Ong Kian Peng Julian v Singapore Medical Council: Medical Professionals' Conduct & Disrepute to Profession
In Ong Kian Peng Julian v Singapore Medical Council, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals related to disciplinary actions against Dr. Ong Kian Peng Julian and Dr. Chan Herng Nieng for improper conduct bringing disrepute to the medical profession. The Singapore Medical Council also appealed against the sentences imposed. The court dismissed the appeals of Dr. Ong and Dr. Chan, allowed the appeals of the Singapore Medical Council, increasing Dr. Ong's suspension to two years and Dr. Chan's suspension to 18 months.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals of Dr. Ong and Dr. Chan dismissed; appeals of the Singapore Medical Council allowed; Dr. Ong's suspension increased to two years; Dr. Chan's suspension increased to 18 months.
1.3 Case Type
Regulatory
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Doctors Ong and Chan were disciplined for improper conduct bringing disrepute to the medical profession. Ong forwarded a patient's contact to Chan for potential sexual activity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Medical Council | Respondent, Appellant | Statutory Board | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Ong Kian Peng Julian | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed; Suspension Increased | Lost | |
| Chan Herng Nieng | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed; Suspension Increased | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Tay Yong Kwang | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Dr. Ong forwarded a patient's contact information to Dr. Chan.
- Dr. Ong obtained the patient's consent under the pretense of a property transaction.
- Dr. Chan contacted the patient about a potential property investment.
- The doctors exchanged messages with sexual connotations.
- Dr. Chan was already in contact with another property agent.
- The Disciplinary Tribunal found collusion between the doctors.
- The Remaining Messages documented other sexual encounters they discussed.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Kian Peng Julian v Singapore Medical Council and other matters, Originating Summonses Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 302
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dr. Chan entered into an intimate relationship with Ms. Tiong. | |
| Ms. Tiong discovered Dr. Chan's other relationships and accessed his phone. | |
| K consulted Dr. Ong and underwent a medical procedure. | |
| K was discharged; Dr. Ong obtained K's consent to share her contact details with Dr. Chan. | |
| Dr. Chan started a conversation with K about purchasing an investment property. | |
| K sent Dr. Chan a list of properties. | |
| Dr. Ong contacted K and obtained a WhatsApp message stating she consented to sharing her contact details. | |
| Originating Summonses Nos 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 2022 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Improper Conduct Bringing Disrepute to the Medical Profession
- Outcome: The court upheld the Disciplinary Tribunal's finding that the doctors' conduct was improper and brought disrepute to the medical profession.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of ethical guidelines
- Abuse of patient trust
- Collusion between medical professionals
- Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the 'Remaining Messages' were admissible to demonstrate the nature of the relationship between the doctors and shed light on the meaning of the messages.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasoning by propensity
- Probative value vs. prejudicial effect
- Evidence of state of mind and intention
- Sentencing in Medical Disciplinary Cases
- Outcome: The court increased the sentences for both doctors, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and upholding public confidence in the medical profession.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Assessment of harm and culpability
- General deterrence
- Mitigating and aggravating factors
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
- Increased sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Professional Ethics
- Improper Conduct
- Violation of Medical Registration Act
10. Practice Areas
- Disciplinary Proceedings
- Medical Malpractice
- Professional Regulation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Meng Hang v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2019] 3 SLR 526 | Singapore | Cited for the factors and sentencing framework for disciplinary proceedings against medical professionals. |
| Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 681 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of conduct that brings disrepute to the medical profession. |
| Low Chai Ling v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 83 | Singapore | Cited for the objective inquiry to determine misconduct and damage to public confidence. |
| Tan Meng Jee v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 178 | Singapore | Cited for the underlying rationale for the rule excluding similar fact evidence. |
| Muhammad Abdul Hadi bin Haron v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 537 | Singapore | Cited regarding the rule against reasoning by propensity in similar fact evidence. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Constance Margreat Paglar | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 382 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inadmissibility of similar fact evidence in disciplinary proceedings. |
| Michael Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 748 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose for which evidence is sought to be admitted is vital. |
| Pang Ah San v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1094 | Singapore | Cited for the doctor-patient relationship existing for the benefit and best interests of the patient. |
| Ang Peng Tiam v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2017] 5 SLR 356 | Singapore | Cited regarding an offender’s long and unblemished record as a mitigating factor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed) s 53(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed) s 53(2) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 9 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 14 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 15 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Medical profession
- Disciplinary Tribunal
- Improper conduct
- Disrepute
- Collusion
- Patient confidentiality
- Sexual misconduct
- Ethical guidelines
- General deterrence
- Public confidence
15.2 Keywords
- medical profession
- disciplinary proceedings
- improper conduct
- Singapore Medical Council
- patient confidentiality
- sexual misconduct
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Medical Ethics
- Professional Responsibility
- Disciplinary Law