Singapore Medical Council's Appeal against its Disciplinary Tribunal's Sentence on Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang

Debated in Parliament on 1 Apr 2019.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh questioned how a confidential medical memo, falsely obtained by a patient’s brother, was accepted by the court for a Personal Protection Order application.
Minister K Shanmugam stated that courts make independent decisions and reasons would be in a judgment, but no findings were made on whether the memo was admitted or relied upon in granting the PPO.
The Disciplinary Tribunal noted there was no clear evidence the PPO was granted due to the memo’s disclosure, only that it was produced in the application.
Family Justice Court proceedings are held in camera, and no grounds of decision have been issued, leaving no public facts on the memo’s admission or reliance.
The Singapore Medical Council is appealing the DT’s decision, which may allow the court to review the memo’s procurement and its role in the PPO grant.

Questions identified by AI (learn more)

Full Transcript

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong asked the Minister for Law in the recent case of the Singapore Medical Council appealing against its disciplinary tribunal's sentence, how did the memo containing confidential health information written by Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang for a patient, falsely obtained by the patient's brother posing as the patient's husband, come to be accepted by the court for the patient's brother to obtain a personal protection order against the patient.

K Shanmugam

The Member asks about why the Court accepted a document in evidence.

The Courts make their decisions independently. We will know the reasons for a decision, if they give the reasons in a judgment.

There was also no conclusion or finding made by the Singapore Medical Council Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) as to whether the memorandum was admitted into evidence or relied on by the court in granting the Personal Protection Order (PPO). The DT observed that there was "no clear evidence" that the PPO had been granted because of the disclosure of the memorandum. At the very most, the facts showed that the memorandum had been produced in the application for a PPO (see Singapore Medical Council v Dr Soo Shuen Chiang [2018] SMCDT 11 at [25]).

PPO proceedings are held in the Family Justice Courts (FJC). Proceedings in FJC are conducted in camera. Likewise in this case. In addition, FJC had not issued its grounds of decision. There is thus no appeal filed by either party to the PPO proceedings. Therefore, there are no publicly-known facts as to whether the memorandum was indeed admitted into evidence or relied on by FJC.

The Singapore Medical Council has taken steps to pursue an appeal against the DT's decision. On appeal, the Court could possibly look into the surrounding facts, including the circumstances in which the memorandum was procured. Further, whether the memorandum was accepted by FJC, and the weight FJC placed on it in granting the PPO are issues that may also potentially arise on appeal.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh questioned how a confidential medical memo, falsely obtained by a patient’s brother, was accepted by the court for a Personal Protection Order application.
Minister K Shanmugam stated that courts make independent decisions and reasons would be in a judgment, but no findings were made on whether the memo was admitted or relied upon in granting the PPO.
The Disciplinary Tribunal noted there was no clear evidence the PPO was granted due to the memo’s disclosure, only that it was produced in the application.
Family Justice Court proceedings are held in camera, and no grounds of decision have been issued, leaving no public facts on the memo’s admission or reliance.
The Singapore Medical Council is appealing the DT’s decision, which may allow the court to review the memo’s procurement and its role in the PPO grant.

Questions identified by AI (learn more)

Singapore Medical Council's Appeal against its Disciplinary Tribunal's Sentence on Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang | PAPERCUTS

Singapore Medical Council's Appeal against its Disciplinary Tribunal's Sentence on Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang

Debated in Parliament on 1 Apr 2019.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh questioned how a confidential medical memo, falsely obtained by a patient’s brother, was accepted by the court for a Personal Protection Order application.
Minister K Shanmugam stated that courts make independent decisions and reasons would be in a judgment, but no findings were made on whether the memo was admitted or relied upon in granting the PPO.
The Disciplinary Tribunal noted there was no clear evidence the PPO was granted due to the memo’s disclosure, only that it was produced in the application.
Family Justice Court proceedings are held in camera, and no grounds of decision have been issued, leaving no public facts on the memo’s admission or reliance.
The Singapore Medical Council is appealing the DT’s decision, which may allow the court to review the memo’s procurement and its role in the PPO grant.

Questions identified by AI (learn more)

Full Transcript

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong

K Shanmugam

The Member asks about why the Court accepted a document in evidence.

The Courts make their decisions independently. We will know the reasons for a decision, if they give the reasons in a judgment.

Summary written by AI (learn more)

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh questioned how a confidential medical memo, falsely obtained by a patient’s brother, was accepted by the court for a Personal Protection Order application.
Minister K Shanmugam stated that courts make independent decisions and reasons would be in a judgment, but no findings were made on whether the memo was admitted or relied upon in granting the PPO.
The Disciplinary Tribunal noted there was no clear evidence the PPO was granted due to the memo’s disclosure, only that it was produced in the application.
Family Justice Court proceedings are held in camera, and no grounds of decision have been issued, leaving no public facts on the memo’s admission or reliance.
The Singapore Medical Council is appealing the DT’s decision, which may allow the court to review the memo’s procurement and its role in the PPO grant.

Questions identified by AI (learn more)

Singapore Medical Council's Appeal against its Disciplinary Tribunal's Sentence on Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang

Summary

Questions Identified

Full Transcript

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong

K Shanmugam

Summary

Questions Identified

Singapore Medical Council's Appeal against its Disciplinary Tribunal's Sentence on Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang

Summary

Questions Identified

Full Transcript

Assoc Prof Daniel Goh Pei Siong

K Shanmugam

Summary

Questions Identified