Doxxing in Singapore: Laws and Remedies

The growing trend of online vigilantism, coupled with the increasing number of doxxing incidents - where others’ personal information is published online - has highlighted the need for legislation against such conduct. In light of this growing issue, Parliament has amended the Protection from Harassment Act (“POHA”) to criminalise doxxing and provide more comprehensive remedies against doxxing. This article will explain when doxxing constitutes an offence under the POHA, as well as the remedies available for victims of doxxing.

Airplane Accidents – Understanding your rights under Article 17(1) and 21(1) of the Montreal Convention

October 29, 2018. Flight 610, Lion Air smashes into the Java Sea off Indonesia, killing all 189 souls aboard. This is swiftly followed by Flight 302, Ethiopian Airlines, which crashes in Bishoftu, Ethiopia. Again, no survivors are left. Preliminary investigations reveal that the auto-pilot systems in both cases forced the plane into a death dive, giving its crew little time to react. Claims for compensation are still pending, with families apparently pressured into signing away their legal rights.[5] This article therefore seeks to inform the public of their rights in such cases. It sets out the legal regime that governs aircraft accidents, and the type of losses compensable, whether in the event of death or a serious injury to a loved one.

PROTECTION FROM THE PEEPING TOM: Interpreting the New Offence of Voyeurism

Under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, it is an offence for any person to observe or record someone doing a private act, without that person’s consent. It is also an offence to possess, gain access to, distribute, or threaten to distribute images so recorded.This paper focuses on the core offence of voyeurism, and its interpretation under the new laws.

Misstep or malpractice: When does a doctor’s actions constitute professional misconduct? Singapore Medical Council v Dr Lim Lian Arn [2019] SGHC 172

Doctors are expected to uphold high standards when dispensing medical treatment to patients. However, not every misstep by a medical practitioner amounts to professional misconduct. Where a doctor does depart from acceptable standards of conduct, disciplinary action is warranted only where such departure is egregious. As highlighted in Singapore Medical Council v Dr Lim Lian Arn [2019] SGHC 172, the law seeks to strike a balance between (a) ensuring that serious misconduct and failings are duly censured, and (b) guarding against over-penalisation of doctors.  

Winning But Not Winning: Sharing Lottery Winnings In The Event of a Divorce (BOI v BOJ [2019] 2 SLR 114)

In the decision of BOI v BOJ, the Court of Appeal clarified that lottery winnings received during a marriage constitute matrimonial assets to be divided between parties, should they divorce. The court also set out the approach to attributing contributions from lottery winnings. Instead of examining who purchased the winning ticket, the court will focus on the intention with which the ticket was purchased. For parties seeking a divorce, this approach creates a greater responsibility to clearly show their intention that the winnings be fully attributed to them.

Guarding Against Defensive Medicine: Singapore Medical Council v Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang [2019] SGHC 250

In Singapore Medical Council v Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang [2019] SGHC 250, psychiatrist Dr Soo Shuenn Chiang received a call regarding a patient (“Complainant”) from someone he thought was the Complainant’s husband. The caller informed Dr Soo that the patient was suicidal and needed to be brought to the Institute of Mental Health for an urgent assessment of her suicide risk. Dr Soo then wrote a memorandum (“Memorandum”), with pertinent information about the Complainant’s medical history, to be used by the police and ambulance staff. Dr Soo left the Memorandum with his clinic staff, with instructions that it should be handed to the Husband. However, unknown to Dr Soo, it was the Complainant’s brother who collected the Memorandum. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the SMC, and Dr Soo was subsequently found guilty of professional misconduct under section 53(1)(d) of the Medical Registration Act (Cap 174, 2014 Rev Ed). On appeal, the High Court ("HC") set aside the conviction. In its ruling, the HC clarified when a doctor may disclose a patient's confidential medical information without the patient's consent, and also that doctors are under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the information is not mishandled or released negligently to unauthorised persons.