ObservationsSingapore Today
·1 min read

The Woffles Wu saga – raw facts

0 0
Read Time:53 Second
The Woffles Wu Raw Facts

For those unfamiliar with this symbol, she is called “Lady Justice”.

You could probably make an intelligent guess why she is blindfolded. Yes, it means in judgement, she is blind to the fact of who you are, social status, wealth etc. It also means that she is blind to the fact of whether or not the punishment is “too severe” or “too light”. Guidelines for punishments are clearly written and will be delivered accordingly.

Here is some raw data you might want to use. Some basic facts to help you evaluate Woffles’ punishment. Whether the punishment is “fair and deserving” is another matter altogether, a matter that could be contaminated by personal judgement.

 (Click to enlarge, table courtesy of “Fabrications about the PAP”)

And if you’d like to read a segment from the Parliamentary Hansard (regarding questions and answers between Law Minister and Opposition, read here: http://app2.mlaw.gov.sg/News/tabid/204/Default.aspx?ItemId=689)

See also

So, is the punishment fair? – Yes.

Is it deserving? – I’ll chose not to answer that.

About Post Author

Benjamin Chiang

Benjamin Chiang is an enthusiast of good advertising, deep thinking, labour issues and chocolate. He writes also at www.rangosteen.com and occasionally on Yahoo! The views expressed are his own.
[email protected]
Happy
Happy
0 %
Sad
Sad
0 %
Excited
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
Angry
0 %
Surprise
Surprise
0 %
Tags
Benjamin Chiang
Benjamin Chiang is an enthusiast of good advertising, deep thinking, labour issues and chocolate. He writes also at www.rangosteen.com and occasionally on Yahoo! The views expressed are his own.

Average Rating

5 Star
0%
4 Star
0%
3 Star
0%
2 Star
0%
1 Star
0%
(Add your review)

13 thoughts on “The Woffles Wu saga – raw facts”

  1. aiyar.. as the saying goes: if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

    let those who are clueless and foolish stay clueless, stay foolish…

    Reply

  2. I saw the video – terrible showing by opposition. They have to resort to interruptions, pointless accusations and making silly faces where they could not argue good points.

    Reply

  3. I have posted this on another blog, but it is appropriate here as the character assassination of Dr. Wu continues:
    Has no one thought to ask why this seemingly trivial case has come to light after six years? I am a Los Angeles-based reporter who knows Dr. Wu and who has been appalled by the shoddy coverage his case has received in the Singapore press. These are the facts that have been disregarded: In 2010 a member of Dr. Wu’s staff, Teresa Wong Chui Sheung, his receptionist/cashier, was arrested on charges of embezzling more than $111,000 from Dr. Wu by pocketing money from his patients. Following the arrest, she pleaded with Dr. Wu to have the charges dropped. When he refused, she and her boyfriend at the time threatened revenge. She, of course, was privy to office discussions between Dr. Wu and Mr. Kuan concerning the speeding ticket. (Mr. Kuan, by the way, is no ordinary office employee. He is Dr. Wu’s godfather, a lifelong and loving friend.) Unless he dropped the charge against her, Dr. Wu recalls her saying, she would inform on him to the authorities. Dr. Wu says he regarded her threat as a form of blackmail and remained steadfast in his determination to put his treacherous former employee behind bars. In the end, she was sentenced to 15 months in prison — and immediately made good on her threat. And that’s how it happened that nearly six years after the original offense occurred, Dr. Wu was charged with “abetting” Mr. Kuan in giving false information to police. Far from receiving favorable treatment because of his wealth, it is clear that if he were not wealthy, there would have been no one to accuse him, and the matter would have remained moot. (I should mention that here in Los Angeles and in 24 other U.S. cities radar cameras have been outlawed because they shift the burden of proof to drivers rather than law enforcement, flouting the precept that one is regarded as innocent until proven guilty.) But the deficient reporting on Dr. Wu’s case has encouraged a campaign to smear his good name. Until now, he was regarded as one of Singapore’s preeminent figures. What is not so well known about him is that in addition to his many public accomplishments, he frequently donates his time and talent to performing cranial-facial restructuring on poor children in underdeveloped countries. Now, some of his accusers have even proposed that his license to practice medicine be revoked. All for an offense that would not have been prosecuted in some parts of the world — including this one — and that never would have come to light had it not been for the vindictiveness of a convicted embezzler.

