Updated: 04/07/2014 10:03 | By Channel NewsAsia
Dr Woffles Wu suspended from practice for 4 months
SINGAPORE: The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has censured plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu for getting his employee to take the rap for his speeding offences in 2005 and 2006.
It is suspending Dr Wu from practice for 4 months from March 24 to July 23.
The 54-year-old plastic surgeon practises at Woffles Wu Aesthetic Surgery & Laser Centre.
In a statement, the SMC said its Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) held an inquiry on February 21 against Dr Wu.
On June 12, 2012, Dr Wu had pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to two charges under the Road Traffic Act of abetting an 83-year-old man into giving false information to the Traffic Police Department that he was the car driver behind two speeding offences on September 11, 2005 and November 10, 2006.
Upon his conviction, Dr Wu was referred to the Singapore Medical Council.
Before the DT, Dr Wu faced one charge of being convicted of an offence involving dishonesty under the Medical Registration Act.
He pleaded guilty to the charge before the DT and was accordingly convicted.
The tribunal highlighted in its Grounds of Decision that it discharged a rather different role from that of a court of law.
It noted that in arriving at an appropriate sanction, its role was to consider what penalties would be sufficient and of specific deterrence such that no registered medical practitioner would want to take the risk to commit such an offence that would lower the standing of the medical profession.
The tribunal found that there were several aggravating factors in the case.
While the speeding offences were clearly only traffic related offences, the tribunal noted that the offence that Dr Wu was convicted for was not merely an offence under the Road Traffic Act.
The tribunal stressed that it is incorrect to make light of an offence under the Road Traffic Act on the premise that it had no impact on Dr Wu's medical practice.
Dr Wu's wrongful act in allowing another person to take the rap on his behalf is "a transgression involving dishonesty with some degree of premeditation, preparation" and, in its view, was an act calculated to 'save his own skin'.
The tribunal felt that Dr Wu was subverting the course of justice through his act of dishonesty and that this was a conduct that the medical profession would not condone.
It also took pains to emphasise that "every medical practitioner is expected to carry the hallmarks of integrity and honesty whether in his professional or personal capacity".
Dr Wu's seniority and standing in the medical profession was also found to be an aggravating factor, as he had "tarnished the good name of the profession", "instead of setting a good example for younger practitioners to emulate".
The tribunal also felt that Dr Wu was not entirely remorseful as he had admitted (in a personal address to the DT during mitigation) that he had not given a second thought to what he did and that he believed it was a common practice to furnish false information to the Traffic Police for such offences.
Having considered the nature of the charge, the submissions and relevant precedents cited, and even after taking note of Dr Wu's cooperation with the authorities and his early plea of guilt, as well as his many contributions to society and the medical profession, the tribunal concluded that a sentence of suspension was warranted in the case, especially since it was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
In its view, an appropriate term of suspension would "deter like-minded medical practitioners from allowing others to take the rap on their behalf whether in the context of the Road Traffic Act or otherwise".
The tribunal however did not impose a fine since the suspension was "deemed to already be financially punitive" and that the underlying offence committed was not financially motivated.
Besides the 4-month suspension, it also ordered Dr Wu to give a written undertaking to the SMC that he would not to engage in any similar conduct in the future, and pay for all costs and expenses incurred for the tribunal.
The tribunal also ordered that the grounds of decision be published. - CNA/nd
