SINGAPORE MEDICAL COUNCIL DISCIPLINARY INQUIRY FOR
DR NG CHEE KEONG HELD ON 10 JUNE 2011
Disciplinary Committee:
A/Prof Siow Jin Keat (Chairman)
Dr Tan Kok Soo (Member)
Dr Goh Siang Hiong (Member)Ms Tan Su-Yin Doreen (Lay Member)
Legal Assessor:
Mr Joseph Liow Wang Wu (M/s Straits Law Practice LLC)
Prosecution Counsel (M/s Harry Elias Partnership LLP):Mr Jonathan Yuen
Ms Shazana Anuar
Ms Christine Tee (Trainee)
Defence Counsel (M/s Rodyk Davidson LLP):Mr Lek Siang Pheng
Mr Andrew Lee

DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE(Note: Certain information may be redacted or anonymised to protect the identity of the parties.)

1.

These proceedings arose out of a letter of complaint made against theRespondent, Dr Ng Chee Keong, on 26 May 2009 by the Ministry of Health to theSingapore Medical Council (the “SMC”).

The Charges
2.

The particulars of the individual charges of professional misconduct under section
45(1)(d) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap. 174) are set out in the Notice ofInquiry by the Disciplinary Committee (“NOI”).

3.

In brief, the Respondent was charged with eleven (11) charges of failure toexercise due care in the management of his patients by inappropriately
prescribing benzodiazepines and/or codeine-containing medication in theamounts and over the period set out in the Patient Schedules. The professional
misconduct relating to events when the Respondent was practising as a generalpractitioner at Eunos 5 Clinic, 5 Eunos Crescent #01-2615, Singapore 400005.

4.

In each of these cases, the Respondent had failed to exercise due care to suchan extent as to amount to professional misconduct, in particular, he had, withPage 2
Disciplinary Committee Inquiry – Dr Ng Chee Keongthose 11 patients, inappropriately prescribed such medication in the amounts andover the periods set out in the Patient Schedules.
5.

Of these 11 charges, the majority of charges show concomitant prescription ofboth benzodiazepines and codeine-containing medication.

The Proceedings
6.

The Respondent had consented to the 11 charges as set out in exhibit P-1 andas set out in the Notice of Inquiry (“NOI”) dated 2 March 2011 to be deemed asread at the hearing today and he had unequivocally entered a plea of guilt to all
the charges.

7.

We note that parties had prepared Agreed Bundles of Documents. AgreedBundles Volumes 1 and 2 were admitted and marked as “1AB” and “2AB”
respectively. An Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered and read to thisDisciplinary Committee. This was marked as “1SF” and was admitted by theRespondent as correct after the same was read to him.

8.

Having found the Respondent guilty of all the charges as set out in the NOI, we
invited prosecuting counsel and defence counsel to make submissions onsentencing.

9.

The prosecuting counsel, Mr Yuen, submitted some sentencing precedents whichwere marked and admitted as “P-2”. Mr Yuen submitted that the 3 most recent
cases in the sentencing precedents were the most relevant.

10.

In response, the Respondent’s counsel, Mr Lek, submitted a written Mitigation
Plea. His main points appear to be:a. That this Disciplinary Committee should limit itself, in sentencing theRespondent, to consider only the fact that he had inappropriately prescribed
the medications complained of. In particular, we were asked to ignore the factthat he was the subject of another Disciplinary Committee Inquiry which hehad entered a plea of guilt for a similar misconduct. We were also asked toPage 3
Disciplinary Committee Inquiry – Dr Ng Chee Keongdisregard the facts agreed by him in paragraph 11 of the Agreed Statement ofFact which relates to certain inadequacy in the record keeping andmanagement of his patients.
b. We were also asked to give weight to the fact that there are no priorantecedents and that there were glowing testimonials from his peers, nursesand patients.
c. That the Respondent had good intentions in his dealings with the 11 patientsreferred to in the charges and that he had counselled and advised those 11patients.
d. That the Respondent was the sole breadwinner; that he is a family man withthree young children.
11.

We then took time to deliberate on the issue of sentencing.

Sentence by this Committee
12.

Having found the Respondent guilty of 11 charges of professional misconduct
within the meaning of section 45(1)(d) of the Act, we considered the submission
made to us by respective counsels to decide the appropriate orders to be madeagainst the Respondent.

13.

We find that cases of over-prescription of benzodiazepines and/or codeinecontaining medicines to be particularly troubling. Given the rising incidences ofundesirable conduct of

medical practitioners

indiscriminately prescribing

hypnotics and/or cough mixtures containing codeine, we are of the view thatpublic policy requires us to treat this misconduct seriously and to deter theRespondent and any other like-minded medical practitioners from committing
similar acts.
14.

In this present particular case, we note from the Schedules relating to the 11
patients which can be found in Volume 1 of the Agreed Bundle and which arereferred to in the charges, that the extent of over-prescription of these medicine to
the Respondent’s patients is excessive, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Page 4
Disciplinary Committee Inquiry – Dr Ng Chee KeongThe prescribing patterns in relation to these 11 patients are potentially habitforming and can cause drug dependence.
15.

Let us first say that we do not consider an order to strike the Respondent from theRegister as an appropriate punishment. That would be manifestly harsh.

16.

We accept some but not all of the mitigating factors which the Respondent’scounsel has ably highlighted. We agree with his submission that his early plea of
guilt does show remorse and has saved time and costs for all parties. We also
considered and took note of the fact that there was no prior antecedent and wehave not taken the other Disciplinary Committee matter into consideration forsentencing.

17.

We however cannot give any weight to the testimonial by the Respondent’s
patients and peers because the harm or potential harm which he has caused hispatients far outweigh any good that may be said of him. We also note that despite
his assertion that he had counselled and advised these 11 patients, there is norecord of him doing so in his case notes (which can be found in the Agreed
Bundle).

18.

Having regard to all of the above, it is the Committee’s decision that theappropriate sentence to be meted out against the Respondent shall be as follows:(a)that the Respondent, Dr Ng Chee Keong, be suspended from practice fora period of 6 months;(b)that he be fined the sum of $10,000;(c)that he be censured; and(d)that he pays the costs and expenses of and incidental to theseproceedings including the costs of the solicitors to the SMC and the LegalAssessor.

19.

We have not asked the Respondent to give the usual undertaking not to commit
this misconduct again as we note that he has given a prior undertaking in theother concluded Disciplinary Committee matter and that this undertaking is stilleffective.

Page 5
Disciplinary Committee Inquiry – Dr Ng Chee Keong

20.

This Disciplinary Committee further orders that this Grounds of Decision bepublished.

21.

This hearing is hereby concluded.

Dated this 10th day of June 2011.