Tang Kin Hwa v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board: Acupuncturist Suspension Appeal
In Tang Kin Hwa v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Tang Kin Hwa against the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board's decision to suspend his registration as an acupuncturist for two years. The Board found Tang guilty of improper conduct under s 19(1)(j) of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act, based on a complaint by Dr. Tan Kia Choo alleging a forged signature on a certificate of employment and inaccurate particulars in Tang's application for registration. Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Board's decision and emphasizing the public interest in regulating TCM practices.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against acupuncturist's suspension for improper conduct. The High Court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing public interest in TCM regulation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Kin Hwa | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | T Subramaniam, Gulab Sobhraj |
| Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board | Respondent | Statutory Board | Decision Affirmed | Won | Rebecca Chew Ming Hsien, Mark Cheng Wai Yuen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| T Subramaniam | Sobhraj Tay Low Subra and Teo |
| Gulab Sobhraj | Sobhraj Tay Low Subra and Teo |
| Rebecca Chew Ming Hsien | Rajah and Tann |
| Mark Cheng Wai Yuen | Rajah and Tann |
4. Facts
- Dr. Tan Kia Choo complained that Tang Kin Hwa submitted a document with a forged signature.
- The forged document was a certificate of employment (COE) submitted with Tang's application to be registered as an acupuncturist.
- The complaint alleged Tang included inaccurate particulars in his application, misleading the Board.
- Tang claimed he was a full-time TCM physician employed by ECM Chinese Medical Centre.
- The Board convened an investigation committee (IC) to inquire into the complaint.
- The IC found the complaint justified and recommended cancelling Tang's registration.
- The Board decided Tang's conduct fell under s 19(1)(j) of the Act and suspended his registration for two years.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang Kin Hwa v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board, OM 23/2004, [2005] SGHC 153
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant submitted application to the Board. | |
| High Court decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Bias
- Outcome: The court found that the allegations of bias were without basis.
- Category: Procedural
- Forgery
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant was responsible for the forged signature.
- Category: Substantive
- Inaccurate Particulars in Application
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had included inaccurate particulars in his application form.
- Category: Substantive
- Improper Act or Conduct
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's conduct fell within the scope of s 19(1)(j) of the Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against suspension
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act
10. Practice Areas
- Regulatory Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arts Niche Cyber Distribution Pte Ltd v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 111 | Singapore | Cited for general principles relating to an appellate court’s consideration of the lower court’s or tribunal’s decision. |
| Er Joo Nguang v PP | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for general principles relating to an appellate court’s consideration of the lower court’s or tribunal’s decision. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 310 | Singapore | Adopted the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test for apparent bias. |
| Regine v Liverpool City Justices, ex p Topping | Liverpool City Justices | Yes | [1983] 1 WLR 119 | England | Statement of principle laid down by Ackner LJ adopted in Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1992] 2 SLR 310. |
| Alkaff & Company v The Governor-in-Council | Straits Settlements Court of Appeal | Yes | [1937] MLJ 211 | Singapore | Cited for adoption of the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test. |
| De Souza Lionel Jerome v AG | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 882 | Singapore | Cited for adoption of the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test. |
| Tang Liang Hong v Lee Kuan Yew | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 97 | Singapore | Affirmed the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test but referred to the 'real likelihood of bias' test. |
| R v Gough | House of Lords | Yes | [1993] AC 646 | England | Referred to for adopting a more stringent test of apparent bias, the 'real likelihood of bias' test. |
| Re Singh Kalpanath | Singapore | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 639 | Singapore | Cited as embodying both the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' and 'real likelihood of bias' tests interchangeably. |
| Re the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174) | Singapore | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR 176 | Singapore | Cited as perceiving both the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' and 'real likelihood of bias' tests as interchangeable. |
| B Surinder Singh Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya | Privy Council | Yes | [1962] AC 322 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle of natural justice: Nemo judex in causa sua and Audi alteram partem. |
| Metropolitan Properties Co (FGC) Ltd v Lannon | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1969] 1 QB 577 | England | Cited for the importance of justice being rooted in confidence. |
| Webb v The Queen | Australian High Court | Yes | (1993–1994) 181 CLR 41 | Australia | Cited as a case that criticised Gough and refused to follow it. |
| The Queen v Watson, ex p Armstrong | Australian High Court | Yes | (1976) 136 CLR 248 | Australia | Reference to earlier cases of the Australian High Court. |
