Maid who stood up to  a millionaire in Singapore after four years

Parti Liyani, an Indonesian domestic helper who earned £345  ( S$600)  a month working for an extremely  wealthy Singaporean family was accused of stealing from them, after they reported her to police triggering what could become a high profile High Court case that would grip the country with its accusations of pilfered luxury bags, a DVD player, and even claims of cross-dressing.  Earlier this month justice triumphed and Parti Liyani was finally acquitted. “I’am so glad I’am finallh free” she told reporters through an interpreter. “I have been fighting for fout years”.

The case has prompted questions about inequality and access to justice in Singapore, with many asking how she could have been found guilty in the first place.

Ms Parti first began working in Mr Liew Mun Leong’s home in2007, where severa; family members including his son Karl liew.

In Marh 2016, Mr. Karl Liew and his family moved out of the home and live elsewhere. Court documents that detail the sequence of events say that Ms Parti was asked to clean his new house an office on “multiple occasions” which break local labour regulations, and which she had previously complained about. A few months later the Liew family told Ms Parti she was fired, on the suspicion that she was stealing from them.

When Mr Karl Liew told Parti that her employment was terminated, sjhe reportedly told him “ I know why you are angry because I refused to clean up your toilet. She was given just two hours to pack her belongings into several boxes which the family would ship to Indonesia. She flow back home on the same day. While packing, she threatened to complain to the Singporean authorities about being asked to clean Mr Karl Liew’s house. The Liew familu decided to check the boxes after Mrs Parti’s departure and claimed  they found items inside the boxes belonged to them, Mr Liew Mun Leong and his son filed a police report on 30 October. Ms Parti said she had  no idea about this – until five weeks later  when she flew to Singapore to seek new employment. And was arrested upon arrival.

Unable to work as she was the subject of criminal proceedings , she stayed in a migrant workers’ shelter and relied o them for financial assistance as the case dragged on.

Ms Parti was accused of stealing varioys items from the Liews including 115 pieces of clothing, luxury handbags, a DVD player and a Gerald Genta Watch all items totalling S $34, 000. During the  trial she argued  that these alleged  stolen items were either her belongings, discarded objects that she found or things that she had not  packed into the boxes themselves.

In 2019, a district judge found  her guilty and sentenced her to two years  and two months in jail. Ms Parti decided to appeal against  the ruling. The case dragged on further until earlier this month when Singapore’s High Court finally acquitted her.

Justice Chan Seng Onn, concluded the family had an “improper motive`” in filing charges against her but also  flagged up several issues with how the police, the prosecutors and even the district judge had handled the case.

He said ther was reason to believe the Liew family had filed their police report against her to stop her from lodging a complaint about being illegally sent to clean Mr Karl Liew’s house.

 The judge also noted that many items that were allegedly stolen by Ms Parti were in fact already damaged  such as the watch which had a missing button-knob and two iPhones that were not working and said it  was unusual to steal items that were mostly broken.

In one instance Ms Parti was accused of stealing a DVD player, which she said shad been thrown away by the family because it did not work. Prosecutors admitted they knew the machine could ot play DVDs but did not disclose this during the  trial when it was producd as evidence and shown to have worked in another way. This earned criticism form Justice Chan that they used a “sleight-of-hand technique  – that was particularly prejudicial to the accused.”

In addition Justice Chan also questioned the credibility of Mr Karl Liew as a witness.

The younger Mr Liew accused Ms Paerti of stealing a pink knife which allegedly bought in the UK and brought back to Singapore in 2002 But later  admitted the knife had a modern design that could not have  been produced in Britain before 2002. He also claimed various items  of clothing, including Women’s clothes found in Ms Parti’s possession were actually his – but later could not remember if he  owned some of them. When asked during the trial why he owned women’s clothing he said he liked to cross-dress  a claim that Justice Chan found “highly unbelievable”.

Justice Chan also questioned the actions by police  who did not visit or view the  scene of the offences until about five weeks after  the initial police report was made. The police also failed to offer her an interpreter who spoke Indonesian an instead offered one who  spoke Malay, a a different language which Ms Parti was not used to speaking.

“ It was very worrying conduct by the police in the way they handled the investigations, “  said Eugene Tan, Professor of Law at Singapore Management University.

The case has touched a nerve in Singapore where much of the outrage has centred on Mr Liew and his family.

This is a typical case where the rich and elite bullying the poor  and powerless and living by their own set of rules.

Some Singaporeans  said this case has rattled a long-held belief in nthe3 fairness and impartiality of the judicial system.

The Liews were able to have the police and the lower court fall for the false allegations have raised legitimate about whether the checks and balances were adequate.

Following the public outcry, Mr Liew Mun Leong announced he was retiring from his position as chairman of several prestigious companies.