\n<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE – To prove its case for professional misconduct by a well-known surgeon, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) in 2012 engaged surgeon Hong Ga Sze as an expert witness to give evidence.<\/p>\n
But when the case ended, SMC received a complaint against Hong, also for overcharging. SMC then had to take Hong to task for billing the medical watchdog $42,800 for his services in the case.<\/p>\n
Although the complaint did not originate from SMC, the council was bound, as the regulator, to take the case through the disciplinary process.<\/p>\n
The name of the complainant was redacted.<\/p>\n
SMC made three legal attempts \u2013 in 2015, 2018 and most recently in 2023 \u2013 but failed each time, although Hong\u2019s bill was slashed.<\/p>\n
The case is linked to one of the nation\u2019s most infamous medical overcharging cases, involving surgeon Susan Lim who charged a patient \u2013 linked to the Brunei royal family \u2013 $24 million for medical services.<\/p>\n
A disciplinary tribunal threw out the case against Hong, and acquitted him of the professional misconduct charges, 14 years after he took the stand in Lim\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
The tribunal, chaired by dean of Singapore University of Social Sciences\u2019 law school Leslie Chew, held two hearings in 2025, on Jan 13 and May 30.<\/p>\n
Its decision was revealed on May 25, 2026, when SMC published the decision grounds on its website.<\/p>\n
On dismissing SMC\u2019s case, the tribunal explained that in bringing the charges of professional misconduct against Hong, SMC must prove them beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n
However, the tribunal found that the evidence put forward by SMC \u201cfails to prove that (Hong\u2019s) fees are grossly excessive or that he charged fees that are disproportionate to what he could have charged\u201d.<\/p>\n
It also noted that even SMC\u2019s own expert witness, whose identity was redacted in the decision grounds and named only as PE, said that Hong did not overcharge SMC.<\/p>\n
\u201cTo put it bluntly, Dr PE\u2019s evidence on behalf of the SMC does not appear to prove the charges, instead they show that the charges are unfounded\u201d, stated the tribunal.<\/p>\n
It was also revealed in the decision grounds that the Complaints Committee previously investigating the complaint filed in 2014 had already decided twice in 2015 and 2018 that the complaint was not justified.<\/p>\n
The latest decision grounds also revealed that the complainant subsequently appealed to the Health Minister who on Oct 16, 2020, directed a disciplinary inquiry to be held.<\/p>\n
Lim was brought before two disciplinary committees after the Ministry of Health (MOH) lodged a complaint against her in 2007, following concerns raised by its Brunei counterpart over her bills.<\/p>\n
Lim had treated Pengiran Anak Hajah Damit, the younger sister of Brunei\u2019s Queen Saleha, for breast cancer until the patient\u2019s death in August 2007.<\/p>\n
Lim\u2019s bill for 2007 came to $24 million.<\/p>\n
The first committee disqualified itself after her lawyers contended that it had prejudged the case. In 2012, she was found guilty by the second committee for professional misconduct and was suspended for three years, censured and fined $10,000.<\/p>\n
The Straits Times reported in 2014 that Lim\u2019s husband Deepak Sharma had complained to the SMC about Hong\u2019s charges, after Lim was found guilty and ordered to pay the legal costs for the SMC.<\/p>\n
Lim\u2019s suspension took effect in 2013 after she had failed in her appeal. It ended in July 2016.<\/p>\n
In 2016, the Court of Appeal also upheld a High Court decision that Lim had to pay $235,000 in fees<\/span><\/a> to a legal assessor involved in the disciplinary inquiry against her.<\/p>\n Hong was served the inquiry notice on Aug 15, 2023, more than eight years after the complaint against him.<\/p>\n Hong was engaged by the SMC as an expert witness to testify at Lim\u2019s inquiry, to give evidence on whether Lim\u2019s fees were reasonable.<\/p>\n He subsequently sent SMC a $42,800 bill \u2013 inclusive of the prevailing 7 per cent GST \u2013 for at least 41 hours of time he had spent on the trial.<\/p>\n The bill included:<\/p>\n $14,000 for testifying on April 8, 2010, which lasted for five hours;<\/p>\n $14,000 for trial preparation spanning 2009 to 2010;<\/p>\n $6,000 for standing by to attend the inquiry on Feb 4, 2010; and<\/p>\n $6,000 for preparing the expert report submitted to the inquiry dated July 20, 2009.<\/p>\n Following a review by the High Court in 2015 of the costs payable, Hong\u2019s bill was slashed to $8,000.<\/p>\n Based on the SMC\u2019s register of doctors, Hong currently practises in a private general surgery clinic, as well as KK Women\u2019s and Children\u2019s Hospital.<\/p>\n Besides dismissing the charges, the tribunal also ordered SMC to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including the costs of the solicitors to Hong.<\/p>\n It noted that the Complaints Committee had twice cleared Hong of any professional wrongdoing, and that he had suffered embarrassment and financial prejudice \u201cas a result of what, from the very beginning, is an unmeritorious complaint\u201d.<\/p>\n Responding to The Straits Times, Hong said that he was glad that \u201cjustice had run its course even though it took 12 years with multiple appeals, inquiries and disciplinary tribunal\u201d. He also called for a review of the appeals process.<\/p>\n Based on SMC\u2019s latest annual report, it derives income mainly from the collection of fees from doctors applying for practising certificates.<\/p>\n In the financial year ending March 31, 2025, it received grants of more than $6.4 million from MOH, which led to a net surplus of more than $1.5 million.<\/p>\n The report also showed that SMC recovered more than $220,000 in legal proceeding costs, and incurred more than $1.2 million in legal expenses for disciplinary proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n SINGAPORE – To prove its case for professional misconduct by a well-known surgeon, the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) in 2012 engaged surgeon Hong Ga Sze…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":62791,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2611],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62790","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-buzz-headlines","wpcat-2611-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62790","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=62790"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62790\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/62791"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=62790"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=62790"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=62790"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n
Read Full Article At Source <\/a>
\n