiry. You have had several weeks now since the High Court judgment. If there is something specific, put it down, we will hold a Commission of Inquiry. So far, I have heard nothing.

Mr Leong Mun Wai: Okay, thank you, Minister.

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Pritam Singh wants to raise a point.

Mr Speaker: Would you like to raise a point, Mr Pritam Singh?

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Minister, have you wrapped up your reply?

Mr K Shanmugam: I have not quite. I thought you wanted to take part in the exchange.

Mr Pritam: No, no. I want to pursue a different line of inquiry! [Laughter.]

Mr K Shanmugam: I am always happy to hear from you, Mr Singh.

Sir, I had intended to say that I am prepared to recommend to Cabinet to hold a Commission of Inquiry if the Member stands by his views, despite what he has heard today, and provided he will come to the Commission and repeat those allegations. But so far we have heard nothing that I can rationally put together to justify a Commission of Inquiry. So, I will leave it at that. I think I have answered all the Members' questions. And if Mr Singh wants to ask something, so yes.

Mr Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the extended remarks on this matter.

I have two questions. One pertains to the comments made by Minister on the lapse vis-a-vis investigations from the 30 October to 3 December. This was in Part 1 of Minister's Statement. I think from the public perspective, there is a concern when investigations for whatever purposes are somewhat not conducted properly or what the Minister said, "in breach of Police's requirements". So, my question really is what is the extent of this issue? The Minister alluded to manpower problems. I think the concern is, moving forward, how significant does the Minister assess this matter to be? Can it be a matter that can be resolved by directives or circulars from the Commanding Officers of various Divisions? That is the first inquiry.

The second is pertaining to a statement that I believe that was made today by the NGO HOME about a complaint that Ms Parti Liyani lodged against the Police concerning the way the IO conducted himself at trial. I would like to inquiry whether those investigations have been completed, and if they have been completed, can the Minister share what have been the Police's findings?

My last issue – actually, it is not a question. The Minister spoke earlier of sharing some Annexes with Members of this House. If I heard him right, he said the Annexes would be outside the Chamber. I do not believe there are any Annexes outside. We just have Annex 3. Are those other Annexes going to be shared now or will we receive them later? That is just a question of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr K Shanmugam: On the Annexes, Mr Singh, there was a set that they were distributing but let me go and check. I think other Members also say they do not have it, so I will check. During the break, they were supposed to have distributed but we will try and make sure of that. I apologise. So, that is a small matter.

Now, the lapse. Again, let us be clear. The manpower issue cannot be an excuse. Let us be clear about that. I have made that clear. It is a breach of Police rules, it is a breach of the law and disciplinary action is being taken. I will have to check whether the rules allow this but if the rules allow this, I will find out the details of what happened and I am happy to share it with Mr Singh, when eventually it is dealt with. In this case, it is not to be treated as a precedent.

The broader reason for this is, of course, a matter of concern. And in my Ministerial Statement I said I have asked myself how often are IOs under such kind of pressure. So, there is a review, the Police will come back to me and let me know how much pressure they are under. But I have given you the broader statistics and you can understand in every aspect of policing work. It is not a matter unknown to you all. I think Ms Sylvia Lim has raised it more than once in this House about the pressure that lack of manpower resources have put the Police under. It is common to both sides of the House on this issue. But I have asked on the extent of the pressure and I will get a better sense of it.

On the statement by HOME, I have not been able to look at it very carefully. But we have focused, in my Ministerial Statement, on what the Judge dealt with. As far as I am concerned, those are the issues that are raised, that I have to deal with here.

If there is a specific concern about what has been set out in the HOME statement, a question can be put up and we can deal with it.

But I will say this. Though it arises from a Police report that Ms Liyani has made – not Ms Liyani, I think HOME had made. A number of things. Four things were mentioned. One was the translation issue that I had dealt with. The other was the fact that five weeks were taken, which I have dealt with. I really wonder how these are matters for filing of a Police report. The fact that the IO took five weeks is a matter that a victim files a Police report to complain about?

