Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council: Doctor's Disciplinary Appeal for Improper Conduct Dismissed

Dr. Pang Ah San appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction by a Disciplinary Tribunal for improper conduct bringing disrepute to the medical profession, under s 53(1)(c) of the Medical Registration Act, due to derogatory statements made against the Singapore Medical Council (SMC). The High Court, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA, and Chao Hick Tin SJ, dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in Dr. Pang's arguments that the proceedings were an abuse of process, the charges were legally defective, or his constitutional rights were infringed. The court upheld the Disciplinary Tribunal's sentence of a ten-month suspension and a $10,000 fine.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed against Dr. Pang Ah San's conviction for improper conduct bringing disrepute to the medical profession due to derogatory statements.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Singapore Medical CouncilRespondentStatutory BoardAppeal DismissedWon
Pang Ah SanAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Chao Hick TinSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chang Man Phing JennyWongPartnership LLP
Loh Jia Wen DynyseWongPartnership LLP
Lim Xian Yong, AlvinWongPartnership LLP
Too Xing JiBMS Law LLC
Bachoo Mohan SinghBMS Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Dr. Pang made derogatory statements against the Singapore Medical Council in emails and online blog posts.
  2. The statements attacked the authority and integrity of the Singapore Medical Council and impugned the conduct of disciplinary processes.
  3. Dr. Pang had previously been disciplined for using a loop Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastronomy tube on patients.
  4. The Disciplinary Tribunal found that Dr. Pang's actions constituted improper conduct that brought disrepute to the medical profession.
  5. Dr. Pang appealed against his conviction and sentence.
  6. The High Court dismissed Dr. Pang's appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council, Originating Summons No 5 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 116
  2. Singapore Medical Council v Dr Pang Ah San, , [2020] SMCDT 2
  3. In the matter of Pang Ah San and Dr A, , [2012] SMCDC 8
  4. Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council, , [2014] 1 SLR 1094
  5. In the matter of Dr Pang Ah San, , [2014] SMCDC 5
  6. Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council, , [2013] 1 SLR 83
  7. Wong Meng Hang v Singapore Medical Council and other matters, , [2019] 3 SLR 526
  8. Re Gopalan Nair, , [1992] 2 SLR(R) 969
  9. Law Society of Singapore v Eugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, , [2018] SGDT 8
  10. Harbour Castle Ltd v David Wilson Homes Ltd, , [2019] EWCA Civ 505
  11. Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Brian and another appeal, , [2017] 2 SLR 760
  12. Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301, , [2018] 2 SLR 866
  13. Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis, , [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239
  14. Beh Chew Boo v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] 2 SLR 1375
  15. Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter, , [2020] 1 SLR 486
  16. Mui Jia Jun v Public Prosecutor, , [2018] 2 SLR 1087
  17. Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another, , [2012] 2 SLR 451
  18. Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public Prosecutor, , [2020] 1 SLR 984
  19. Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical Council, , [2013] 3 SLR 900
  20. Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical Council, , [2008] 3 SLR(R) 612
  21. Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General, , [2012] 4 SLR 476
  22. Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council, , [2017] 5 SLR 356
  23. Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public Prosecutor, , [2017] 5 SLR 755
  24. Yip Man Hing Kevin v Singapore Medical Council and another matter, , [2019] 5 SLR 320
  25. Koh Jaw Hung v Public Prosecutor, , [2019] 3 SLR 516

