The prosecution’s decision to withdraw all charges against an anaesthetist accused of molesting a woman almost four years ago raised questions about whether alleged sexual offenders should be offered similar identity protections afforded to alleged victims prior to any conviction.

District Judge Ng Peng Hong on Monday (16 Aug) granted the prosecution’s application for a discharge amounting to an acquittal (DATA) for Dr Yeo Sow Nam, 52.

Their decision to withdraw the charges was made after reviewing the evidence and the defence’s representations, according to the prosecution.

The complainant, 33, had accused Dr Yeo of inappropriately touching her four times at his pain management clinic — The Pain Specialist — at Mount Elizabeth Hospital on the evening of 9 Oct 2017.

Allegations included him squeezing her waist, hugging her and quickly groping her breasts, and kissing her forehead.

The woman is said to be not a patient or staff member at Dr Yeo’s pain management clinic.

Despite the woman being revealed to be what Dr Yeo’s lawyers have branded “a self-confessed perjurer” based on her testimony in court, her identity remains hidden even after acquittal due to a gag order that remains in effect.

Yet, damage has been done to the doctor’s reputation, as shown by various comments from the public on social media since he was first charged close to four years ago.

Dr Yeo’s predicament is not a standalone case — in late April, the State Courts acquitted a male supervisor of all charges involving sexual assault against his female colleague at a Cotton On outlet during their closing shift.

District Judge Jasvender Kaur found multiple facets of the alleged victim’s evidence “troubling” and evoked “serious doubt” on her credibility.

This included her act of testifying that she froze when the accused made his advances towards her.

It was reported that she had told the gynaecologist who examined her after the alleged incident in 2017 that she had actively resisted him instead.

AWARE, one of Singapore’s most prominent gender equality non-governmental organisations, highlighted that based on an Ipsos survey in 2019, a considerable number —four in 10 — of Singaporeans and permanent residents surveyed believing that false accusations of sexual harassment are becoming more common in Singapore.

However, the organisation noted that in an AWARE-Ipsos survey on workplace sexual harassment published in January, 20 per cent of survivors did not report their sexual harassment out of the fear that they will not be believed.

This is a fear “fuelled by social media comments harping on about false accusations”, said AWARE.

Noting that seven out of 10 clients of AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre do not proceed with an official report, the organisation said that the “under-reporting of sexual abuse remains pervasive”.

Further, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, of the 250 reported cases of sexual crimes legally classified as serious — rape and sexual assault by penetration — per year from 2014 to 2018, only 10 cases involved Singapore police charging complainants for making false reports or giving them a stern warning for doing so, said AWARE.

It is also crucial to discern the difference between such cases involving false allegations and cases that are not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence, said AWARE.

AWARE warned that “unreliable assumptions about false complaints could create biases and sway how rape allegations are managed if we are not careful”.

This is particularly when misogynistic stereotypes about false accusers “condition us to imagine them as women”, given how survivors of sexual violence are “overwhelmingly female”, said the organisation.

“In reality, though, men can and do make false reports too. In 2019, a 34-year-old man provided false information to an investigation officer, saying that his 50-year-old Singaporean boyfriend had force-fed him a pill and raped him at their home while he was unconscious. Yet we tend to harp on cases of women making false accusations,” said AWARE.

Even Dr Yeo himself said following his acquittal that while he is “glad that truth has prevailed”, he hoped that the outcome of his case “does not discourage real victims of sex crimes from coming forward, or set back the moral agenda in their favour”.

While AWARE rightfully pointed out that the attitude toward such false accusations could exacerbate stigma against female survivors of sexual crimes and deter them from coming forward to seek justice, the issue at hand — especially as illustrated in Dr Yeo’s case — is not about not taking women seriously over allegations of sexual crimes.

Instead, the distress and damage endured by Dr Yeo in the past four years raise questions about whether the accused should also be protected from having their identity being publicly revealed until the person is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the court.

As seen in the case of Dr Yeo, the woman who confessed to lying under oath is protected under the Women’s Charter, while the doctor’s reputation and wellbeing was injured over an offence he did not commit.

Should the law not equally protect the accused before their guilt is set in stone?

While the accused’s name may be cleared at the end, as seen in Dr Yeo’s case, the damage done to their reputation is irreversible.

Not everyone is as fortunate such as Dr Yeo, who had the full support of his loved ones, workplace, and the medical community over the course of proceedings.

What is the rush to identify the accused in public for the purpose of media reports when the court has yet to determine the guilt of the individual?

It is clear that even when “innocent until proven guilty” is often touted as a maxim, the reverse is actually assumed of the accused the moment a charge is made against the person.

It is not necessary for individuals and entities associated with the accused persons to be informed of the charges through the media, as police would have informed them throughout the investigations.

Such individuals and entities will then be able to take the necessary actions to prevent any possible further implications that may arise in relation to the accused’s position or work.

Further, the prosecutors’ decision to pursue charges against an individual is not always a clear indication that one is guilty of an offence — Dr Yeo’s case is an example where false allegations can mistakenly be used as a basis for prosecution to take place.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that sufficient protection ought to be put in place for the accused prior to any conviction, similar to that afforded to the alleged victim — unless the alleged victim chooses to be exempted from identity protection as well.

After all, Singapore’s criminal justice system is premised upon the “presumption of innocence” principle.

This means that the possibility that an accused person did not commit the crime they were charged with must be brought into consideration at all times until they are proven guilty, in order for the trial to have a fair outcome.

Is this principle, then, only effective in theory and not in practice?