    Reply

  4. Dated This: 09/Dec/2013.

    Dear Studio Briefing,

    Commenting on: The Woffles Wu saga – raw facts:

    Dr. Wu was charged with “abetting” Mr. Kuan in giving false information to police.

    Answer: Dr Woffles Wu has been CONVICTED. Please remove the quotation mark of “abetting”. Convicted of abeting. Thats the end. Conclusive. Thats it.

    All for an offense that would not have been prosecuted in some parts of the world — including this one — and that never would have come to light had it not been for the vindictiveness of a convicted embezzler.

    Answer: In CONTEXT, since this criminal offence of abetment happened in Singapore, it is therefore under Singapore Law that Dr Woffles has been convicted of the abetment crime. And thats it. No more argument and dispute on this area. You mentioned in some parts of the world. I like to bring to your attention once and again that the two key legal words are “In Context” and in this case, please do not worry on other parts of the world. Since the offence happened in Singapore, that is it. Understand??

    Please reply the facts, as per your website stated “Raw Facts”. So, please state the raw facts !!

    Since you protrayed Dr Woffles Wu as so righteousness, do you know that he was also separately CONVICTED under the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Law of sending his patients to purchase creams to the third-party vendor, the Second Wife of Dr Woffles Wu’s biological father, named Ms Josephine Law, instead of purchaseing from the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) Pharmacy, since at that material time, Dr Woffles Wu, was a Consultant Plastic Surgeon, and LEGALLY employed with and by SGH. Do you know now ?? You may check and verify this with the Singapore Criminals Records section if this is true.

    Thank You.

    Merry Christmas to you … …

    Reply

  5. Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/dr-woffles-wu-suspended/1061006.html

    Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang, finally got his medical suspension from the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) from all forms of medical practice for four (04) calendar months from March 24 to July 23.

    The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has censured plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu for getting his employee to take the rap for his speeding offences in 2005 and 2006.

    SINGAPORE: The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has censured plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu for getting his employee to take the rap for his speeding offences in 2005 and 2006.

    It is suspending Dr Wu from practice for 4 months from March 24 to July 23.

    The 54-year-old plastic surgeon practises at Woffles Wu Aesthetic Surgery & Laser Centre.

    In a statement, the SMC said its Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) held an inquiry on February 21 against Dr Wu.

    On June 12, 2012, Dr Wu had pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to two charges under the Road Traffic Act of abetting an 83-year-old man into giving false information to the Traffic Police Department that he was the car driver behind two speeding offences on September 11, 2005 and November 10, 2006.

    Upon his conviction, Dr Wu was referred to the Singapore Medical Council.

    Before the DT, Dr Wu faced one charge of being convicted of an offence involving dishonesty under the Medical Registration Act.

    He pleaded guilty to the charge before the DT and was accordingly convicted.

    The tribunal highlighted in its Grounds of Decision that it discharged a rather different role from that of a court of law.

    It noted that in arriving at an appropriate sanction, its role was to consider what penalties would be sufficient and of specific deterrence such that no registered medical practitioner would want to take the risk to commit such an offence that would lower the standing of the medical profession.

    The tribunal found that there were several aggravating factors in the case.

    While the speeding offences were clearly only traffic related offences, the tribunal noted that the offence that Dr Wu was convicted for was not merely an offence under the Road Traffic Act.

    The tribunal stressed that it is incorrect to make light of an offence under the Road Traffic Act on the premise that it had no impact on Dr Wu’s medical practice.

    Dr Wu’s wrongful act in allowing another person to take the rap on his behalf is “a transgression involving dishonesty with some degree of premeditation, preparation” and, in its view, was an act calculated to ‘save his own skin’.

    The tribunal felt that Dr Wu was subverting the course of justice through his act of dishonesty and that this was a conduct that the medical profession would not condone.

    It also took pains to emphasise that “every medical practitioner is expected to carry the hallmarks of integrity and honesty whether in his professional or personal capacity”.

    Dr Wu’s seniority and standing in the medical profession was also found to be an aggravating factor, as he had “tarnished the good name of the profession”, “instead of setting a good example for younger practitioners to emulate”.

