• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

AHAHAHAHAHA....... No one can get away from wrongdoing even if rich and powerful: Shanmugam

tenor.gif


Media corpse Channel 5 TV news, telecast snippets of K Shanmuggam reporting to Parliament that after the Liews suspected that Parti was stealing their things, they subsequently asked her to work additionally in his son, Carl Liew's home also (which wasn't the case prior) .

Probably, the biggest thief of all is Liew Mun Leong, who stole (exploited) the labor of his maid by making her (illegally) work in more properties than laws/ her contract allowed him to deploy her for.

Was the Liew family trying to bait Ms Parti or encourage her to steal more? Liew Mun Leong is a siao lang (mad man) according to Law Minister K Shanmuggam it seems.

Or is K Sanmuggam saying that Liew Mun Leong is a super stupid or arrogant man? Want to steal from a thief (his maid) and then report her to the police for theft based on illegal evidence (illegally deploying her to clean up his son's house), with the arrogant idea that the courts will overlook his illegal employment (deployment) actions?
 
Last edited:
His statement acts as a comic relief from the US elections.
 
Shanmugam , does he represent the entire Indian community in Sinkieland ?

guess not , why ?

he is ethnically a Chettiar , and who are they ?

they are essentially the Ah Loongs of Ah nehs ,better known as money lenders

like the Jews of William Shakespeare , Shylock , Chettiars live entirely on lending money only , no labour or no thinkers

the Chettiars notariety was so great that Burma after gaining independence, the first thing Aung’ s father did was to chase the entire Indian community out of Burma ... even today the very mention of the word Chettiars bring loathsome and hatred among the Burmese

just talk to anyone who is a Burmese about Chettiars and they will tell you volumes , of all that is bad about them

yet , PAP has such a selection !!!!
 
MOM well done. i tot maid cannot work 2 households?
 
Sham the goon forgets that LKY will sue, in the local courts, the pants off anyone and no one will doubt he will win. But he does not dare to do any suing in a foreign jurisdiction.

Say so much about how justice is practised here.

They also changed how they appointed judges. In the past judges were for life. Now its on a renewable appointment. So what does that show? You better toe the line or else.....
 
Parti Liyani case: Govt readily spends on prosecuting lower-income accused persons, but tentative about providing legal representation for such individuals?
The Online Citizen
by The Online Citizen

14 November 2020

in Editorial, Law & Order

Reading Time: 4min read
31
shanmugam-parti-750x375.png



The case of Parti Liyani has sparked much debate on the state of Singapore’s criminal justice system and the enhancements that can be made to improve underprivileged groups’ access to the system.
One of such changes is the possibility of setting up a Public Defenders’ Office to serve lower-income accused persons in criminal cases in Singapore.
Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam told Parliament on 4 November that the suggestion is currently being considered in the Government’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) review.
He noted that while the Law Ministry leans towards implementing the proposal, state expenditure will be a significant issue to consider, as the Government will foot the bill and employ lawyers in a separate structure to defend such accused persons.
“How many officers, how big, how much — [these] are conversations we have to have with the Ministry of Finance (MOF), among others.

“But in principle, we have to first discuss it with the profession, and then talk to MOF and deal with the issue,” Mr Shanmugam told the House in response to fellow Nee Soon GRC MP Carrie Tan’s question on whether the Government will put in place such a scheme.
Currently, 75 per cent of CLAS’ operating costs are funded by the Government, while the rest is supported by the Law Society and private donations.
Citing the fully-government funded criminal legal aid scheme in England and Wales comprising two schemes — a public defender one with its own government lawyers and a legal aid one that relies on outsourcing cases to private lawyers — Mr Shanmugam said that such a scheme has garnered widespread debate among the public over matters such as government cost and abuse of such legal aid on the part of those who sought it.
“Around 50 defendants with more than S$1.76 million in illegally obtained assets were found to have received legal aid in 2012,” he said.
Noting that Ms Parti’s legal cost would have been around S$150,000 if it was not for defence counsel Anil Balchandani who took up her case on a pro bono basis, Mr Shanmugam said that taxpayers would have had to pay that amount.
The Workers’ Party chair Sylvia Lim, however, highlighted the disparity between unrepresented accused persons — often due to not being able to afford a lawyer — and prosecutors who are state-funded “with deep resources” when presenting their case before judges.