And I think, Mr Singh, we all know that Ms Liyani is not doing this. We know why this is being done. But the Police will deal with it and will respond in due course. And I am not suggesting that anybody in this House is responsible for it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Lim Biow Chuan.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank Minister for the clarification.

The Minister has spoken about the issue of motive by the Liews. I took out a copy of the judgment issued by Justice Chan Seng Onn and in one of his statements, he had said that, "I find the Prosecution had failed to dispel the reasonable doubt raised by the Defence and showed that there was no improper motive by Mr Liew and Mr Karl in making the Police report."

I was wondering if the Minister clarify whether the Liews have an improper motive in filing this Police report.

Mr K Shanmugam: Sir, I took the House through the facts so that we can understand the information that the Police and AGC had. Also, the further investigation that was necessitated by the High Court's comments. And then, we got information which we had to set out to this House. That information was not before the High Court, as I said. And I said that the High Court ruled the inference that it did, naturally and understandably, based on the information that it had. And I am not in a position to say anything really beyond that.

Mr Speaker: Mr Christopher de Souza.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Minister for his explanations. I have three clarifications. The first is in relation to the duration of the case – four years. Four years is a fairly long time for a person not to be employed, and then, eventually, acquitted. So, would he be able to explain the four-year duration?

The second point is about entrenchment of impartiality within the system, what more can be done to entrench impartiality. I am not insinuating that it does not exist. I think it does exist. But what can we do more to entrench it?

And the third point is somewhat related. It relates to capital cases – whether in capital cases, in trials, there can be two judges hearing a capital case in the first instance, and then possibly five judges on appeal, arising from the various different opinions between each levels of court.

Mr K Shanmugam: The duration of the case, and I will have to stand corrected if I get anything wrong here. Let me try and speak from memory.

In December 2016, the investigation started. I think it took about six months to June, middle of 2017, for the papers to be sent to AGC and then there was back and forth as I had said between AGC and the Police. It took about six months because of the number of items and the Police had to check the items and so on. I think the first pre-trial conference was in late 2017, if I am not wrong. And dates were taken for early 2018.

There were some difficulties with counsel's diaries. So, the case was then tried in 2018.

The High Court hearing took place in 2019 on appeal and judgment was delivered in 2020. I think the High Court hearing took place over three different tranches and spread over from 2019 to early 2020. I think it was a question of dates as well. So, these are matters that are not really within our control.

I think Mr de Souza had another question on entrenchment of impartiality; what more we can do? That is a very important question.

We have to take very seriously what I said just now, about we got to be always on guard to see some sort of — Explicit bias, we can all see. But implicit bias, growing in, we have got to guard against that.

I think the system we have today is the best that we can find in the sense that the Police have a clear role. They investigate, they work with AGC. At AGC, there are chains of command. AGC acts as a sieve. As you notice, if you take foreign domestic workers, 25% of the theft cases go for prosecution. Not insignificant, but at the same time it is not as if every case goes for prosecution. They make an assessment.

Then, you have the system of Courts. This is what I meant by the system at the top level. The Police, AGC, State Courts, High Court – all working independently as they should; looking at it, and hopefully the right result is arrived at. I think that is the safeguard.

Good people across all the different parts, clear rules, transparency and accountability. When people ask questions, we have to be accountable here. And if something goes wrong, the will to put it right as well. I think those are the things that you need to look at and to be very alert about any kind of influence peddling.

The question on capital cases, this is something that has been discussed previously – whether we ought to have two judges instead of one. We had two judges and then we moved to one judge. The Member's question is whether we go back to two judges and five judges on appeal. It is not something that implicitly the Government is opposed to, but it is something that will need to be discussed. I do not know that you need five judges on appeal, necessarily. But this is something that we will discuss with the Courts.

Mr Speaker: Mr Zhulkarnain.

Mr Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Chua Chu Kang): Thank you, Speaker. I thank the Minister for the Statement. I just have a clarification in regard to confusion or the alleged confusion on the statements. Are there any plans to video record all statements taken from accused persons?

