Singapore — Dr Yeo Sow Nam was acquitted of outrage of modesty charges on Aug 16 after a four-year ordeal after the prosecution withdrew the charges against him.
However, as of Tuesday (Aug 31), the matter does not yet seem to have been laid to rest, with statements released from both the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and Dr Yeo’s lawyer, Mr Eugene Thuraisingam.
The AGC fired the first salvo in a press release stating that it would not take action against the complainant in Dr Yeo’s case.
According to the statement, the charges against the doctor had been withdrawn based on “inconsistencies” and not “on the basis that the complainant had been untruthful about the alleged outrage of modesty.”
Moreover, the AGC said that the public statements issued by Eugene Thuraisingam LLP, which claimed that the woman who filed the complaint against Dr Yeo “admitted to lying in court about ‘material elements’ of her allegations of outrage of modesty” are “are misleading and regrettable.”
The statement 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.”
The AGC’s statement ended by saying that it had written to Mr Thuraisingam asking for an explanation of his conduct.
The lawyer’s response to the statement from the AGC was issued from his office, as well as outlined on his Facebook page.
Mr Thuraisingam wrote that it is “not true” that the statements issued by Eugene Thuraisingam LLP had been misleading and regrettable.
He outlined five points of the complainant’s admissions wherein the testimony she had given in court was false or erroneous.
Furthermore, the lawyer added that “Dr Yeo applied to Court for the gag order against the complainant’s identity to be lifted on account of her lies stated above.
The application to lift the gag order was withdrawn on 16 Aug 2021, as the Court only had the power to do so if the prosecution charged the complainant with lying in court, and she is so convicted, as stated in the Prosecution’s written submissions.
Eugene Thuraisingam LLP however made it clear to the Court that Dr Yeo reserved the right to bring an application to lift the gag order in the event the Prosecution brought charges against the complainant for telling the lies stated above, as the evidence she gave in court (set out above) was not true.”
On Tuesday night, Mr Thuraisingam put up another Facebook post on the matter, this time addressing the AGC’s statement that he had abused the court’s process when he enumerated the lies of the complainant and then withdrew Dr Yeo’s application for the lifting of the gag order on the identity of the woman.
https://www.facebook.com/eugene.thuraisingam/posts/10228227107485492
“Attorney-General’s Chambers have also threatened me with disciplinary action,” he wrote.
“Without giving me any time to respond, they release their allegations against me to the press and articles are written and published online without my response.”
The lawyer explained that he had agreed with the Prosecution’s position that the gag order could not be lifted unless the complainant was charged and convicted of lying.
Therefore, he had withdrawn the application to do so, but at the same time reserved the right of Dr Yeo to apply for the gag order to be lifted should the woman be charged and convicted.
The AGC did not say in its statement that Mr Thuraisingam reserved this right and gave the impression that the lawyer had no reason to take the court through the complainant’s lies.
“I respectfully believe that it is unfair of AGC to give only part of the facts to the press without giving me the chance to present the full picture,” he added. /TISG