Dr Julian Ong (“Dr Ong”) won his appeal against one Serene Tiong (“Serene”). Dr Ong is a private colorectal surgeon. But the appeal, I guess, was a victory for another doctor too, a psychiatrist at SGH, Dr Chan Herng Nieng (“Dr Chan”).
Let me flesh out the case for you this Sunday morning.
The successful appeal means that Dr Ong got the judgment below overturned. The judgment below was the dismissal of his defamation suit against Serene who accused the two doctors of “taking advantage of, and using their positions to “source” and “groom” vulnerable female patients and colleagues for sex.””
On appeal, the high court judge felt that one of Serene’s accusations was not made out and the other did not qualify on purely technical ground. I will explain the second one later. But here is the first accusation, which concerns Serene herself.
Judge See “did not accept the district judge’s findings that (Serene) was one of Dr Chan’s vulnerable female patients, noting that she already had an intimate relationship with him before he provided her with Xanax for her anxiety.”
As such, there was no collusion between the two doctors to take advantage of Serene as a vulnerable patient because she already had an extramarital affair with Dr Chan before she was his patient.
Now comes the second accusation, this concerns another patient. Here is the twist.
Unlike the first accusation, Judge See however accepted the district judge’s finding that “what Dr Ong did in giving the telephone number of one his patients, referred to as K, to Dr Chan for him to “try his luck at getting her to have sex” was tantamount to colluding to take advantage of K””.
With that, you may ask, shouldn’t the defamation suit (by Dr Ong) against Serene fail? For there is no defamation if the accusation is true right? Not so fast.
Judge See said that “K was one patient, and (that one case) does not constitute vulnerable patients in plural.”
One therefore doesn’t cut it. Or one case does not a charge make. And therefore, the accusation was not made out, on a technicality. It was a technicality that is largely grammatical, dealing with the plural and the singular verb.
To be thorough, Serene did accuse them of taking advantage of four other women colleagues, but Justice See noted that “the two could not be proven as colleagues, and the other two were not a “potential target of collusion.””
So, after all’s said, you take your victim or case where they have fallen, and for Dr Ong’s suit, he had his day in the appellate court and won. That should be all’s well for the doctors right? Well, not so fast.
Justice See may have handed Dr Ong the judgment he wanted by overturning the lower court’s decision, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, he said. I will explain why later, but here’s an interlude for consideration.
For those law students reading this, it is a good case where morality and the law depart ways - at least for this aspect of their journey towards justice. For even where there is provable evidential inference via text messages between the two doctors that they had taken advantage of a vulnerable patient, or at the very least, violated her trust, and mind you, this is also a tale of extramarital affair, as an aside point, Dr Ong still won the defamation suit because the law is strict when it comes to proving your defence of justification, that is, that what you said or accused of them is true as a defence.
So, if your accusation deals with more than one patient, and no more than one patient is proven in court, then, your defence of “vulnerable patients” with an “s” fails.
Yes, the law judicially splits hair over the singular and the plural. But this, of course, does not prevent further investigation into other probable improprieties committed by the doctor or doctors, as Justice See said, “Dr Chan’s admission to touching his colleague inappropriately in the past “may be a matter for the SMC to consider looking into further.””
So, let me end here with three lessons.
First, Justice See said that “the only pattern revealed is that the two doctors were consummate opportunists, constantly looking out for women with sex in mind.”
Well, one may be vindicated in the court of law, yet the vindication that comes for the soul of men goes beyond the remedy of the court. Even equity applied by the firmest hand of justice cannot strengthen the roots of a wayward soul.
Truly, morality matters because, for all the conquests in this world, the greatest is still the battle of a lifetime to overcome the one within.
Second, Justice See also said, “They are perfectly competent doctors and their sex lives are, of course, private matters. But their blatant treatment of women as sex objects sullies whatever professional reputation they might have built up for themselves.”
Proverbs 22:1 reads: “A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches, and favour is better than silver or gold.” That’s true, because “the memory of the righteous is always a blessing, but the name of the wicked will rot.”
We are all fallen, in our own ways. In a world where the pursuit of wealth and fame is endless, the preservation of one’s name is always timely, and timeless.
We want to leave this world with a legacy to pass down to our children, a legacy that shines in the darkness and not one that contributes to it. And a good name is that city on the hill we leave behind, to light the way for our loved ones to follow.
Lastly, Justice See said, “(their) smug boasts of their trysts with various women, as well as the demeaning terms in which they gloatingly describe their sexual conquests, speak to their true character.”
Well, it is said that character is the sure foundation of all worthwhile success. And redemption, if I may add, is the cornerstone one lays to stabilise his shaky foundation.
Truly, in this journey of constant stumbles and falls, character’s best companion is his endearing brother of remorse and change. And I hope this is one lesson the doctors will always bear in mind and in their hearts. Have a blessed Sunday.
No comments:
Post a Comment