DR HO Ting Fei ("Lessons for professional regulatory bodies") and Mr Rajasegaran Ramasamy ("Due diligence, legal advice needed"; both published last Thursday) raised some concerns about a recent court decision on disciplinary proceedings against Dr Lawrence Ang.
The court's comment that the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) should ensure greater clarity in the crafting of disciplinary charges was a timely reminder.
Prior to the court decision, the SMC had been studying this issue and has taken steps to address this.
The recommendations of an SMC review committee released last year observed that the SMC was refining its internal processes to enhance the rigour of charges framed against medical practitioners facing disciplinary proceedings. The charges against Dr Ang were crafted prior to such refinements.
Dr Ho was also worried about whether the SMC had, and would, exercise full caution and fairness in handling complaints and disciplinary matters.
While the observations of the court in this instance bear important lessons, they should
not be equated with a lack of caution or fairness on the SMC's part.
In any system that allows appeals to a higher body, it is inevitable that a few might be overturned. This actually reflects the strength of the disciplinary process and the value of the appeal mechanism.
Mr Rajasegaran pointed to the importance of professional bodies being aided by legal counsel in complicated cases, and noted that it would be unfortunate if professional bodies were deterred from pursuing difficult cases for fear of costs being imposed.
We assure Mr Rajasegaran that the SMC's processes do, as a matter of practice, require a legally trained person to either serve on or assist in all disciplinary inquiries.
In line with our commitment to refine and improve our processes to ensure the continued integrity of the disciplinary framework, the SMC is also considering appropriate amendments to the law to reflect this longstanding practice.
Selven Sadanadom
Deputy Head
Corporate Communications
Singapore Medical Council
The court's comment that the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) should ensure greater clarity in the crafting of disciplinary charges was a timely reminder.
Prior to the court decision, the SMC had been studying this issue and has taken steps to address this.
The recommendations of an SMC review committee released last year observed that the SMC was refining its internal processes to enhance the rigour of charges framed against medical practitioners facing disciplinary proceedings. The charges against Dr Ang were crafted prior to such refinements.
Dr Ho was also worried about whether the SMC had, and would, exercise full caution and fairness in handling complaints and disciplinary matters.
While the observations of the court in this instance bear important lessons, they should
not be equated with a lack of caution or fairness on the SMC's part.
In any system that allows appeals to a higher body, it is inevitable that a few might be overturned. This actually reflects the strength of the disciplinary process and the value of the appeal mechanism.
Mr Rajasegaran pointed to the importance of professional bodies being aided by legal counsel in complicated cases, and noted that it would be unfortunate if professional bodies were deterred from pursuing difficult cases for fear of costs being imposed.
We assure Mr Rajasegaran that the SMC's processes do, as a matter of practice, require a legally trained person to either serve on or assist in all disciplinary inquiries.
In line with our commitment to refine and improve our processes to ensure the continued integrity of the disciplinary framework, the SMC is also considering appropriate amendments to the law to reflect this longstanding practice.
Selven Sadanadom
Deputy Head
Corporate Communications
Singapore Medical Council