Mr K Shanmugam: Actually, if you could do video recording, that is a gold standard. Once you have that, there can be no questions about what happened during the statement-taking.

We have announced it in phases: Phase 1 has taken place, Phase 2 was earlier this year, but there is a serious bottleneck. Let me explain this. One way is to say we just take a video and use that as evidence, but it could be a three-hour session, or four-hour session. It means AGC will have to spend three hours trying to look at it and then, re-look at it. As opposed to reading a transcript, which is much faster, and time wise, it does not work. Likewise, in the Courts, both at pretrial conferences as well as hearings. It does not work. It does need to be transcribed. The problem has been transcription. Because today, the technology for automatic transcription is not yet mature enough for the document to be precise, to be used in court.

And internally, the Police – both have an infrastructure issue in terms of the kind of rooms that are needed, equipped for this. But that is something we can overcome with a lot of money and further resources. But the manpower needed to transcribe is very difficult in this case. So, we have been bottlenecked on moving on to a wider and wider range of cases for video recording because of the administrative processes. So, that is what held us back from expanding.

We are doing it. I think the first case where video recording has been done, is going to Court or is in Court. When we have tried outside providers, that has not worked well either, because we saw a lot of errors. And you know, in statement-taking, when you see from Ms Liyani's case, statement-taking can be can be a serious issue in court, with what the words mean or what the words are said.

So, when we have used outside providers that has resulted in problems too. And we have had to sit back and redo all the statements. So, this has been the issue. While I would like to go down this route, we have had some difficulties.

Mr Speaker: Mr Vikram.

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang): Another issue that arises I think in relation to vulnerable victims is whether or not they should have earlier access to legal counsel. In Singapore, accused are allowed to access to legal counsel after a reasonable time. In other systems, it is allowed at an earlier time. So, I would the Minister consider earlier access to legal counsel?

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Vikram Nair is a lawyer, he knows that access is allowed within a reasonable time after investigations begin. What is a reasonable time? It seeks to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and public interest, to ensure thorough, objective investigations.

The current situation is that 96% of the persons arrested – this is based on a 2019 study by Police – are released within 48 hours of the arrest. Immediately after they are released, 48 hours, they are able to consult legal counsel. Where it is necessary to continue remanding a person for longer than 48 hours, the Police will have to apply to Court; and the Court will, of course, weigh the different considerations in deciding to order further remand.

There have been instances where the Police have applied to Court for an earlier mention date when investigations are completed, before the end of the remand period. Since March 2006, the Police have had an Access to Counsel Scheme to grant an accused person access to counsel during this remand period, as long as investigations have been completed or are nearing completion.

Mr Speaker: Mr Sitoh Yih Pin.

Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Mr Speaker, I would like to wind the clock back to about a quarter century ago, when Minister was a backbencher and a practising lawyer. I think sometime around 1994. I did some research. The Minister raised the subject of the setting up of an office of an ombudsman.

In the light of this case, I would like to ask Minister whether he thinks this is still appropriate because I noticed that in this particular case, whilst there is no need to doubt the agencies, many are working in silos. And the agencies are respectively doing investigations on their own personnel.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, I am tempted to give the same answer I gave to Mr Leong earlier. In any event, Sir, there are different parts to this question. I recommended it or I suggested it many years ago. This is something I think Mr Singh has asked me more than once or at least once. And I think I have given an answer.

The question is: today, we have done an investigation. What are the different parts to the system? There is the Police, there is AGC, we have given an accounting, there is the State Courts, which we will not expect an accounting from. That is something for the Chief Justice to deal with. I do not think anybody is suggesting any kind of bias.

There is full accounting – the key question Members have to ask is what was there before the Police and AGC? What was the information? And an accounting of the steps they have taken. And that shows prima facie that there was a good case to proceed. The case in accordance with the usual principles. And they did that. And the confirmations that have been given here about how the matter was dealt with. And that there was no influence-peddling or influence exerted.

