By Mak Yuen Teen

Last night, HC Surgical responded to another set of queries from SGX regarding its handling of the mess relating to Dr Julian Ong, who recently lost a defamation suit against a woman who accused him and another doctor of taking advantage of vulnerable female patients to have sex with them. She had accused the two doctors of “colluding” to take advantage of “other vulnerable woman patients” and suspected that Dr Chan was using his reputation together with Dr Ong to ‘source’ and ‘groom’ patients into victims.

The woman made a complaint to the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) in June 2018, which according to the company’s response to earlier SGX’s queries, took an unfathomably long eight months to inform Dr Ong of the complaint.

HC Surgical got dragged into the mess because Dr Ong is an employee and runs one of its subsidiaries. This was after HC Surgical first bought 51% of Dr Ong’s company, Julian Ong Endoscopy & Surgery Pte Ltd (JOES) in February 2017, and then increased its stake to 70% in October 2019.

My previous articles have already raised a number of questions regarding how the company has handled the matter and about its decision to acquire the additional 19% when it already knew about the complaint to the SMC against Dr Ong.

I have found the company’s  responses, including its latest response to SGX queries,  to be grating and concerning. It is particularly irritating to see the number of times the company has resorted to falling back on the SMC to complete its investigation into the complaint (which is now less than two months short of two years since the complaint was first made), and emphasising the importance of allowing “due process” to run its course. What about its own internal process?

HC Surgical tries to draw a line in the sand between a doctor’s personal conduct and professional conduct, claiming that Dr Ong’s infractions have to do with his personal conduct and does not have an impact on his professional conduct. It seems what the company is saying is that its doctors can behave in whatever way they wish in their personal capacity, as long as they are professionally competent and do not behave unprofessionally with their patients. This speaks volumes about the values of the company.

Further, how does the company know whether Dr Ong has behaved professionally with his patients when it does not do its own investigation?  Has it outsourced its investigations to the SMC? Does it not have its own internal process for investigating complaints, or does it only investigate complaints from its patients or employees? Would it ignore complaints from the general public, if a member of the general public observes one its doctors behaving unethically or immorally?

The company’s latest response to SGX queries also show that it only considered Dr Ong’s side of the story – ironic considering Dr Ong was alleging that the complainant’s statements were “one-sided”. From the response, there are no indications that the company was in the least bit interested in talking to the complainant to understand the other side of the story. Is this how the company handles any complaints?

The company cited its whistleblowing policy and how employees can raise concerns and are protected. Someone who observes how the company has handled this particular episode will wonder whether the company is likely to take the word of the doctor or management, if any complaint is made against them.

Why have the independent directors not stepped up in this particular case to investigate the allegations against Dr Ong? Did management surface it to the independent directors so that they can determine if an internal investigation is required, or did management themselves decide that an internal investigation is not required? Were the independent directors aware of the complaint when they approved the acquisition of the additional 19% stake in JOES? Are they going to step up now and initiate an investigation?

Perhaps we will not know how this ends until the SMC completes its investigation since it seems clear that the company has decided to wait for the SMC’s decision before taking any action. If the SMC issues an adverse finding, it would be interesting to see what action the company takes. Shareholders should ask for a detailed account of the financial and reputational impact on HC Surgical, and whether it is able to enforce the put option to sell back its stake to Dr Ong without any significant financial loss. If the company suffers a significant financial loss from its investment into JOES, shareholders should question the board’s decision-making process when it decided to increase its stake in October 2019. In this case, it would not be a matter of hindsight but a lack of foresight and prudence.