Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday said he is prepared to recommend a commission of inquiry (COI) into the Parti Liyani case, but added that he had “heard nothing” to justify one.
In concluding his ministerial statement, he had challenged Non-Constituency MP (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai to specify the issues that he felt warranted a high-level independent inquiry into the case.
This sparked two separate exchanges that ended with the Progress Singapore Party NCMP withdrawing his call for a COI.
In responding to Mr Leong’s parliamentary question on the matter, Mr Shanmugam said a COI is a “serious matter” that will take up a lot of time and resources.
He noted that the police officers and prosecutors involved in the case did not face any improper pressure, and a disciplinary tribunal will look into complaints against the prosecutors from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
The minister asked Mr Leong to specify “what part of this matter continues to reasonably make him believe and question that undue influence was used by the Liews”, referring to the family of Ms Parti’s former employer Liew Mun Leong.
In response, Mr Leong maintained the need for an independent inquiry to have “more discussion” on the matter and look into “systemic aspects of the whole criminal justice system”.
Mr Shanmugam replied: “It’s not a question of making some broad and vague statements… (Do) we have a commission of inquiry on the entire law, the police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you?”
Mr Leong then questioned the five-week gap between the filing of the police report by Mr Liew and the police officers visiting the scene, and said Mr Shanmugam’s interpretation of the Liews’ behaviour, with regards to Ms Parti, could be further investigated.
Mr Shanmugam said “the police do not in any way seek to defend” the five-week gap, and that the issue of motive “cannot properly” be the object of a COI.
Mr Leong then said he would withdraw his call for a COI.
The minister replied: “Let me put it on record: I have no problem recommending such a commission of inquiry. We have nothing to hide. But in law, they will say (this is) Micawberism.”
Micawberism is a reference to the feckless optimism displayed by Wilkins Micawber, a character in the Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield.
“So far, we have heard nothing that I can rationally put together to justify a commission of inquiry,” said Mr Shanmugam.
Mr Leong later repeated his call for a COI in his speech on a motion moved by Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) about the criminal justice system.
This triggered a second exchange with Mr Shanmugam, who pressed Mr Leong to specify the basis for a COI.
Mr Leong again raised what he called “systemic” faults exposed by the case, this time asking why checks had failed at each stage of the process.
Mr Shanmugam reiterated that disciplinary proceedings were under way, and asked Mr Leong to clarify if he was suggesting an element of improper influence.
The NCMP said he was not.
In that case, there was no basis for a commission of inquiry, the minister said.
Mr Leong then conceded the point again. “We thought the systemic faults alone were enough to be a basis for the inquiry, but after your explanation, we are prepared to accept that you had done a thorough investigation of the situation already. Then we’ll withdraw our proposal for the inquiry.”