“These unrepresented persons do not know what to do when prosecutors submit bundles of legal authorities to persuade judges to convict or to fix a sentence.
“Because of their lack of legal knowledge, some of them inadvertently irritate judges, because they say things which are not legally relevant, or come across as disrespectful or even under-dressed,” she told Parliament in her speech on the motion she filed on Singapore’s criminal justice system.
While some legal aid is available to lower-income accused persons provided that they “satisfy a test of means and qualify for the schemes”, Ms Lim highlighted the issue of pre-trial liberty and bail, whereby “the majority of persons considered suitable for release before trial remained locked up”.
“In a 2005 study by an Assistant Registrar of the Supreme Court, she found that in 2004, out of all accused persons offered bail by the Subordinate Courts, only 42.7 per cent were bailed out.
“Ms Parti Liyani was fortunate that the NGO Home helped find her a bailor, but many accused persons cannot find bailors of sufficient means,” she said.
Ms Lim stressed that pre-trial detention may make it “much harder” for accused persons “to consult with any lawyer or witness to prepare one’s defence”.
She added that the police and the Courts “can release a suspect either on bail or on his personal bond” under the Criminal Procedure Code to secure the accused’s attendance in court.
The “heavy reliance” on money bail, however, “has disproportionate effects on the poor”, said Ms Lim.
“I have come across residents living in HDB rental flats who had bail set at above S$10,000 for numerous charges of non-violent, regulatory offences like parking and ERP violations.
“This may sound surprising, as many of us consider such offence notices as easily settled through prompt payment of composition fines. But this is not so for those who have insufficient funds to pay and have to attend Court. The entire household can be derailed by such problems,” she stressed.
Ms Lim also noted that statistics on bail “are not readily tracked by the government”.
Referencing past Parliamentary questions filed by MPs including herself on the outcomes of the Bail Court, Ms Lim said that Mr Shanmugam said the court had reduced or varied the terms of bail for 30 per cent of the cases referred to it.
The Bail Court, she said, was established in 2007 to achieve “consistency in bail decisions, and where possible, to reduce bail amounts, reduce time spent in remand and ensure that review applications were dealt with expeditiously”.
“Today, it seems that the Bail Court is not heard of. Has it been discontinued, and, if so, why?” Ms Lim questioned.
Given the above account by Ms Lim, even if the Government does prevent or limit the spending of taxpayers’ money on providing legal representation services for low-income accused persons, the State is nevertheless spending money to prosecute individuals who may be innocent of crimes they have been charged with.
To cite an example at hand, Ms Parti would have been found guilty even if she claimed trial, had it not been for Mr Anil’s pro bono services and for her decision to consider appealing to the High Court where she was ultimately found innocent of the charges made against her.
Wouldn’t greater spending for the purpose of providing legal representation services to lower-income accused persons spark consideration by the prosecutors on which cases to embark on?
Further, in Ms Parti’s case, would it not be difficult to assume that the Attorney-General’s Chambers went on to charge her — despite the nature of the evidence at hand — based on the high possibility of securing her conviction, due to her financial status that would have otherwise prevented her from securing legal representation?
Share this:
 
Wat a load of croc whereby the mata is all staff by NSFs....got manpower shortage? are the ppl that retarded to believe him?


Parti Liyani’s case: Minister Shanmugam says police are “very stretched”, cites low officer to population ratio
Given the difficulty in improving the policing situation, is the government adding to the problem by pushing strongly for the increase of local population?
The Online Citizen
by The Online Citizen

12 November 2020

in Editorial

Reading Time: 4min read
41
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam speaking in Parliament on 4 November 2020 (Screenshot from CNA parliamentary broadcast)

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam speaking in Parliament on 4 November 2020 (Screenshot from CNA parliamentary broadcast)


The police are already “very stretched” said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam during his ministerial statement in Parliament on 4 November.
He was delivering a statement regarding the case of Indonesian national Parti Liyani who was acquitted on four theft of charges in September for which she was originally convicted and sentenced two years ago. Her former employer, ex-Changi Airport Group Chariman Liew Mum Leong and family accused Parti of stealing about S$50,000 worth of items.
Public and political discourse regarding the case eventually led to Workers’ Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim putting forth a motion on Singapore’s criminal justice system which called for, amongst other things, a review of the system to ensure fairness and justice for all.
The High Court judge, Justice Chan Seng Onn, made several observations which led to his decision to acquit Parti, including about how the investigated was conducted by the police. Issues raised include the absence of a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter in four instances whereby the investigating officers (IO) took statements from Parti, and a five week delay between the police report being filed and the police looking at the allegedly stolen items.
In his speech, Mr Shanmugam said he was told by the police that the IO involved that was dealing with several other ongoing prosecutions, arrest operations as well as a very personal matter.

