K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 45 of 92.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“] 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The Singapore Passport complies with the standards and requirements set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). In the name field of the passport biodata page, the passport holder's name is displayed according to how it is registered in his/her birth certificate or National Registration Identity Card (NRIC). The passport holder's surname, if it is specified at birth, will be clearly identified in the machine-readable zone (MRZ) at the bottom left of the passport biodata page after the letters "PASGP". Any foreign authority that scans the MRZ of the passport during immigration clearance will be aware of the passport holder's surname, regardless of how the surname is sequenced in the name field.”
“There are different personal name order conventions around the world and there is no universal practice. In view of this, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) does not register names in any particular sequence. Names registered under the National Registration Act (NRA) and printed on National Registration Identity Cards (NRICs) are based on: (i) the names listed on registrants' birth certificates for Singapore Citizens (SCs), or (ii) the names listed on registrants' foreign passports for Permanent Residents (PRs). The NRIC does not specify the registrant's first, middle, or last name. The Singapore birth certificates also do not specify the newborn's first, middle, or last name. The sequence of the name is determined by the parents during the birth registration process.”
“Abusers will subsequently progress to the Community-based Programme phase, where the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG), in collaboration with community partners, provide support to the abusers in securing employment or opportunities to study, mending their relationship with their family, and generally reintegrating into society. After the completion of treatment, former drug abusers undergo a period of supervision by the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB). Besides ensuring that the supervisees report for urine or hair tests, CNB officers will check on their well-being and follow up on their reintegration needs. This allows CNB to intervene early and refer the supervisees to appropriate agencies for follow up, to reduce their risk of relapse. Community support is critical to helping former drug abusers lead drug-free lives. SPS, CNB and YRSG work with community partners to provide support to former drug abusers in areas such as training, career facilitation, family support and counselling. That said, more importantly, it is the personal determination of the individual former abuser to turn away from drugs and lead a drug-free life henceforth, that will make the difference.”
“From 2015 to 2019, the number of drug abusers who relapsed after having been released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) was approximately 1,300 per year. However, to better understand the effectiveness of our rehabilitation efforts, we track the two-year recidivism rate. This is an established indicator adopted by most rehabilitation institutions worldwide. The two-year recidivism rate for DRC inmates has remained low, hovering between 23% and 32% in the past five years. In the 1990s, it was about 60% to 70%. Hair analysis was introduced in 2012 as an alternative drug abuse detection tool. It is as effective as the urine test. Its advantage is that it can detect drug consumption from several months earlier, compared to the urine test which can only detect drug consumption from within one week. The longer detection window allows for a longer drug supervision reporting interval, and this reduces the disruption to the ex-abuser as he seeks to reintegrate into society after release. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) adopts a multi-pronged approach to tackling drug addiction: robust laws, an evidence-based rehabilitation framework, and community and family support. With the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2019, drug abusers who have not committed other criminal offences will be channelled to the DRC to undergo rehabilitation. In the DRC, abusers undergo psychology-based correctional programmes calibrated to their specific risks and needs, as well as family programmes and skills training.”
“24,239 Singaporean babies were born between 1 January 2020 and 30 September 2020. The breakdown by months is in Table 1. These figures are subject to change, as they do not include babies born overseas to Singaporeans who have yet to apply for and been granted Singapore citizenship.”
“To manage the risk of importation of COVID-19 into Singapore, all foreign visitors are required to seek prior approval before entering Singapore. ICA will generally be facilitative of foreigners who apply to enter Singapore to register their marriage with a Singapore Citizen or Permanent Resident. They will need to submit an application for entry via the ICA website. If the application is approved, they will be subject to the prevailing COVID-19 measures for inbound travellers, such as the Stay-Home Notice (SHN) and swab test requirements, including related fees.”
“In the 12-month period between October 2019 and September 2020, 430 persons aged 17 and below had been a victim of scams. Victims in this age group most commonly fall prey to e-commerce scams and social media impersonation scams. In the last year, there were 214 and 105 persons aged 17 and below who were victims of e-commerce scams and social media impersonation scams respectively. The Police have been working closely with the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) to raise public awareness on scams, with specific messages for e-commerce scams and social media impersonation scams. In December 2018, the Police launched the "Young Police Buddy" initiative aimed at raising crime awareness, including scams, amongst primary school students. The NCPC and Police have also developed advisories for popular messaging apps like TikTok, which are frequently used by youths. The Police also work with the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) to raise awareness on cyber safety. The Police and CSA recently published an interactive Cyber Safety handbook to help young readers navigate cyberspace safely and learn how to spot online scams. The handbook was distributed to all Primary 5 students and is available on CSA's website. Our laws do not impose any legal obligation on parents to ensure that their children meet the legal age of use before setting up an online account. Nonetheless, we urge parents to play a proactive role in ensuring their children's cyber-wellness and cyber-safety.”
