SINGAPORE, Dec 3 — A surgeon and a psychiatrist accused of targeting a female patient so that one of the doctors could have sex with her have been dealt harsher penalties after the High Court yesterday rejected their appeals for lighter sentences.

Colorectal surgeon Julian Ong Kian Peng was suspended from practising medicine for two years, triple his initial suspension of eight months.

Psychiatrist Chan Herng Nieng was suspended for 18 months instead of five months.

They were also ordered to provide a written undertaking and pay the costs of the Singapore Medical Council’s (SMC) disciplinary tribunal and Interim Orders Committee proceedings.

The Court of Three Judges, the highest disciplinary body that deals with doctors’ misconduct, wrote in a judgement issued yesterday that the pair’s misconduct has harmed public confidence in the medical profession.

They also agreed with the SMC counter appeal of imposing tougher penalties on the two to send a clear message to the medical profession that such conduct is “utterly unacceptable”.

The case

The two senior doctors have been embroiled in a string of legal disputes over the past few years after Dr Chan began dating a married woman.

In 2018, the woman, Serene Tiong Sze Yin, found explicit WhatsApp text messages that the two close friends exchanged about their sexual exploits with other married women.

After she filed a complaint with SMC, the council launched an investigation into both doctors’ conduct and brought disciplinary charges against them.

Its disciplinary tribunal convicted them of engaging in improper conduct that brought disrepute to the profession.

In October, High Court judge See Kee Oon ruled that the pair did not collude to take sexual advantage of Tiong, but said that both doctors could have come together to target a female patient of Dr Ong’s, identified only as K.

Dr Ong had most likely given K’s details to Dr Chan, so that Dr Chan could have sex with her, Justice See added.

Dr Ong had sent K’s contact information to Dr Chan.

He had obtained consent to do so from K, a property agent, under the pretext that Dr Chan was looking to purchase a property.

Dr Ong then made a crude sexual suggestion to Dr Ong regarding K.

The tribunal suspended Dr Ong and Dr Chan for eight months and five months respectively.

However, the pair appealed against their disciplinary convictions and sentences on Aug 3 while SMC appealed for longer suspensions of at least four more months for both men.

‘Imperative that clear message be sent’

In his mitigation plea, Dr Ong said that he had an unblemished record as a medical practitioner and had a “very low propensity for re-offending”.

He added that no sexual advances were eventually made on K and that he had expressed remorse over the crude comment he made about her.

However, the judges said that as the case does not involve his clinical judgement or professional expertise, the fact that Dr Ong had an unblemished record is of “little relevance”.

They added: “Further, the fact that Dr Ong was a senior doctor of more than 20 years’ standing amplifies the negative impact his misconduct would have had on public confidence in the medical profession.”

They also agreed with SMC that a clear message must be sent to the medical profession that such conduct is “utterly unacceptable”, and that harsh consequences will befall those who might be considering similar acts.

Dr Chan, on the other hand, had argued that public confidence in the medical profession would not be eroded and no harm was caused to the woman.

He also claimed that there was no abuse of power in a doctor-patient relationship as the woman was not his patient.

However, SMC had counter-appealed with his points, arguing that Dr Chan had facilitated Dr Ong’s abuse of the trust of a patient.

This would significantly harm public confidence in the medical profession, said SMC.

Agreeing, the judges said that Dr Chan’s role cannot be understated as he had colluded with Dr Ong despite knowing that the woman was his patient.

“After having received the contact information of K, he proceeded to contact K, although he did not eventually follow through by meeting K or attempting to engage in sexual relations with her,” they said.

Although they acknowledged that he had not actively sought her contact information, they noted that Dr Chan had admitted to knowing that K was Dr Ong’s patient at the time.

“It would have been obvious to Dr Chan that Dr Ong would not have had the consent of K to share her contact information with Dr Chan for the purpose of his potential sexual gratification. Indeed, this was why they had to strategise how Dr Chan would initiate his contact with K,” they said.

They also said that Dr Chan’s unblemished record would have no relevance in this case.

In light of these, the Court of Three Judges dismissed the pair’s appeals while allowing SMC’s appeals and tripling the doctors’ suspension. — TODAY