“He seems to have been under a lot of pressure,” Mr Shanmugam added. “He was in a predicament. It is a situation many Home Team officers find themselves in. It is a reality of what our officers go through.”
However, we indicated in a previous report that the police didn’t know that the items were actually still at the Liew’s house until after they arrested Parti when she came back to Singapore in December 2016.
Now, when MP Louis Ng asked during the debate of the motion if foreign domestic workers and other work permit holders can be accompanied by non-legal personnel, similar to the Appropriate Adults scheme, for police interviews.
Mr Shanmugan replied: “I have earlier said the Police are already very stretched, let’s not stretch them further. It will be a very difficult exercise.”
Speaking on the workload of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), Mr Shanmugam went on to cite statistics showing that there are currently 13,200 police officers, including National Servicemen, in the SPF for a population of approximately 5.69 million.
The Minister went on to compare the ratio of police officers to population in other cities.

“New York at 0.42 per cent, London at 0.34 per cent, Hong Kong at 0.39 per cent, Singapore at 0.23 per cent including full-time National Servicemen,” he cited.
“If we were to have the same numbers as Hong Kong, we will have to have 9,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as London, we’ll need 6,000 more officers. If we were to have the same numbers as New York, we’ll need 11,000 more officers”
“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,” he added.
Slight drop of population to police ratio since Little India Riot 2013
Now, as Mr Shanmugam eluded to, this issue is not new. In fact, the Commissioner of Police in 2014, Ng Joo Hee, said the same thing during his testimony at a Committee of Inquiry (COI) hearing which was looking into the Little India Riot in December 2013.
Commissioner Ng said he needed more manpower, another 1,000 officers, so that the police can “acquire a much needed strategic depth” and better police hotspots around the country.
At the time, there were a total of 12,472 officers—regular officers and police national servicemen—for a population of 5.4 million. That’s about 423 civilians for every officer, or 0.230 percent. The Commissioner described the figure as being “way below international benchmarks”.
“The truth is that the Singapore Police Force has not grown significantly in size, while Singapore’s population has grown by two million in the space of two decades,” Commissioner Ng said.
Comparing the numbers from 2014 to the 2020 figures quoted by Mr Shanmugan in his recent ministerial speech, the Law Minister said Singapore’s current police to population ratio is 0.23 percent.
However, if we look at the absolute numbers, in 2014 it was 423 people per office while in 2020 it is 443 people per officer. In terms of percentage, the 0.23 percent quoted by Mr Shanmugan was rounded up to two decimal points from 0.227 percent, meaning there was a slight drop of 0.003 percent from 2014.
This is still way below international benchmarks.
Sylvia Lim has consistently raised similar concerns
In her maiden parliamentary speech in 2006 as a Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP), Ms Lim raised concerns about the demands on the Singapore Police Force from “a more crowded Singapore.” She was speaking on the government’s immigration and population plans then.
“[The] prospect of a more crowded Singapore should be carefully planned,” she told the House. “Every new person fights for resources, takes up space and disposes of waste. The demands on healthcare services, public transport and the police will increase.”
Eight year later following the COI on the Little India riots, Ms Lim once again raised her concerns on the shortage of police manpower and resources in Parliament. This time, however, her speech was focused on the concern “about many Home Team uniformed services turning to outsourcing as a response to increasing demand for services and manpower shortages.”
Since then, Ms Lim has consistently flagged this police manpower issue in Parliament.
So the question is, if the government cannot manage the ratio of law enforcement officers to population, why is it still pushing to increase the number of residents in Singapore with a target of over 20,000 new citizens and 30,000 new PRs each year? Isn’t that just going to further overburden the already “very stretched” police force? Will the ministry point to manpower issues as an excuse whenever a lapse occurs?
Or does the government have a plan on how to increase the number of police officers as the population continues to grow?
 
Shanmugam may have wanted to clarify but what he may have created is a travesty!
Ghui
by Ghui

13 November 2020

in Commentaries, Opinion

Reading Time: 3min read
34



Leader of the Reform Party, Kenneth Jeyaretnam (Jeyaretnam) has written a damning indictment of Minister for Law and Home Affairs, K Shanmugam’s (Shanmugam) Parliamentary speech on the Parti Liyani (Parti) case. Among other things, Jeyaretnam said :
Despite naïve hopes expressed by many Singaporeans that the flaws exposed by the Parti Liyani case should lead to reform of the criminal justice system, Shanmugam not only whitewashed the whole system but also undermined the independence of the judiciary……He cast doubt on the High Court’s decision to overturn Parti Liyani’s appeal and smeared her as someone who had stolen from her employers but had been lucky to get away with it.”
Shanmugam’s true intentions behind his parliamentary speech are best left to him to clarify but in saying that the police and the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) were not wrong to charge Parti in the first instance, he is implying that Parti was guilty. This not only undermines the High Court, but it also smears the good name of Parti after she has fought so hard to clear it against all odds.
Remember, Parti lost out on an opportunity to work for four years! She would not even have been able to sustain herself but for the help of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME). Why would any lawyer, much less one as skilled as Anil Balchandani take on her case pro bono if there was an ounce of belief that she was guilty? Why would anyone bother wasting their time in this David vs Goliath battle if there was even a pinch of doubt on her innocence?
Shanmugam’s statements, therefore, seem like an attempt to defend the AGC and the police no matter what and that is what comes across as disingenuous and disappointing.

