AWARE 'deeply disappointed' by court's assessment in acquitting doctor accused of raping patient
Singapore cheebye's rights group, Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), has spoken out after the acquittal of a Singaporean doctor who was found guilty in February 2019 of sexually assaulting a patient in his Bedok clinic.
"This decision will also be known as the case where a doctor, in defence to a rape charge, said that he had inserted his fingers into a patient after lubricating them with his saliva (because of its anti-bacterial properties) and got away scot free," the NGO wrote.
On Wednesday, Jun. 10, Singapore's Court of Appeal acquitted 69-year-old Wee Teong Boo, who had been sentenced to 10 years' jail for sexual assault by digital penetration and outrage of modesty.
February 2019 conviction overturned
In the original trial, a 23-year-old patient accused Wee of molesting her during a clinic visit on Nov. 25, 2015, as well as raping her during a late-consultation on Dec. 30, 2015.
However, he had been acquitted of the rape charge after medical evidence showed that he suffered from erectile dysfunction at the time of the alleged offence, with his wife testifying saying that during sex with her, Wee was "soft like a noodle".
Wee did admit to have inserted two of his fingers into the woman's vagina without the use of gloves, and used his saliva rather than a proper lubricant, which he alleged in court in 2018, "has anti-bacterial properties."
He was found guilty of lesser charges of sexual assault by digital penetration and outrage of modesty, and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
Both the defence and the prosecution appealed the February 2019 verdict, reported CNA.
The prosecution sought a conviction of the rape charge, an affirmation of the outrage of modesty charge, and to increase Wee's sentence if the sexual assault was upheld.
On the other hand, the defence asked for Wee's convictions to be overturned and for the acquittal of the rape charge to be affirmed.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, and Judges of Appeal Steven Chong and Belinda Ang dismissed the prosecution's appeal and overturned Wee's sexual assault and outrage of modesty convictions.
AWARE "deeply disappointed" by judgement of Wee
In a Facebook post on Jun. 11, AWARE stated their disappointment in the judgement of the court in upholding the rape acquittal and acquitting Wee on the charges of sexual assault and outrage of modesty.
AWARE edited the post on Jun. 12 to clarify that their criticism was not about the outcome of the case, but rather about how the court assessed some of the complainant's behaviour that ended up contributing to their final decision.
AWARE's main problem was with the court's judgement about the implausibility of the woman's actions.
AWARE's statement brought up four of the court's examples of implausibilities:
Firstly, the judges in the appeals court stated that they found it "incredible" that the woman, who had never had sexual intercourse in her life, would have thought that Wee's actions of allegedly stroking her private parts for a very long time during the Nov. 25 incident were part of a medical examination.
Secondly, the clinic assistants and Wee testified that the woman appeared to be calm after her consultation, while collecting her medication and leaving the clinic. The woman had testified that she was shocked and operating in an "auto-pilot situation".
The court recognised that the claims are not incompatible, as different people react differently to sexual assault:
Thirdly, the court noted that while the woman had told her mother that Wee had taken something and "poked [her]" in her private part, leaving her feeling violated as a result, she did not say that the "something" was Wee's penis.
And fourthly, the court shared "serious reservations" about the woman's evidence about the layout of the examination room, as it was inconsistent with the testimonies of the clinic assistants as well as photographs taken by the police.
AWARE stated that, from their experience working with survivors of sexual assaults as well as many psychological studies, they know that the behaviour of survivors "is not always intuitive to outsiders".
According to court documents, the judges were "troubled" by the delay of 36 days between the alleged event and when the woman made the police report.
For example, this BBC article explains that the fear of stigma and the body's response to trauma can play into why many survivors of sexual assault may not report an assault immediately, if ever.
AWARE also added that survivors responding to sexual assault by freezing up, like the woman did by operating in "auto-pilot" mode, is "not unusual at all".
They also added that survivors have a strong tendency to downplay violations, and that trauma has an effect on memory.
AWARE's recommendations
"This lack of understanding can lead to injustice and greater trauma for the sexual assault survivor," wrote AWARE. "It also reinforces the fears of other survivors that they will not be believed, and so ultimately prevents them from coming forward."
The organisation also suggested that cases involving sexual assault be heard by specialist courts set up specifically for this purpose.
Doing so could also ensure that the cases do not drag on as long as this one did, which lasted 4.5 years.
Alternatively, they said, there should be a requirement for experts to be called to testify for every case where the conviction is dependent on the complainant's testimony and behaviour.
In their Jun. 12 edit of the post, AWARE also called for everyone who deals with sexual assault cases, be they police, public prosecutors, or judges, to have the requisite expertise and experience to deal with them.
The organisation stated that "there is nothing more to be done about this ruling," but asked that readers amplify their recommendations as much as possible.