| Johnson v Johnson | Australian High Court | Yes | (2000) 201 CLR 488 | Australia | Reference to earlier cases of the Australian High Court. |
| Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy | Australian High Court | Yes | (2000) 205 CLR 337 | Australia | Reference to earlier cases of the Australian High Court. |
| In re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 WLR 700 | England | Cited for the emphasis on the public perception. |
| Bradford v McLeod | Scotland | Yes | [1986] SLT 244 | Scotland | Cited as a decision that adopted the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test. |
| Millar v Dickson | Scotland | Yes | [2002] SLT 988 | Scotland | Cited as a decision that adopted the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test. |
| Majlis Perbandaran Pulau Pinang v Syarikat Bekerjasama-sama Serbaguna Sungai Gelugor dengan Tanggungan | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [1999] 3 MLJ 1 | Malaysia | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the Malaysian context. |
| Allied Capital Sdn Bhd v Mohamed Latiff bin Shah Mohd | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [2001] 2 MLJ 305 | Malaysia | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the Malaysian context. |
| Mohamed Ezam bin Mohd Nor v Ketua Polis Negara | Malaysian Federal Court | Yes | [2002] 1 MLJ 321 | Malaysia | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the Malaysian context. |
| Tan Kim Hor v Tan Chong & Motor Co Sdn Bhd | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 MLJ 278 | Malaysia | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the Malaysian context. |
| Auckland Casino Ltd v Casino Control Authority | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 NZLR 142 | New Zealand | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the New Zealand context. |
| Riverside Casino Ltd v Moxon | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 NZLR 78 | New Zealand | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the New Zealand context. |
| Man O’War Station Ltd v Auckland City Council (Judgment No 1) | New Zealand Privy Council | Yes | [2002] 3 NZLR 577 | New Zealand | Cited as a case that endorsed Gough in the New Zealand context. |
| R v Papadopoulos (No 2) | New Zealand | Yes | [1979] 1 NZLR 629 | New Zealand | Cited as an earlier decision in apparent contrast to the endorsement of Gough. |
| Porter v Magill | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 357 | England | Acknowledged criticisms of Gough and modified the principles laid down in that case. |
| Taylor v Lawrence | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 3 WLR 640 | England | Referred to the test in Porter v Magill. |
| Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex p Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) | House of Lords | Yes | [2000] 1 AC 119 | England | Referred to the test in Porter v Magill. |
| Erris Promotions v Inland Revenue | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] NZCA 163 | New Zealand | Point has not been settled yet in the New Zealand courts itself. |
| Tracomin SA v Gibbs Nathaniel (Canada) Ltd | Canada | Yes | [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 586 | Canada | Cited for the argument that in most cases, it would make no difference whether the 'reasonable suspicion of bias' test or the 'real likelihood of bias' test is applied. |
| Cook International Inc v BV Handelmaatschappij Jean Delvaux | English High Court | Yes | [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 225 | England | Cited for the view that there is little indeed between the two tests. |
| The King v Sussex Justices, ex p McCarthy | English Divisional Court | Yes | [1924] 1 KB 256 | England | Cited for the importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. |
| Hannam v Bradford Corporation | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1970] 1 WLR 937 | England | Cited for the view that there really is little (if any) difference between the two tests. |
| Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] QB 451 | England | Cited for the view that application of the two tests would anyway lead to the same outcome. |
| Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd, The Heron II | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 1 AC 352 | England | Cited for the dangers and confusion that are engendered by focusing on the form of words as opposed to their substance. |
| H Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] QB 791 | England | Cited for the dangers of “semantic hairsplitting”. |
| Rajasooria v Disciplinary Committee | Privy Council | Yes | [1955] 1 WLR 405 | England | Cited for the court’s role, in so far as the imposition of sanctions by a disciplinary body is concerned, is more one of oversight and must therefore be restrained. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 19(1)(a) Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 19(1)(j) Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 19(5) Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 21 Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 3(b) Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 14(1) Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 24 Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 26 Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 23 Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 19(6) Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 2 Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Acupuncturist
- Registration
- Forgery
- Improper Conduct
- Bias
- Certificate of Employment
- Inaccurate Particulars
- Investigation Committee
- Suspension
15.2 Keywords
- Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Acupuncturist
- Suspension
- Forgery
- Singapore
- Regulatory
- Medical Board
16. Subjects
- Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Medical Law
- Regulatory Law
- Professions
17. Areas of Law
- Regulatory Law
- Professions
- Medical profession and practice
- Traditional Chinese Medicine