SingaporeSurf

Yesterday, I posted a short post about the issue of "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" viewpoint. I received the following e-mail from Mr Daniel Koh Kah Soon, the original forum-page writer:

Dear Mr. Leong,

I've just read your comments regarding my letter to the ST Forum Page. I take your insinuation against me, not too lightly, especially so because I do try to be a fair-minded person.

I might have indeed written a bad letter. It just shows I am not a word-smith, nor am I writer with flair.

I thought your judgment against me might have been, shall I say, fairer (?) had it been true that Prof Shorvon had not been found guilty of professional misconduct.

Though the British authorities refused to pursue further investigation against him, Shorvon's case was investigated in Singapore and the Singapore Medical Council had found him guilty of serious breach of medical ethical standards. He has been found guilty of obtaining medical information without informed consent, changing medications without informing the patients and bypassing the patients' personal doctors to obtain privileged medical data. I don't think one needs to be a medical ethicist to see that these are clear examples of unethical practices.

The context of the phrase, "unless Prof. Shorvon was innocent of profession..." is not to prejudge that he was guilty until proven innocent — he had already been found guilty of professional misconduct — but to suggest that if he is indeed innocent, then he has nothing to hide. Just provide the evidence to rebut and debunk the conclusion of the Singapore Medical Authority.

I hope this clarification helps even if you may not agree with my assessment of the Shorvon's affair.

daniel koh kah soon