Singapore — Former Straits Times editor Bertha Henson commented on Friday on a case that still seems to be playing out despite an acquittal.
In a Facebook post on Friday morning (Sept 3), the journalist turned professor wrote that she went through the transcript of the case involving Dr Yeo Sow Nam, who was acquitted of outrage of modesty charges earlier this month after a four-year ordeal when the prosecution withdrew the charges against him.
Prof Henson, an Associate Fellow at Tembusu College at the National University of Singapore, wrote that the woman who had filed a complaint against Dr Yeo “wasn’t a reliable witness.”
She noted the gag order on the woman’s identity but added that the facts of what happened at the trial may be given.
“The prosecution withdrew charges before the doctor or his nurses were even called to the stand,” wrote Prof Henson.
She added that the complainant is a medical sales rep representative who had tried to sell a new pain relief product to Dr Yeo, and added, in a parenthetical remark, “There’s apparently no truth at all to all these rumours about spurned love etc or any kind of relationship beyond the professional.”
Prof Henson further noted that the two had been to business dinners along with her colleagues “before the said molest took place.”
She went on to write, “To cut a long story short, she wasn’t a reliable witness. She kept flip-flopping on her account of what happened, such as where the molest took place. She at first said corridor but CCTV showed nothing. Then she said in consultation room. There was also confusion about where exactly she was touched by the doctor.”
Prof Henson wrote that the defence had tried to prove in questioning the complainant is that she had falsified a molest charge out of worry that the doctor would file a complaint against her for professional behaviour.
“In fact, she agreed that the doc was angry with her at that time. At some points during the trial, she actually admitted to lying about certain things or that she omitted telling some things to her bosses,” she added, before writing that “she didn’t come across as very credible in holding her ground on what happened.”
The former ST editor wrote that she can understand why the charges against Dr Yeo were withdrawn and added that in her “layman view” is that the woman “couldn’t stand up to cross-exam” by Dr Yeo’s high-profile lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam.
She ended her post by writing, “I almost wish the case continued to the end so the judge can make some findings on the veracity of the case. Anyway, this is only my reading of the trial. I hope I did a fair job.”
Despite Dr Yeo’s Aug 16 acquittal, interest in the case has been kept alive due to an exchange of public statements earlier this week between the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and Mr Thuraisingam.
On Tuesday (Aug 31), the AGC stated in a media release that it would not take action against the complainant in Dr Yeo’s case. However, it said that the public statements issued by Mr Thuraisingam were “misleading and regrettable” and that it had been written to him asking for an explanation of his conduct.
Mr Thuraisingam claimed that the complainant “admitted to lying in court about ‘material elements’ of her allegations of outrage of modesty,” which the AGC took issue with.
The statement also mentioned another matter, wherein Mr Thuraisingam was said to have “used the court process to advance similar allegations against the complainant,” but “changed his position before the Court could rule on the allegations.”
Mr Thuraisingam refuted the comments in Facebook posts and statements that he released in reply.
And on Wednesday, the AGC issued another statement in response to the lawyer’s rebuttals, reiterating, among other things, that it has asked Mr Thuraisingam to explain his conduct.
Others have weighed in on the case, including lawyer Alexander Woon, the son of former Attorney-General Walter Woon. /TISG
AGC statement against Eugene Thuraisaingan raises questions, says son of former AG Walter Woon