Ms Salma Khalik’s commentary, “Are doctors in Singapore being disciplined fairly? Recent penalties for misconduct draw scrutiny” (published Oct 20, 2025, The Straits Times), is a timely and balanced piece that raises pressing questions about the consistency and proportionality of disciplinary actions meted out by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC).
Although Ms Khalik has, in the past, been seen as a tough critic of the medical profession—often spotlighting lapses in accountability or systemic inertia—this article demonstrates her journalistic integrity and sense of fairness. Rather than indulging in sensationalism, she provides a clear-eyed, evidence-based analysis of several recent disciplinary cases, comparing the nature of the misconduct, the degree of harm caused, and the resulting penalties.
Original Article Link: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/are-doctors-in-singapore-being-disciplined-fairly-recent-penalties-for-misconduct-draw-scrutiny
A Call for Proportional Justice
Ms Khalik’s strongest point lies in her nuanced treatment of the contrast between two recent cases:
- A young houseman, Dr Cherida Yong, who was suspended for six years (in effect) for faking two medical certificates, and
- Veteran doctors who caused actual patient harm through inappropriate prescriptions or repeated misconduct, yet received comparable or lighter suspensions.
By highlighting this disparity, Ms Khalik challenges the logic of equating procedural dishonesty with cases involving tangible injury or patient endangerment. Her argument is not to excuse wrongdoing but to emphasize proportional justice — a cornerstone of any credible disciplinary system.
She rightly reminds readers that public confidence in medical regulation depends not only on the severity of penalties but on their consistency. Her citation of former Health Minister Gan Kim Yong’s 2019 warning about tribunals being “too lax or too draconian” reinforces this continuity in concern — showing that the problem is systemic, not episodic.
Recognising Complexity Without Condemnation
What stands out in this piece is Ms Khalik’s fairness. She neither vilifies the young doctor involved nor exonerates her. Instead, she situates the misconduct within context — a brief lapse of judgment by a houseman early in her career — and contrasts it with long-term malpractice or financial exploitation by senior practitioners.
Her tone is reflective rather than adversarial: she calls for reform, not retribution. By referencing the Judith Prakash workgroup guidelines (which recommend 1–2 year suspensions where harm is low but culpability high), she provides a factual benchmark for readers to judge fairness objectively.
This attention to proportionality — and her reliance on judicially guided principles rather than moral outrage — reveals the maturity of her analysis.
Defending Transparency and Public Trust
Ms Khalik also draws attention to a crucial issue often overlooked: the erosion of trust when disciplinary decisions appear inconsistent.
She argues that when penalties swing between extremes, both doctors and the public lose faith in the process. This observation carries weight, particularly in an era where professional accountability is increasingly scrutinised by both the media and social platforms.
By comparing cases across different years — from Dr Ang Yong Guan’s overprescription case to Dr Khoo Boo Peng’s misjudged treatment — she constructs a persuasive argument for the need for clearer sentencing calibration and greater transparency.
A Journalist of Balance and Courage
It would be unfair to dismiss Ms Khalik as anti-doctor simply because she holds the medical establishment to high ethical standards. On the contrary, this commentary illustrates her ability to empathize with doctors while still defending the principle of fairness. She acknowledges the pressures, human fallibility, and emotional toll within the medical profession, yet she insists that the SMC’s disciplinary framework must uphold both justice and humanity.
By ending with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon’s remark — “Everyone makes mistakes. The real question is whether one demonstrates the capacity to learn from one’s mistake” — Ms Khalik subtly reorients the conversation from punishment to rehabilitation and professional growth.
Final Comments
Ms Salma Khalik’s article is a model of balanced journalism — incisive yet compassionate, critical yet constructive. It invites both regulators and practitioners to re-examine whether Singapore’s medical disciplinary system truly serves justice or merely enforces compliance.
In doing so, she reaffirms the vital role of the press in mediating between public accountability and professional dignity — a reminder that fairness is not about taking sides, but about seeking truth in proportion.
