Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tay Yong Kwang J |
Judgment Date | 18 May 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 152 |
Year | 2010 |
Date | 18 May 2010 |
Published date | 19 May 2010 |
Hearing Date | 29 April 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ismail Hamid (Ismail Hamid & Co) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 152 |
Defendant Counsel | Koh Swee Yen (Wong Partnership LLP) as amicus curiae,Rebecca Chew Ming Hsien and Mark Cheng Wai Yuen (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 849 of 2008 |
This appeal is brought by the Appellant, a Singapore registered Traditional Chinese Medicine (“TCM”) practitioner, against the decision of the Respondent, the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (“the Board”), to cancel the Appellant’s registration as a TCM practitioner. The Board’s decision was made on 19 March 2008 after considering the findings and recommendations of the Investigation Committee No. 2005/1 (“IC 2005/1”) in respect of three complaints made against the Appellant.
The complaints made against the Appellant were as follows:
The findings of IC 2005/1 were:
In the light of its findings, IC 2005/1, in a report dated 28 January 2008 (“the Report”), recommended that the Appellant’s registration as a TCM practitioner be cancelled. The Board informed the Appellant of its inclination to accept IC 2005/1’s recommendations and invited him to make representations before it on 28 February 2008. After that hearing, on 19 March 2008, the Board informed the Appellant that it was exercising its power under section 19(1) of the TCM Act to cancel his registration as a TCM practitioner.
The appealThe Appellant, who is also a TCM practitioner in Malaysia, accepted the decision of the Board in agreeing with IC 2005/1’s findings in respect of the second and third complaints. However, being dissatisfied with the Board’s decision to accept IC 2005/1’s findings on the first complaint and with the Board’s decision to cancel his registration as a TCM practitioner, the Appellant filed this appeal on the following grounds:
As the grounds of the Appellant’s appeal relate to the Board’s findings with regards to the first complaint, I shall start by stating some of the salient facts concerning the Appellant’s treatment of the Patient at the Johor Clinic.
Essentially, the Patient had been diagnosed with terminal rectal cancer in late 2002 and was being treated by doctors from the Singapore General Hospital. In 2003, these doctors indicated to the Patient and his family that he had only three more months to live.
In January 2004, the Patient’s family approached the Appellant at his Rochor Clinic located at Block 1 Rochor Road, #02-528 Rochor Centre, Singapore 180001 to seek alternative treatment in order to prolong the Patient’s life and to relieve the symptoms of his illness. The Appellant agreed to provide medical services to the Patient.
Sometime in 2004, the Appellant informed the Patient and his family that he also operated a clinic in Johor and that he had certain special equipment there that might be able to help the Patient. The Patient agreed to go to the Johor clinic for treatment.
On the occasions when the Patient was treated by the Appellant at the Johor Clinic, the Appellant performed the following treatments on him:
Section 19(1) and (2) of the TCM Act state:
There is nothing in section 19(1)(i) indicating whether the phrase “professional misconduct or negligence” is confined to acts committed within Singapore by a TCM practitioner.
Accordingly, the point of contention between the parties was whether section 19(1) of the TCM Act allows the Board to take into account the Appellant’s treatment of the Patient at the Johor Clinic for the purposes of determining whether he was guilty of professional misconduct. Due to the significance of this determination for future cases under section 19(1)(i) of the TCM Act and for disciplinary tribunals constituted under other Acts where similar wording appears, Ms Koh Swee Yen (“Ms Koh”) was invited as
The essence of the Appellant’s submissions was that section 19(1)(i) of the TCM Act did not apply to acts committed by a TCM practitioner outside Singapore. In support of this, he invoked the following arguments.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd
...difficulty with international comity and enforcement of the statute (see Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board [2010] SGHC 152 at [36]−[38]). Applying this general presumption, the Misrepresentation Act is presumed to apply only to misrepresentations within Singapo......
-
Fong Chee Keong v Professional Engineers Board, Singapore
...[2001] 1 WLR 1915 at [34]. This view is accepted in Singapore: see Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board [2010] 3 SLR 1108 (“Huang Danmin”) and Gan Keng Seng Eric v Singapore Medical Council [2011] 1 SLR 745. The principles governing the High Court’s approach to re......
-
Fong Chee Keong v Professional Engineers Board, Singapore
...[2001] 1 WLR 1915 at [34]. This view is accepted in Singapore: see Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board [2010] 3 SLR 1108 (“Huang Danmin”) and Gan Keng Seng Eric v Singapore Medical Council [2011] 1 SLR 745. The principles governing the High Court’s approach to re......
-
Administrative and Constitutional Law
...the purpose of the statute. This matter arose in the case of Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board [2010] 3 SLR 1108 (‘Huang Danmin’), with respect to the issue of whether an Act (Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act (Cap 333A, 2001 Rev Ed) (‘TCM Act’)) r......
-
Biomedical Law and Ethics
...of the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Act 6.29 Finally, in Huang Danmin v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board [2010] 3 SLR 1108, Tay Yong Kwang J held that professional misconduct committed overseas can be prosecuted in Singapore. In this case, the offending acts we......