“Apart from that, there are various programmes that offer solutions to assist litigants-in-person who require help navigating the justice system. One such programme is the Community Justice Centre. Even as we make the CDRT accessible, the Ministry of Law encourages individuals to consider legal proceedings as a last resort to resolve neighbour disputes. Often, neighbour disputes can be resolved quickly and efficiently if neighbours are willing to discuss their grievances directly or have a mediator help them to do so. This will help prevent the matter from escalating into a legal dispute unnecessarily, and strengthen the parties' relationship in the long-term.”
“The number of claims filed with the Community Disputes Resolution Tribunal (CDRT) from 2017 to 2019 is as follows: The CDRT does not track the age of its applicants and is hence unable to provide a breakdown of applications by age group. Nevertheless, the State Courts pays close attention to litigants who may need extra assistance, including elderly litigants, and takes additional effort to assist them better. The CDRT processes have been designed to ensure accessibility for litigants. Application forms are simplified, and proceedings are judge-led. All CDRT applications are done online, via the Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS), which allows individuals to file a claim at their own time and convenience, and from the comfort of their own home, using their SingPass. This also benefits those who may face mobility issues. Individuals who have difficulties accessing and navigating the CJTS, can reach out to the State Courts' Registry for assistance, over the phone, via email, or in person at the State Courts' premises. They can also make an appointment for the State Courts Registry staff to assist them to use computer terminals at the State Courts' premises to file the application. Where an individual is unable to file or present his case by reason of old age, illiteracy or infirmity, it is also possible for a third party, who is duly authorised in writing and approved by the CDRT, to file a claim and make representations on behalf of the individual. In addition, under the Community Justice and Tribunal Divisions Friends Scheme, individuals can apply for a family member, friend, or volunteer to assist with the filing of a claim, and also to provide support throughout the CDRT process.”
“However, the statistics on the total number of applications for enforcement made under section 71 of the Women's Charter are as follows: Applications for enforcement of custody and those made pursuant to a divorce settlement agreement are typically done by way of contempt proceedings. Data on such applications is not collected. Generally, the instances of such applications are low.”
“Civil divorces filed in the Family Justice Courts (FJC) may either proceed on the simplified track or the non-simplified track. The average duration taken depends on the track that the divorce application proceeds on. A divorce proceeds on the simplified track if parties consent to the divorce and agree on all issues relating to the divorce, including the ancillary matters. The average duration for the dissolution of marriage on the simplified track (i.e. the time taken from the filing of the divorce application to the grant of the interim judgment) for applications filed by women is less than one month. This has been consistent for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. The statistics are as follows: Where the divorce proceeds on the non-simplified track, for applications filed by women in the past three years: (a) the average duration taken for the dissolution of the marriage ranged from three-and-a-half to four months; (b) the average duration for the ancillary matters stage (i.e. the time taken from the first ancillary matter hearing to the last ancillary matter hearing) for concluded applications fell from 54 days in 2017 to 12 days in 2019. However, it is to be noted that 2019 figures are subject to update as some of the applications are still ongoing. (c) the average duration from the filing to the conclusion of the ancillary matters stage for concluded applications fell from 444 days in 2017 to 271 days in 2019. However, it is to be noted that 2019 figures are subject to update as some of the applications are still ongoing. The statistics are as follows: The FJC does not collect data on enforcement of maintenance that arises specifically pursuant to divorces.”
“4 The courts will resume the auctions when such activities can be conducted safely in accordance with the Control Order Regulations.”
“We understand the question relating to "Writ of Seizure and Sale (WSS)1 proceedings for non-commercial cases" to refer to cases where a WSS is issued for the seizure of movable property on premises used for non-commercial purposes or the premises of a non-commercial entity. All enforcement actions, including WSS proceedings in non-commercial cases, were put on hold during the circuit breaker period from 7 April to 1 June 20202 in accordance with the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) (Control Order) Regulations 2020 ("the Control Order Regulations") in force at that time.3 Following the phased exit from the circuit breaker period, and the establishment of the necessary safe distancing and other applicable measures for the safe resumption of enforcement actions, WSS proceedings for non-commercial cases have resumed. The Supreme Court and State Courts bailiffs have since completed execution of the seizure stage of all WSS proceedings for movable properties in non-commercial cases that accumulated during the circuit breaker period. The next step in WSS proceedings is the sale of the seized movable properties, which is conducted via physical auctions. These are held at the premises where the movable properties were seized, to avoid incurring extra costs for transport and storage and to reduce the risk of damage. These physical auctions are conducted by external auctioneers and typically involve more than five people – the auctioneer, the bailiff, potential bidders and the judgment creditors' representative(s). Given the number of individuals involved, physical auctions for seized movable properties located at places of residence have been put on hold, in line with the Control Order Regulations.”