An ombudsman would do what we would have done. The question is whether the ombudsman takes you further for good governance. And I am happy at some other point to deal with that issue and share examples from different countries how an ombudsman has worked or has not worked and how expectations are set very high and then they are not fulfilled.

The real point, Sir, is this. Whether we have a functioning Government with integrity and a civil service and a public service that acts with integrity, that is capable of being questioned here and outside, and is prepared to answer. And we have that. How is governance improved by having any other institution? So, those are the questions, but those are larger questions. I am dealing with a narrower question of what happened in this case in my Statement.

Mr Speaker: Mr Xie Yao Quan.

Mr Xie Yao Quan (Jurong): I thank the Minister, for the Statement. I have two points of clarification for the Minister. First, the Minister has spoken about the evidence in this case in detail and also touched on the findings of further investigations. I would like to clarify with the Minister, is Ms Liyani, in fact, guilty.

The second question is, the case was originally seen as one involving a wealthy complainant, fixing their foreign domestic worker, but it seems now that the case is really about wealthy people who are cavalier in dealing with a foreign domestic worker who had, on her part, not exactly acted well as well. So, I would like to ask the Minister what is his view on this issue.

Mr K Shanmugam: I think it is a very stark question: is Ms Liyani guilty? She has been acquitted by the High Court. And I said that we must proceed on that basis and not reopen that issue. We leave it at that and I do not want to be commenting on the decision.

As to the word "cavalier", the description was not used by me. Again, on the conduct of the Liews, how you characterise it, I have put across the facts. I have given certain characterisations. I do not think I can usefully add further to those characterisations. But this is not rocket science and I think Members can draw their own conclusions as well based on the facts.

Mr Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Speaker, I have two clarifications for the Minister.

First, Part 1 of his speech went through rather quickly and we were all trying to follow without the Annexes. So, I think it is important for him to clarify, at the risk of repeating himself, what exactly he is saying about the High Court judgment. The sense I am getting is that he is saying that if the High Court had known certain other information at the time, the High Court might have come to different conclusions. Is that what he is saying?

The second clarification is regarding the lapses in the Police investigation which he spoke about earlier. He mentioned that the five-week lapse from the time that the case was reported, to the time that the Police actually attended the scene and also the failure to seize the evidence. He said that there was some internal review done and the officer had said that he was very busy at the time and also he had some personal matter to attend to. However, I believe that during the trial, he actually gave a different reason and his reason was that he did not want to re-victimise the Liew family.

Speaking as a former Police officer, I find this is quite unusual in a theft case that an officer would consider this issue of re-victimisation. And of course, I accept the fact that LML did not exert pressure on the officers, but I am just wondering whether it crossed the Minister's mind that the officer himself may have felt that he was dealing with somebody who was very prominent and therefore he needed to take extra care. This is something that strikes me.

Mr K Shanmugam: On the first point about the High Court, what I said is that the High Court's decision is on the facts before it. It is both natural and understandable. I explained that we did not go about looking for any further evidence to question the High Court. It was the High Court's decision which required us to do further investigations specifically on the Liews and whether any criminal investigations had been committed.

So, in the course of the investigations, we came across further evidence. I am a Member of Parliament. I am here, I am making a Ministerial Statement. I have this information in my possession. So, I have to set it out in all good faith and honesty and transparency. And that is all that I am doing.

I am not, in any way, therefore suggesting that if this information was there before the High Court, it could have come to a different decision. And I do not want to be making those comments. I am not the High Court Judge and how can I say, "Oh, if this information was there with him, he would have changed his mind." I can say to you this is the information there is. So, I am being very careful about how I have put it.

If Ms Sylvia Lim or any Members think that the High Court would have benefited from this information, that is your prerogative for you to think that. But I do not think I should be suggesting that.

You could have think otherwise too. You may think that it would have made no difference. So, we are just laying out the facts.