Worst still, Shanmugam also casts doubt on the veracity of Parti’s subsequent complaints by saying that she did not draft the complaints. Does this not undermine her even further? She is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. In view of that and the fact that her life was in limbo for four years, she totally deserves the damages that she is claiming. While she may have made the complaints on the advice of her legal team, the decision to make that complaint is no less hers. After all, don’t the police consistently take advice from the AGC as the Government’s lawyers too? Does this mean that all decisions made by the police on the advice of the AGC are not the police’s decision?
What Shanmugam has done (unwittingly or otherwise) is to lend credence to the belief that the rich and powerful bully the little people. As it stands, Liew Mun Leong is seen as the influential and well-connected bully who fabricated evidence in order to prevent his foreign domestic worker (FDW) from complaining about her illegal deployment. Now we have the mighty Minister creating a narrative to disempower the actions of an FDW as if she has no compos mentis! And all this is based on internal investigations that are held behind closed doors that are not verifiable by the public!
The Parti case has thrown up so many public interest issues that cause disquiet – misuse of power, police negligence, AGC negligence, unconscious bias in public services across multiple state agencies, just to name a few. And yet, there was no committee of inquiry? Just a ministerial statement backed by nothing but piecemeal verbal revelations from internal non-verifiable investigations?
Shanmugam may have wanted to clarify but what he may have created is a travesty!
 
Internal reviews cannot solve the mystery of why Parti Liyani’s case had to go all the way to High Court for justice
Commission of Inquiry has to convened for the lapses to be overcovered
Terry Xu
by Terry Xu

5 November 2020

in Editorial

Reading Time: 6min read
27
k-shan-justice-750x375.jpg



Speaking in a ministerial statement on Wednesday (4 November), Minister of Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam said that reviews by the police and the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) have confirmed that there was no improper influence at any point in the case of Indonesian domestic worker, Parti Liyani who was acquitted of all charges theft by the High Court on 4 Sept this year.
In response to Non-constituency Member of Parliament, Leong Mun Wai’s question of whether would he look into convening a committee of inquiry into the case, the Minister said that he is willing to convene an independent committee or Commission of Inquiry (COI) if the NCMP can inform him of the matters for the COI to look into.
While Leong stumbled in his first reply, he recovered and nearly got it right in his second attempt at answering the Minister’s call for particulars when he pointed out the various lapses which indicate possible systematic issues in the justice system.
However, Leong backed off after the Minister derailed him by harping on about how disciplinary actions have been taken in relation to the lapses of the police officers, and that the prosecutors are currently being reviewed by a Disciplinary Tribunal.
But can these series of internal reviews said by the Minister really get to the bottom of the matter?

Let us go back to the beginning of the case in 2016 and ask ourselves these questions.
How was it possible for an arrest warrant to be issued against Parti just a day after the police report was filed by Mr Liew Mun Leong accompanied by his son, without the Investigating Officer (IO) first double checking on the details of the alleged offence reported by the Liews?
Bear in mind that the police only discovered that the alleged items were still with the Liews after they arrested Parti at the airport and conducted her first interview.
Sure, the Minister said that the superior of the IO who approved the arrest warrant will be punished as well. But does that address the question of how this was possible in the first place?
We know that the Police went down to the Liews’ family home to take a look at the alleged stolen items five weeks later. However, instead of collecting the evidence, they left the items there with the Liews’ so as not to “revictimise” the family.
We also know that the IO had told the forensic officer to sketch three boxes of alleged stolen items in the Liews’ living room when there was actually only two boxes at the time the Police visited. In truth, one of the boxes had already been moved by then. The sketch of three boxes gave the impression that the evidence was not touched by the family.

