The 45-year-old son of Changi Airport Group’s ex-chairman, who was accused of lying to a court in the Parti Liyani case, has admitted to doing so. He pleaded guilty on Thursday (March 30) morning at the State Courts.
The prosecution asked for a fine of $5,000 and the case has been adjourned to April 14.
In 2019, Ms Parti, an Indonesian national aged 45, was convicted of stealing items worth $34,000 from the Liew family after a trial. However, her conviction was overturned on appeal by the High Court in 2020.
Ms Parti had been employed by the Liew family since 2007, and in March 2016, she was asked to carry out additional work at Karl Liew’s home and office. Unhappy with the extra workload, Ms Parti was subsequently terminated by the Liew family in October 2016 and given only two hours to pack her belongings into three boxes.
Feeling wronged by her sudden termination, Ms Parti threatened to lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower before returning to Indonesia.
Ms Parti had requested Karl Liew to cover the shipping costs of the boxes containing her belongings. The Liew family claimed that some of the items belonged to them. A police report was filed, leading to Ms Parti’s arrest when she returned to Singapore in December 2016. In August 2017, she was charged with four counts of theft, which she claimed trial to.
The media reported in February 2022 that two police officers who were involved in Ms Parti’s case had failed to perform their duties and did not meet expectations. According to the Minister for Home Affairs, K. Shanmugam, who provided an update to Parliament on the internal investigations of the case on Feb 14, 2022, both officers were fined. The penalties were determined based on the number of months of salary increments foregone.
Mr Shanmugam stated that the investigation officer (IO) and his supervisor neglected their duties, resulting in three lapses. Firstly, the IO did not promptly visit the crime scene to conduct investigations and collect evidence, which contributed to a break in the chain of custody for some exhibits. Secondly, the IO failed to verify some of the claims made by the parties during the investigation. Lastly, the supervisor did not provide adequate guidance.