What is important for me is to show what the Police and AGC had and I am happy for Ms Sylvia Lim's confirmation that there was no expressed influence by LML or his family. So, the question is, was there some implicit thinking in the back of his mind? It is a question that has struck me. It is an obvious question. Did the officer, say, think to himself, "This is such a big man, I had better do certain things." If that is the theory, let us look at his conduct. Why did he wait for five weeks then? Do we think that if he was so concerned, "Hey, I better do this properly", then would he have waited for five weeks?

Sir, I am not suggesting that this has been specifically the case, but I am saying to you, actually, the way the matter was handled, negative the suggestion of any implicit extra attention.

I think Ms Sylvia Lim may be collapsing two different points.

The five weeks – first of all, I want to emphasise over and over again. There is no excuse. It is a breach and it will be dealt with. Again, in good faith and honesty, I am just putting the facts across as an explanation rather than an excuse as to what happened.

The time taken to visit the scene is different from why he did not seize the items. As regard why he did not seize the items, I have given an explanation. The Police make a decision as to whether to seize or not to seize. It depends on the facts and the nature of the items and assessment. If a photograph is adequate, then the officer can decide that he will take a photograph. These are day-to-day using items. These items, they say there is prima facie. There is no reason to disbelieve. So, I take photographs and once I have taken the photographs, why do I need the physical items? So, that is what is meant by "I did not want to re-victimise".

But Ms Sylvia Lim may recall that I said, that we should have taken colour photographs, and the way the photographs were taken should have been clearer, item by item. So, those were procedural lapses. They should have taken each item and photographed them separately. Some of that was not done for the clothes.

And I will give another example why this has got to be a case-by-case thing. That was a one matter that came to me as a Member of Parliament. This was the alleged victims. They were in the trade – they deal with gold. The gold that they were dealing with was said to be the subject of fraud. And therefore, the Police, at that time, seized the entire amount of gold which was quite substantial and they were investigating the alleged fraudsters.

The people who claimed ownership of the gold – and I think there was no doubt that they are entitled to the gold – came to see me to say, "Meanwhile the prices are oscillating, they are going up, they are going down and the Police are holding on to the gold. Can we not please be subjected to this?" And it did go up, quite substantially. By the time it was released, it had gone down quite substantially.

So, these things happen. I think the Police approach, generally now, is to try not to seize, as far as possible, if you can get good identification of the items. But you got to assess on the case whether here do I need to seize or do I need to take a photograph.

The Police officer assessed that photographs were enough. But having assessed that, the quality of the photographs was not adequate and the way the photographs was taken was not adequate.

Mr Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the hon Minister for Home Affairs and Law.

First, in relation to the investigation by the investigating officer or IO at Tanglin Police Division, I understand that it was classified as a routine theft case. I wonder whether given the factual complexities, as opposed to the legal complexities, the Police could approach this in a different way, in future, so that the necessary expertise may be borne onto the case.

Second, in relation to the fact that currently, we have a Legal Service Commission, which draws on both judicial officers as well as legal officers from the AGC, I wonder whether the Minister has any views on having a separate Judicial Service Commission. And that would serve two purposes. Firstly, to deepen the competence of judicial officers; and secondly, to enhance or entrench the view that the judicial system is separate and independent.

Mr K Shanmugam: I think the first point made by Mr Murali Pillai about having AGC, greater degree of legal expertise coming up at an early stage is a good one. And I know that that is how the private sector does it – you come in quickly, the lawyers come in, and aid and help the people who are doing the investigations. But I have given you some numbers just now, the thousands of cases that are handled. I think given the number, if you look at the Public Prosecutors we have available, if you look at the IOs we have available, to do that in an integrated way from the beginning, I think would be very challenging. I know Mr Murali Pillai says for a case that is complex. I think we will have to look at these possibilities and identify which case is complex; and sometimes, cases start out as simple and end up as complex. We will consider his suggestion.

On the second point that he has made about the Judicial Service Commission. Again, the answer is what I have given earlier. I have given a fairly long answer on how our service is structured, and where it is integrated and where it is separate. I think given the size and given the inherent limitations, that is probably the best model for the time being.

6.00 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Ministerial Statement. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Notice of Motion.