    The tribunal also felt that Dr Wu was not entirely remorseful as he had admitted (in a personal address to the DT during mitigation) that he had not given a second thought to what he did and that he believed it was a common practice to furnish false information to the Traffic Police for such offences.

    Having considered the nature of the charge, the submissions and relevant precedents cited, and even after taking note of Dr Wu’s cooperation with the authorities and his early plea of guilt, as well as his many contributions to society and the medical profession, the tribunal concluded that a sentence of suspension was warranted in the case, especially since it was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.

    In its view, an appropriate term of suspension would “deter like-minded medical practitioners from allowing others to take the rap on their behalf whether in the context of the Road Traffic Act or otherwise”.

    The tribunal however did not impose a fine since the suspension was “deemed to already be financially punitive” and that the underlying offence committed was not financially motivated.

    Besides the 4-month suspension, it also ordered Dr Wu to give a written undertaking to the SMC that he would not to engage in any similar conduct in the future, and pay for all costs and expenses incurred for the tribunal.

    The tribunal also ordered that the grounds of decision be published.

    – CNA/nd

    Reply

  6. Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/dr-woffles-wu-suspended/1061006.html

    The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has censured plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu for getting his employee to take the rap for his speeding offences in 2005 and 2006.

    SINGAPORE: The Singapore Medical Council (SMC) has censured plastic surgeon Dr Woffles Wu for getting his employee to take the rap for his speeding offences in 2005 and 2006.

    It is suspending Dr Wu from practice for 4 months from March 24 to July 23.

    The 54-year-old plastic surgeon practises at Woffles Wu Aesthetic Surgery & Laser Centre.

    In a statement, the SMC said its Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) held an inquiry on February 21 against Dr Wu.

    On June 12, 2012, Dr Wu had pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to two charges under the Road Traffic Act of abetting an 83-year-old man into giving false information to the Traffic Police Department that he was the car driver behind two speeding offences on September 11, 2005 and November 10, 2006.

    Upon his conviction, Dr Wu was referred to the Singapore Medical Council.

    Before the DT, Dr Wu faced one charge of being convicted of an offence involving dishonesty under the Medical Registration Act.

    He pleaded guilty to the charge before the DT and was accordingly convicted.

    The tribunal highlighted in its Grounds of Decision that it discharged a rather different role from that of a court of law.

    It noted that in arriving at an appropriate sanction, its role was to consider what penalties would be sufficient and of specific deterrence such that no registered medical practitioner would want to take the risk to commit such an offence that would lower the standing of the medical profession.

    The tribunal found that there were several aggravating factors in the case.

    While the speeding offences were clearly only traffic related offences, the tribunal noted that the offence that Dr Wu was convicted for was not merely an offence under the Road Traffic Act.

    The tribunal stressed that it is incorrect to make light of an offence under the Road Traffic Act on the premise that it had no impact on Dr Wu’s medical practice.

    Dr Wu’s wrongful act in allowing another person to take the rap on his behalf is “a transgression involving dishonesty with some degree of premeditation, preparation” and, in its view, was an act calculated to ‘save his own skin’.

    The tribunal felt that Dr Wu was subverting the course of justice through his act of dishonesty and that this was a conduct that the medical profession would not condone.

    It also took pains to emphasise that “every medical practitioner is expected to carry the hallmarks of integrity and honesty whether in his professional or personal capacity”.

    Dr Wu’s seniority and standing in the medical profession was also found to be an aggravating factor, as he had “tarnished the good name of the profession”, “instead of setting a good example for younger practitioners to emulate”.

    The tribunal also felt that Dr Wu was not entirely remorseful as he had admitted (in a personal address to the DT during mitigation) that he had not given a second thought to what he did and that he believed it was a common practice to furnish false information to the Traffic Police for such offences.

    Having considered the nature of the charge, the submissions and relevant precedents cited, and even after taking note of Dr Wu’s cooperation with the authorities and his early plea of guilt, as well as his many contributions to society and the medical profession, the tribunal concluded that a sentence of suspension was warranted in the case, especially since it was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.

    In its view, an appropriate term of suspension would “deter like-minded medical practitioners from allowing others to take the rap on their behalf whether in the context of the Road Traffic Act or otherwise”.