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dr. Pang Ah San registered as a medical practitioner.
Dr. Pang used loop-PEG procedure on four patients between 2007 and 2009.
Complaints Committee convened to consider complaints about Dr. Pang's loop-PEG procedure.
Disciplinary Committee 1 convened to conduct a formal inquiry.
Disciplinary Committee 1 conducted a formal inquiry between September 2011 and March 2012.
Dr. Pang sent 13 emails containing statements referred to in the 1st Charge between 12 June and 18 July 2012.
Disciplinary Committee 1 found Dr. Pang guilty of professional misconduct.
Dr. Pang sent 51 emails containing statements that formed part of the basis for the 1st Charge between 24 July and 19 November 2012.
SMC's lawyers wrote to Dr. Pang's lawyers about defamatory statements in emails.
Dr. Pang's lawyers replied, stating they had advised him not to send emails containing defamatory statements.
Dr. Pang sent a further 52 emails between 22 November 2012 and 30 April 2013.
SMC's lawyers sent a letter of demand to Dr. Pang reiterating that the emails contained defamatory statements.
High Court heard and dismissed Dr. Pang's appeal.
Second Complaints Committee convened to inquire into further complaints about Dr. Pang's use of loop-PEG.
SMC's lawyers gave Dr. Pang a final opportunity to retract defamatory statements and apologize.
Grounds of decision in Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council released.
Second Disciplinary Committee conducted a formal inquiry between July and October 2014.
Second Disciplinary Committee found Dr. Pang guilty of professional misconduct.
Dr. Pang began writing blog posts which included statements that formed part of the basis of the 2nd Charge.
Dr. Pang sent 11 distinct emails which included links to the blog posts from December 2014 onwards between February 2015 to November 2015.
Dr. Pang sent 11 distinct emails which included links to the blog posts from December 2014 onwards between February 2015 to November 2015.
SMC made a complaint against Dr. Pang for statements made up to November 2015.
SMC commenced proceedings for examination of a judgment debtor.
Notice of Complaint sent to Dr. Pang.
Dr. Pang committed to prison for seven days for refusing to provide information.
Dr. Pang sent four emails to the Executive Secretary of the SMC between 2 and 29 May 2017.
Dr. Pang sent four emails to the Executive Secretary of the SMC between 2 and 29 May 2017.
SMC referred additional information pertaining to emails Dr. Pang sent between 2 and 29 May 2017.
Dr. Pang sent three distinct emails between 13 and 23 September 2017.
Dr. Pang sent three distinct emails between 13 and 23 September 2017.
SMC referred additional information relating to emails Dr. Pang sent in September 2017.
Complaints Committee ordered the matter to be referred to a Disciplinary Tribunal.
Original Notice of Inquiry issued to Dr. Pang.
Notice of Inquiry amended.
Disciplinary Tribunal's inquiry conducted on 8 to 10 July, 23 to 24 October 2019, 15 January and 11 March 2020.
Disciplinary Tribunal's inquiry conducted on 8 to 10 July, 23 to 24 October 2019, 15 January and 11 March 2020.
Disciplinary Tribunal's inquiry conducted on 8 to 10 July, 23 to 24 October 2019, 15 January and 11 March 2020.
Disciplinary Tribunal found Dr. Pang guilty on all three charges and sentenced him.
Present appeal filed.
Disciplinary Tribunal published the Grounds of Decision.
Hearing of the appeal.
High Court dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Improper Conduct Bringing Disrepute to the Medical Profession
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Disciplinary Tribunal's finding that Dr. Pang's actions constituted improper conduct that brought disrepute to the medical profession.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Derogatory statements against the Singapore Medical Council
      • Erosion of the integrity and good name of the medical profession
      • Attacking the authority and integrity of the Singapore Medical Council
      • Impugning the conduct of disciplinary processes
    • Related Cases:
      • [2013] 1 SLR 83
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found no abuse of process in the Singapore Medical Council's decision to bring disciplinary proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Use of disciplinary proceedings for an ulterior purpose
      • Litigating a defamation claim through disciplinary proceedings
  3. Freedom of Speech
    • Outcome: The court held that Dr. Pang's conviction and sentence did not infringe his constitutional right to freedom of speech.
    • Category: Constitutional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Infringement of constitutional right to freedom of speech
      • Restrictions on freedom of speech in the interest of public order and morality

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against conviction
  2. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Medical Ethics
  • Violation of Medical Registration Act

10. Practice Areas

  • Healthcare Regulation
  • Professional Discipline
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • Healthcare