“In the past five years, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority (ICA) received an average of 24,255 applications each year from Long-Term Visit Pass (LTVP) holders who requested for the renewal of their pass through non-spousal sponsorship. These LTVP holders include children and parents of Singapore citizens and permanent residents. The breakdown of applications per year from 2015 to 2019 is as follows:”
“Of the 10,402 cases of scams reported between January and August 2020, fewer than 10% were perpetrated by citizens and permanent residents (PRs). In this period, 538 citizens and PRs, accounting for 636 cases, were arrested, with 59 charged for various offences and 29 warned by the Police, based on the investigations done thus far. Depending on the facts of the case, scammers may be charged for one of the cheating-related provisions under Sections 415 to 420 of the Penal Code, which carry maximum imprisonment terms of between three and 10 years. MHA's assessment is that the penalties are sufficiently severe. The main challenge in combating scams is their trans-national nature. Most of the scammers are based overseas, and not within our reach. We have been collaborating with foreign law enforcement agencies to detect and dismantle scam syndicates. MHA is also stepping up efforts on scam prevention through education and raising awareness, and working with partners such as banks and remittance companies to detect and stop scams before they happen.”
“To investigate offences of a person being naked in a private place while being exposed to public view, Police may conduct ground enquiries and interview the offender and parties involved to collect the necessary evidence.”
“From 2017 to 2019, there were 1,556 accidents involving cyclists that resulted in injuries or fatalities. The number of such accidents has decreased from 596 in 2017 to 459 in 2019. As a percentage of all road accidents that resulted in injuries or fatalities, it has also decreased, from 8% to 6% over the same period. The Traffic Police (TP) does not track if the cyclists involved in these accidents were in large or small groups. TP adopts a three-pronged approach of enforcement, education and engagement to enhance road safety for cyclists. TP conducts regular enforcement at hotspots as well as at locations reported by members of the public where unsafe road behaviour by cyclists is observed. TP will take action against cyclists who ride in a disorderly manner and without due regard for the safety of others. First-time offenders may be fined up to $1,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both. Repeat offenders may be fined up to $2,000, imprisoned for up to six months, or both. On education and engagement, TP has been working with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and community partners such as the Safe Cycling Task Force. This includes disseminating safe cycling publicity materials, and specific advisories for group cycling that state that only up to two cyclists are allowed to ride abreast in one lane, when cycling on roads with two or more lanes. On roads with a single lane, cyclists should always ride in a single file unless overtaking. TP also conducts regular road safety talks with motorists to educate them on safe driving practices, including when encountering cyclists riding on roads.”
“However, the Court ultimately characterised the case at trial as one of wilful blindness, and reversed its previous decision. The AGC studies every decision issued by the Courts in criminal matters, to determine if the decision affects previously decided cases. For instance, where a change in the law could potentially affect prior decided cases, the AGC will assess how the change may affect those cases. Where necessary, the AGC will take the appropriate action to surface these cases to the Courts. For example, in 2007, the CEO of AirOcean, Mr Thomas Tay, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted on, two charges under the Securities and Futures Act for non-disclosure and misleading statement offences. After the High Court overturned the convictions of three other AirOcean directors involved in the case, the AGC reviewed Mr Tay’s conviction and concluded that his conviction was not safe in the light of the High Court’s findings. On its own motion, the AGC applied to the High Court to set aside Mr Tay’s conviction on the ground that a serious injustice might have been occasioned. The court set aside Mr Tay’s conviction and ordered his fine of $240,000 to be refunded to him. The AGC is studying the decision in Gobi, and undertaking a review of how the decision may affect previous cases and cases that are currently before the courts.”
“The Court of Appeal held that he failed to rebut the presumption under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), which presumed that he knew the nature of the drugs. At the time of this decision, the law stated that the presumption under s 18(2) encompassed the doctrine of wilful blindness. b. In a subsequent decision in Adili Chibuike Ejike v PP [2019] 2 SLR 254 (Adili), the Court of Appeal held that wilful blindness was a mental state falling short of actual knowledge, and therefore was incompatible with a presumption of knowledge. This decision was made in relation to the presumption under s 18(1) of the MDA i.e. that the accused had the drug in his possession and knew of the existence of the drug. The Court expressly declined to decide on the implications of its decision for the separate presumption under s 18(2) i.e. that the accused knew the nature of the drug. The Court noted that in two earlier decisions, it had previously decided that the presumption under s 18(2) encompassed the doctrine of wilful blindness. c. In Gobi (Review), the Court of Appeal asked parties to submit on whether the reasoning in Adili extended to the presumption under s 18(2), and if so, what the implications were for Gobi (Appeal). The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) submitted that the reasoning in Adili could extend to the presumption under s 18(2). The Court agreed, and departed from its two earlier decisions by finding that wilful blindness was not compatible with the presumption under s 18(2). d. The AGC submitted that there was no miscarriage of justice in Gobi (Appeal) because the AGC's case at trial and the appeal was consistently one of actual knowledge, and not wilful blindness.”