In a Ministerial Statement on the case in Parliament on Wednesday (Nov 4), Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam said there were many aspects of the younger Mr Liew’s conduct and evidence during the trial which were “highly unsatisfactory” and which raised “scepticism”.
Perjury is the offence of willfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.
Mr Shanmugam said Mr Liew had made inconsistent statements when questioned whether items highlighted by the High Court had been in his possession.
“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 that some items were identified as belonging to them and in the way values were ascribed to some items,” Mr Shanmugam said, according to a report by straitstimes.com.
Mr Liew initially claimed that all 120 pieces of clothing that Ms Parti stole were his, including women’s clothing. However, he could not recall whether some items, such as a black dress and a red blouse, were his or whether he had worn them.
He also said that he sometimes wore women’s clothes, something that Justice Chan Seng Onn, who heard Ms Parti’s appeal, said was “highly unbelievable”.
In his statement, Mr Shanmugam noted that while Mr Liew had testified that a Gucci wallet, a Braun Buffel wallet and a Helix watch had been given to him by his family members, none of them could recall having or giving him those specific items. They were among the items found in Ms Parti’s possession.
Mr Liew also told the court that a bedsheet found in Ms Parti’s possession was bought by him from Habitat in the United Kingdom. However, the bedsheet had the same pattern as a quilt cover with an Ikea label. His wife also said that she had never seen the bedsheet in her room or on her bed.
Mr Shanmugam added: “Investigations have been completed. A statement will be announced later this evening based on the investigations.” /TISGFollow us on Social Media
Send in your scoops to firstname.lastname@example.org