Recently, a House Officer was suspended for the maximum period of three years by a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT). The House Officer had falsified two Medical Certificates (MC) so that she could take the days off.
Many doctors expressed concern at the severity of the sentencing.
Not many doctors may know about this, but there is a SMC document called the Sentencing Guidelines, which is available on the SMC website. It was issued in 2020 after the work by a SMC Sentencing Committee was completed. This Committee was chaired by a Court of Appeal Judge. Other members included another High Court Judge and a Judicial Commissioner, along with many senior doctors and several MOH officials.
The medical profession is given the privilege of self-regulation in Singapore through the SMC and Disciplinary Commission (which commissions DTs and is now independent of the SMC), but this is not an absolute privilege. Ultimately, the decisions of DTs can be subjected to appeal to the Court of 3 Judges (C3J), and this includes decisions related to sentencing.
So while the DT can decide on the severity of sentencing, ultimately its decisions must be able to stand a good chance of being upheld by the C3J should an appeal occur. An appeal can come from either the SMC’s lawyers or the Respondent (i.e. the doctor being charged).
Within the Sentencing Guidelines, there is a subsection called “Dishonesty” (Page 18) under the Section “Removal of Doctor’s Name from Register (s53 (2)(a) of MRA)”. This provision under the MRA or Medical Registration Act is what we doctors commonly call the “Struck Off” clause.
To cut a long story short, the Sentencing Guidelines state that the default sentencing for acts of dishonesty is striking off. There are some conditions and circumstances where the DT may impose a lighter sentence but I won’t go into the details here. In any case, the DT is in this case did NOT impose a striking off sentence but instead suspended the house officer for 36 months. The house officer’s lawyers had asked for 20 months’ suspension but they also did not appeal against the 36-month sentence. 36 months is the maximum period a doctor can be suspended under the MRA.
The DT in its Grounds of Decision, referred to 3 previous SMC cases and 4 Law Society cases and the Harm-Culpability Matrix for guidance to arrive at the final sentence of a 36-month suspension. Personally speaking, I thought the 36-month sentence was a tad harsh. I cannot see how the public’s trust and confidence in the medical profession can be “severely” harmed by a house officer falsifying MC on two occasions, even though the house officer’s culpability was high if not total. I think the public can discern the impact between dishonesty by a house officer and an experienced doctor and the consequent loss of public confidence. But that’s just me. We halflings always err on the merciful side. Maybe that’s our weakness.
But it is what it is.
However, this hobbit was kind of taken by surprise by this article that appeared shortly before the SMC announced the suspension of the house officer earlier this month, “Lawyer who sent misleading letters to 22 doctors fails in bid to quash $18,000 penalty” (The Straits Times, 13 August 25”
This case involved the sending out of misleading letters to 22 doctors that practised in TTSH, KKH and SGH. The letters stated that as required by the High Court, these 22 doctors had to give a statement to the law firm which the lawyer practised in, which was untrue and misleading. There was no such High Court requirement. According to the Straits Time report, the letter further stated “The doctors were told not to discuss their testimony with anyone, including their legal advisers and insurers. The letters also warned of “severe penal consequences” if the doctors did not comply”.
To give you an idea of how serious this is, the CMBs of all three aforesaid hospitals filed a complaint against this lawyer with the Law Society. The exact wording of one of the two charges against the lawyer is as reproduced below
https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGHC_159
“First Alternative to Second Charge” (Section 5)
You, AAAAAAA (NRIC No. XXXXXXX), an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore, are charged that you, took unfair advantage of various potential witnesses in High Court Suit No. HC/S 702/2020 and/or acted deceitfully towards them or otherwise contrary to a legal practitioner’s position as a member of a honourable profession, by issuing and sending letters dated 12 May 2022, 13 May 2022, 25 May 2022 and 22 June 2022 to these potential witnesses, which said letters created a misleading impression of and/or misrepresented the legal requirements in connection with the requirements for giving evidence in High Court Suit No. HC/S 702/2020 and the consequences of non-compliance with those alleged requirements, and such conduct amounts to a breach of Rule 8(3)(a) and/or Rule 8(3)(b) of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015, and you are thereby guilty of improper conduct or practice as an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore under Section 83(2)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1966.
To summarise, there were actually two charges. The first charge involved breaching Rule 7(3) while the second charge involved Rule 8(3)(a) and 8(3)(b). The one reproduced above is only the second charge. The defendant lawyer was found guilty of both charges and fined $18,000. The lawyer then appealed against the sentence. The case was heard before a High Court Judge who upheld the decision of the DT.
To bring more clarity to laymen such as doctors, halflings and other folks reading this, this hobbit reproduces the text of the relevant Rules of the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 for the second charge here:
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rule 8(3)(a) and (b) states:
(3) A legal practitioner
- must not take unfair advantage of any person; and
- must not act towards any person in a way which is fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to the legal practitioner’s position as a member of an honourable profession
The question that befuddles this hobbit (who admittedly is untrained and not at all clever at these legal stuff) is how did this lawyer of apparently more than 30 years’ experience only get a $18000 fine for doing something that is “fraudulent, deceitful or otherwise contrary to the legal practitioner’s position as a member of an honorable profession” AND also to have taken “unfair advantage of any person”? Is issuing misleading letters that are deemed “fraudulent and deceitful…” also not an act or acts of dishonesty? It would take a long stretch of anyone’s imagination that a person trained in law and court processes was not aware that these letters were misleading.
On the other hand, the house officer was found guilty of bringing disrepute to the medical profession (under Section 59D(1)(b) of the MRA) because she was dishonest and consequently suspended for 36 months.
How do we make sense of the sentencing for these two cases; one involving a lawyer of many years’ experience and a house officer with only a few months’ record of being a provisionally-registered doctor?
Perhaps we should not. Doctors are not lawyers and vice-versa. It is what it is.
hobbitsma 