The details of the six-months long investigation were then passed to the AGC to determine if Parti should be charged. After two months following clarification with the Police, the AGC decided to press four charges of theft against Parti in Aug 2017 and then another charge for items of which ownership cannot be ascertained by AGC.
So apart from the two prosecutors being questioned for their antics during the hearing, what about the officer in the AGC who decided, based on the flawed evidence from the Police, to charge Parti?
It is claimed by AGC that neither the Attorney General or its Deputy Attorney General decided to go forward with the charges. Then who did? And why are the officers who handled the case not being investigated as well? Why were there no alarm bells sounding off regarding the contamination of evidence as observed by High Court Justice Chan Seng Onn in his findings of the appeal which acquitted Parti?
Minister K Shan has not denied that this is untrue so why did the AGC not consider this matter before charges were even filed?
Furthermore, the Minister, in his address on Wednesday, failed to deal with the fifth charge filed by the AGC. The fifth charge, which was redrawn by the AGC following the acquittal, was regarding items that were in Parti’s possession.

Also, why did this AGC officer feel or think it was for justice sake to charge Parti for items which the Liews did not even include in their initial report? The Minister did not even reveal who approved the five charges against Parti.
Bear in mind that if Parti was not acquitted by the High Court judge, this charge would have stood and she would have had to serve more than 26 months imprisonment.
So answers for the above questions can only be served by having the officer(s) answer these questions in an independent inquiry and not an internal review.
parti-timeline.jpg

On top of everything stated above, there is also the issue of withholding of evidence from the Defence. Looking at the timeline above, it was 16 months before Parti could view the alleged stolen items physically. Her Defence counsel could do so only 4 days before the hearing began.
How was this allowed in the name of justice? Apparently the High Court judge took issue on this fact, but can the DPPs answer for this matter under the current disciplinary tribunal? Who allowed them to do this?
The above mentioned questions relate to just the investigation and deliberation of prosecution, but there are also questions about the proceedings at the State Court. Didn’t the DPPs find anything wrong with the evidence provided by their witnesses? What about the State Court judge?
This is compounded with the observations raised by the High Court judge about the testimonies provided by the prosecution witnesses which he found to be unreliable and not credible.
Furthermore, I was in the public gallery observing the conduct of the proceedings over the course of 2018 and 2019. Parti’s defence counsel, Anil Balchandani was fighting the case with his hands tied behind his back with the constant objections to his line of questioning from both the DPPs and the State Court judge.
Read: Defence was prevented from confirming with Karl Liew’s mother that he does sometimes wear women’s clothes as he claimed
Read: District Judge, DPP prevented defence counsel from questioning CAG chairman’s son’s credibility as witness
Read: District Judge, prosecution blocked defence counsel from mentioning his client’s intention to lodge complaint to MOM

Rather than taking it as a standard procedure as claimed by Minister Shanmugam in his ministerial statement, it seems to me that the prosecution was trying to convict Parti at all cost.
This brings me to the fact that the District Judge—who found Parti guilty of the charges without any reasonable doubt and found that the Liews had provided credible testimony during the course of the hearing—is now a Deputy Senior State Counsel. She was transferred just over a month after she delivered the guilty verdict on Parti in 2019.
A question that comes to mind on this matter is when did the District Judge know she was being transferred to the Attorney General’s Chambers as a Deputy Senior State Counsel? Would this appointment have had any influence on her duties as a judge, leading to the flawed verdict we now see clearly since we have been apprised of the facts of the case?
Even if former CEO of Changi Airport Group and Surbana Group, Liew Mun Leong was not involved in the decision to prosecute Parti, did anyone or any entities impose undue influence on the conduct of the public service officers? Can internal reviews by the individuals departments provide the public satisfying answers? The answer is obviously no.
It bears to note what NCMP Leong said about how these mistakes could have been overlooked by the different agencies. If it was just a lapse within a department, why did no one sound out the issue earlier, leaving it to reach all the way to the High Court in order for justice to prevail?
With all that has been mentioned and more left untold, it is incredible that Minister Shanmugam can assure that internal reviews on the matter of the Parti Liyani incident can resolve the shortcomings of the Singapore justice system. Where exactly were the checks and balances for the justice system? Are the public officers involved such as the IO, disciplined as scapegoats in place of the justice system that is much in need of a revamp as what the Workers’ Party had called for.
Before anyone dare to say that are recourses available for injustice in the system since Parti was acquitted by the High Court, I would like to ask if Parti did not have the support of the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) and her pro bono defence lawyer who helped her these last four years, could justice have seen the light of day?
It is surely on the minds of many that only by hauling all those involved in the case to be cross-examined under an independent committee of inquiry can the truth be told.
Share this:
 
Polis no enuf? I thought sinkie commit more crime. More foreigner no need so many polis wat m I rite? :unsure:
 
Back
Top