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Singapore Medical Council v Dr Pang Ah SanDisciplinary TribunalYes[2020] SMCDT 2SingaporeCited as the Disciplinary Tribunal's decision being appealed against.
In the matter of Pang Ah San and Dr ADisciplinary CommitteeYes[2012] SMCDC 8SingaporeCited for the Disciplinary Committee's decision that the loop-PEG procedure was not generally accepted and that Dr. Pang had intentionally ignored his ethical obligations.
Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 1094SingaporeCited for the High Court's decision upholding the Disciplinary Committee's finding that the loop-PEG procedure was not generally accepted and that the breach of the SMC's Ethical Code amounted to professional misconduct.
In the matter of Dr Pang Ah SanDisciplinary CommitteeYes[2014] SMCDC 5SingaporeCited for the Disciplinary Committee's decision that the loop-PEG procedure was not generally accepted and that Dr. Pang had intentionally ignored his ethical obligations.
Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 83SingaporeCited for the legal test to determine if conduct brings disrepute to the medical profession.
Wong Meng Hang v Singapore Medical Council and other mattersHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 526SingaporeCited for the key sentencing considerations in disciplinary proceedings.
Re Gopalan NairCourt of Three JudgesYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 969SingaporeCited as a sentencing precedent from the legal profession.
Law Society of Singapore v Eugene Singarajah ThuraisingamDisciplinary TribunalYes[2018] SGDT 8SingaporeCited as a sentencing precedent from the legal profession.
Harbour Castle Ltd v David Wilson Homes LtdEngland and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)Yes[2019] EWCA Civ 505England and WalesCited as an illustration of abuse of process.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Brian and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 760SingaporeCited as an illustration of abuse of process.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301High CourtYes[2018] 2 SLR 866SingaporeCited as an illustration of abuse of process.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo PhyllisHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239SingaporeCited as an illustration of abuse of process.
Beh Chew Boo v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1375SingaporeCited for the principle of evidential burden.
Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matterHigh CourtYes[2020] 1 SLR 486SingaporeCited for the principle of evidential burden.
Mui Jia Jun v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2018] 2 SLR 1087SingaporeCited for the principle that a charge must be stated clearly and with sufficient particulars.
Then Khek Khoon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 451SingaporeCited for the principle that a party should be entitled to have a counsel of his choice.
Muhammad Nabill bin Mohd Fuad v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 984SingaporeCited for the principles for excessive judicial interference.
Lim Mey Lee Susan v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 900SingaporeCited for the privileged position of medical professionals in society.
Low Cze Hong v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 612SingaporeCited for the importance of maintaining the highest level of professionalism and ethical conduct.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 476SingaporeCited for the principle that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical CouncilHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 356SingaporeCited for the principle that public interest considerations are paramount in disciplinary proceedings.
Stansilas Fabian Kester v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 755SingaporeCited for the principle that general deterrence plays an important role in disciplinary proceedings.
Yip Man Hing Kevin v Singapore Medical Council and another matterHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 320SingaporeCited for the principle that it is not always necessary for a Disciplinary Tribunal to provide a breakdown of the individual sentences for each of the charges.
Koh Jaw Hung v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 516SingaporeCited for the principle that a fine may be imposed as a rough and ready method of confiscating the proceeds of crime.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 14Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Improper conduct
  • Disrepute
  • Medical profession
  • Singapore Medical Council
  • Derogatory statements
  • Disciplinary Tribunal
  • Loop-PEG procedure
  • Professional misconduct
  • Freedom of speech
  • Abuse of process

15.2 Keywords

  • Medical profession
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Freedom of speech
  • Singapore Medical Council
  • Regulatory
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Disciplinary Proceedings95
Medical Registration Act95
Disciplinary Proceedings (Medical)95
Medical Law90
Professional conduct90
Professional Conduct Rules90
Civil Procedure50
Duty of Candour40
Civil Practice30
Medical Negligence30
Breach of Fiduciary Duty30
Legal Profession Act20
Obstructing, preventing, perverting or defeating course of justice20

16. Subjects

  • Medical Law
  • Professional Regulation
  • Constitutional Law