    The tribunal however did not impose a fine since the suspension was “deemed to already be financially punitive” and that the underlying offence committed was not financially motivated.

    Besides the 4-month suspension, it also ordered Dr Wu to give a written undertaking to the SMC that he would not to engage in any similar conduct in the future, and pay for all costs and expenses incurred for the tribunal.

    The tribunal also ordered that the grounds of decision be published.

    – CNA/nd

    Reply

  7. Source: http://mothership.sg/2014/04/plastic-surgeon-woffles-wu-gets-4-month-suspension-goes-on-holiday-to-play-squash/

    By Belmont Lay

    A nine-year-old case involving flamboyant plastic surgeon, Dr Woffles Wu, has concluded this week. Like about time.

    Dr Wu was caught speeding, on September 11, 2005 and November 10, 2006, but allowed an 83-year-old man to claim he was driving the car instead on both occasions.

    Two years ago, on June 12, 2012, Dr Wu eventually pleaded guilty in the Subordinate Courts to two charges under the Road Traffic Act of securing a scapegoat abetting another man into giving false information to the Traffic Police Department.

    For lying to the police, he was given a net-worth-denting fine of $1,000 by The Subordinate Courts.

    Disciplinary tribunal issues rebuke

    On Feb. 21, this year, an inquiry was held by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) disciplinary tribunal against Dr Wu, following his conviction.

    On April 7, 2014, the SMC issued a strongly-worded statement written with a lot of angst to rebuke Dr Wu to make him feel very, very bad.

    The SMC’s disciplinary tribunal, in its scathing voice, said: “We find it completely incredible that the respondent committed the offence out of naivete and ignorance of the law”.

    And what Dr Wu did, it inveighed, involved “dishonesty with some degree of premeditation, preparation and calculated to save his own skin. We cannot over-emphasise that every medical practitioner is expected to carry the hallmarks of integrity and honesty, whether in his professional or personal capacity.”

    The tribunal also felt, rather sorely, that Dr Wu was not entirely remorseful. This was because he had admitted in a personal address to them during mitigation that he had not given a second thought to what he did.

    He had also claimed that he believed it was a common practice to furnish false information to the Traffic Police for such offences. Oh, the rich.

    Therefore, Dr Wu’s standing and seniority in the medical profession was an aggravating factor, the tribunal found.

    As punishment, the SMC is suspending Dr Wu from practice for four months from March 24 to July 23 this year and he has said he will not be appealing the decision of the tribunal.

    His clinic will have locums who will attend to his patients when he is gone…

    … on holiday and he will be preparing for the World Masters Squash Championship in Hong Kong in July, he said.

    Reply

  8. On the issue of Dr Woffles Wu fined S$1000.00 for asking his staff cleaner named Mr Kuan Yit Wah to take the rap. Before Dr Woffles Wu was successfully convicted, NUMEROUS interviews were done at the CPIB and at several times, the CPIB said that this case was closed already. Without my own international media friends, UN, USA President Obama, and other international parties for their assistance, I would safely say that this case would not have come to light. At that time, I have sought the UN and the USA President Obama for assistance. But I have to tell you now that whether they intervene or not, I do not know. How they do that, they have not revert back to me and I do not know. But I have strong reasons to believe that since the CPIB have told me and several of my friends that this case was closed, now that Dr Woffles Wu was convicted, then it must be the external super powers who have assisted in one way or another. Make sense??

    You mentioned that Dr Woffles Wu did volunteer work in Myanmar and Indonesia to repair cleft lips. You did not specify the dates or period. So, the readers would reasonable assume that either this was done on a regular basis or quite recently. But do you know that this volunteer work actually took place about in year 2000 when Dr Woffles Wu was a Consultant Plastic Surgeon with the Singapore General Hospital (SGH)“J” Clinic ?? And that was BEFORE he came out into private practice at the current Camden Medical Centre after about the year 2000. Since he came into private practice at Camden Medical Centre, he did NOT do any of this type of volunteer work any more overseas. On the topic of cleft lips repairing, do you also not know that this is not a one-off type of surgery. A child who is born this way, would need multiple surgeries, preferably with the same surgeon who operated on him/her and follow-up for at least a couple of years later. Therefore, do you think that he got this type of time to do it??

    Also, do you also not know that around that year 2000 or so, he was fined about S$2000.00 by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC), the same authority who currently medically suspended him, for asking some of the SGH patients who consulted Dr Woffles Wu when he was in the employment with SGH, to go to Mdm Jospehine Law (the first concubine of Dr Woffles Wu’s biological father) to buy creams or some other cosmetic products INSTEAD of purchasing them directly from the SGH Pharmacy. I am sure you missed this juicy part. You can write in to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to enquire if this is accurate. In the event that your querry is not answered in any ways, most probably it is being covered up by SMC. I teach you a trick or workabout on this. You ask your international media counterparts to enquire directly with the SMC. With the international media, the SMC would have think twice before not answering back to your international media. Wa, smart la. No choice. If I can win until this stage, without being involved in any legal matters myself, I must have some (or a lot of) tricks under my sleeve, you know.

    Next, on the Pro Bono work as reported by youself, not sure if Dr Woffles Wu said them himself. Do you also not know that his fees are one of the two highest, in comparable with another Plastic Surgeon named Dr Martin Huang in Paragon Medical. If Dr Woffles Wu is indeed into charity, why would he set his fees so high SINCE HE MOVED OUT INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE ?? Any common sense so far ?? Does it make any sense?? Do you think that in fact, would SGH allowed him to do Pro Bono there?? The doctor who does the mitigation for Dr Woffles Wu during that cream incident is the current SGH Senior Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Prof S. T. Lee. Once and again, please ask your international media counterparts to verify directly with SMC.

    One more common sense question – Do you know of anyone in Singapore, maybe you friend, who only got fine of S$1000.00 for speeding and ONLY AFTER about six calendar years LATER ?? Even that, does the Law Minister or AGC came out into the public to give Press Release, Media Interviews and even heatedly debated in Parliament, for a simple Speeding Offence??? To the best of my knowledge, NONE since Singapore Independence in 1965. And I believed that with that cream incident, SMC think really cannot give chance anymore and he was medically suspended for Fraud and Dishonest and tarnishing the good reputation of the medical profession.

    Hope this helps in your additional truth reporting about this Dr Woffles Wu again in your next upcoming articles in the local newspapers. You can go along this lines and if you can dig out more facts, through you international media counterparts, then I think that you would be awarded the Media Person of the year by MediaCorp. Sure one. Anything dealing with Dr Woffles Wu, sure become high profile case and news one.

    Reply

  9. Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/no-plastering-over-blemish-20140412

    The Straits Times EDITORIAL Opinion Section.

    No plastering over this blemish.
    Published on Apr 12, 2014 6:00 AM.

    The case of a senior doctor who got an elderly employee to lie to the police – so the former could duck two speeding offences – raised issues of considerable import, like lay perception when punishment meted out by the courts fails to assuage public disquiet and proportionality on legal grounds. Attorney-General Steven Chong noted at a forum that in the inglorious case of plastic surgeon Woffles Wu, “much of the furore stemmed from a lack of understanding of criminal procedure and criminal law”.

    Many views were aired within a few days following Dr Wu’s conviction and fine of $1,000 – including a blog by the head of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law, Mr Hri Kumar Nair, who asked for the grounds of the decision to be made public. The Attorney-General’s Chambers subsequently explained why a more serious charge was not preferred on the facts of the case and the need for aggravating features to invite a jail sentence. The matter, including the legal precedents, was also discussed in Parliament two months later where Law Minister K. Shanmugam stressed that no one is above the law.

    Few doubt that. Even so, given the dishonesty shown by a professional of some standing, a moral judgment cried out to be articulated, particularly because of the doctor’s singular “lack of remorse”. That expectation was fulfilled by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) when it suspended the prominent doctor from practice for four months and published the grounds of its decision.

    The views of the council should be required reading for practitioners and students alike as it sets out why doctors must be held to account in non-medical matters as well, in this case, for subverting the course of justice. Though ethics in the profession date back to the Hippocratic Oath, one might well wonder why the doctor, with 28 years of experience, gave “no second thought” to his egregious actions and even alleged that other doctors also gave false information for similar offences. Instead of spending part of his suspension on community work or reflecting – perhaps at the Centre for Medical Ethics and Professionalism – on the discussions his case provoked, he reportedly plans to write a musical, play the piano, train for squash tournaments and go on a holiday. Such a response suggests that the SMC’s bitter medicine has not had its desired effect. The SMC was right to emphasise that “every medical practitioner is expected to carry the hallmarks of integrity and honesty whether in his professional or personal capacity”. The profession must uphold the highest standards if it is to continue to enjoy the trust and respect of the public.

    Reply

  10. Dr Woffles WU Tze Liang.
    Consultant Plastic Surgeon.
    Camden Medical Centre.
    1 Orchard Boulevard
    #09 – 02
    Singapore 249615.
    Tel: +65 67339771.
    Fax: +65 67332820.

    Since Dr Woffles Wu has been currently suspended for four (04) calendar months by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) said that this was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.

    Dr Woffles Wu’s name was not found in the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) directoy listing as he is currently serving his four (04) month medical suspension and according to SMC, they said that this was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
    https://prs.moh.gov.sg/prs/internet/profSearch/main.action?hpe=SMC

    Evidence and Sources:

    (1) http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/dr-woffles-wu-suspended/1061006.html

    (2) http://mothership.sg/2014/04/plastic-surgeon-woffles-wu-gets-4-month-suspension-goes-on-holiday-to-play-squash/

    (3) http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/no-plastering-over-blemish-20140412

    Enough already and need any more saying ??

    Are you worried being treated by that doctor whose offence was involving fraud or dishonesty ?

    Reply

  12. Published Grounds of Decision of the current four (04) month medical suspension for Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang by the singapore Medical Council (SMC):

    http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/dam/hprof/smc/docs/grounds_of_decision/Dr%20Wu%20Tze-Liang%20Woffles.pdf

    Press Releases of the current four (04) month medical suspension for Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang by the singapore Medical Council (SMC):

    http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/dam/hprof/smc/docs/press_releases/Press%20Release%20-%20Dr%20Woffles%20Wu.pdf

    Reply

  13. For your IMMEDIATE BLACKLISTING of Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang, Singapore Pink NRIC S1409986G, FORMER Consultant Plastic Surgeon and Medical Directorfrom Woffles Wu Aesthetic Surgery Centre.

    Dr Woffles WU Tze Liang.
    Consultant Plastic Surgeon.
    Camden Medical Centre.
    1 Orchard Boulevard
    #09 – 02
    Singapore 249615.
    Tel: +65 67339771.
    Fax: +65 67332820.

    Since Dr Woffles Wu has been currently suspended for four (04) calendar months by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) said that this was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty.

    Dr Woffles Wu’s name was not found in the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) directoy listing as he is currently serving his four (04) month medical suspension and according to SMC, they said that this was an offence involving fraud or dishonesty:
    https://prs.moh.gov.sg/prs/internet/profSearch/main.action?hpe=SMC

    Evidence and Sources:

    (1) http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/dr-woffles-wu-suspended/1061006.html

    (2) http://mothership.sg/2014/04/plastic-surgeon-woffles-wu-gets-4-month-suspension-goes-on-holiday-to-play-squash/

    (3) http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/no-plastering-over-blemish-20140412

    Enough already and need any more saying ??

    Are you worried being treated by that doctor whose offence was involving fraud or dishonesty ?

    ==========================================================================================================

    Published Grounds of Decision of the current four (04) month medical suspension for Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang by the singapore Medical Council (SMC):
    http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/dam/hprof/smc/docs/grounds_of_decision/Dr%20Wu%20Tze-Liang%20Woffles.pdf

    Press Releases of the current four (04) month medical suspension for Dr Woffles Wu Tze Liang by the singapore Medical Council (SMC):
    http://www.healthprofessionals.gov.sg/content/dam/hprof/smc/docs/press_releases/Press%20Release%20-%20Dr%20Woffles%20Wu.pdf

    ==========================================================================================================
    ==========================================================================================================

    Reply

Share your thoughts!

© FiveStarsAndAMoon 2019. All Rights Reserved.

Zeen is a next generation WordPress theme. It’s powerful, beautifully designed and comes with everything you need to engage your visitors and increase conversions.