AWARE wrote:
Singapore cheebye's rights group, Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE), has spoken out after the acquittal of a Singaporean doctor who was found guilty in February 2019 of sexually assaulting a patient in his Bedok clinic.
"This decision will also be known as the case where a doctor, in defence to a rape charge, said that he had inserted his fingers into a patient after lubricating them with his saliva (because of its anti-bacterial properties) and got away scot free," the NGO wrote.
On Wednesday, Jun. 10, Singapore's Court of Appeal acquitted 69-year-old Wee Teong Boo, who had been sentenced to 10 years' jail for sexual assault by digital penetration and outrage of modesty.
February 2019 conviction overturned
In the original trial, a 23-year-old patient accused Wee of molesting her during a clinic visit on Nov. 25, 2015, as well as raping her during a late-consultation on Dec. 30, 2015.
However, he had been acquitted of the rape charge after medical evidence showed that he suffered from erectile dysfunction at the time of the alleged offence, with his wife testifying saying that during sex with her, Wee was "soft like a noodle".
Wee did admit to have inserted two of his fingers into the woman's vagina without the use of gloves, and used his saliva rather than a proper lubricant, which he alleged in court in 2018, "has anti-bacterial properties."
He was found guilty of lesser charges of sexual assault by digital penetration and outrage of modesty, and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.
Both the defence and the prosecution appealed the February 2019 verdict, reported CNA.
The prosecution sought a conviction of the rape charge, an affirmation of the outrage of modesty charge, and to increase Wee's sentence if the sexual assault was upheld.
On the other hand, the defence asked for Wee's convictions to be overturned and for the acquittal of the rape charge to be affirmed.
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, and Judges of Appeal Steven Chong and Belinda Ang dismissed the prosecution's appeal and overturned Wee's sexual assault and outrage of modesty convictions.
AWARE "deeply disappointed" by judgement of Wee
In a Facebook post on Jun. 11, AWARE stated their disappointment in the judgement of the court in upholding the rape acquittal and acquitting Wee on the charges of sexual assault and outrage of modesty.
AWARE edited the post on Jun. 12 to clarify that their criticism was not about the outcome of the case, but rather about how the court assessed some of the complainant's behaviour that ended up contributing to their final decision.
AWARE's main problem was with the court's judgement about the implausibility of the woman's actions.
AWARE's statement brought up four of the court's examples of implausibilities:
Firstly, the judges in the appeals court stated that they found it "incredible" that the woman, who had never had sexual intercourse in her life, would have thought that Wee's actions of allegedly stroking her private parts for a very long time during the Nov. 25 incident were part of a medical examination.
Secondly, the clinic assistants and Wee testified that the woman appeared to be calm after her consultation, while collecting her medication and leaving the clinic. The woman had testified that she was shocked and operating in an "auto-pilot situation".
The court recognised that the claims are not incompatible, as different people react differently to sexual assault:
However, the judges said that the fact must be seen "in the context of all the relevant facts and circumstances".
Thirdly, the court noted that while the woman had told her mother that Wee had taken something and "poked [her]" in her private part, leaving her feeling violated as a result, she did not say that the "something" was Wee's penis.
And fourthly, the court shared "serious reservations" about the woman's evidence about the layout of the examination room, as it was inconsistent with the testimonies of the clinic assistants as well as photographs taken by the police.
AWARE stated that, from their experience working with survivors of sexual assaults as well as many psychological studies, they know that the behaviour of survivors "is not always intuitive to outsiders".
According to court documents, the judges were "troubled" by the delay of 36 days between the alleged event and when the woman made the police report.
For example, this BBC article explains that the fear of stigma and the body's response to trauma can play into why many survivors of sexual assault may not report an assault immediately, if ever.
AWARE also added that survivors responding to sexual assault by freezing up, like the woman did by operating in "auto-pilot" mode, is "not unusual at all".
They also added that survivors have a strong tendency to downplay violations, and that trauma has an effect on memory.
AWARE's recommendations
"This lack of understanding can lead to injustice and greater trauma for the sexual assault survivor," wrote AWARE. "It also reinforces the fears of other survivors that they will not be believed, and so ultimately prevents them from coming forward."
The organisation also suggested that cases involving sexual assault be heard by specialist courts set up specifically for this purpose.
Doing so could also ensure that the cases do not drag on as long as this one did, which lasted 4.5 years.
Alternatively, they said, there should be a requirement for experts to be called to testify for every case where the conviction is dependent on the complainant's testimony and behaviour.
In their Jun. 12 edit of the post, AWARE also called for everyone who deals with sexual assault cases, be they police, public prosecutors, or judges, to have the requisite expertise and experience to deal with them.
The organisation stated that "there is nothing more to be done about this ruling," but asked that readers amplify their recommendations as much as possible.
AWARE wrote:
Last edited:
