Law Society vice-president's comments on rape case spark outcry; lawyers call for apology

SINGAPORE: An office-bearer of the Law Society of Singapore has sparked an online backlash following a LinkedIn post on the case of a former Wah!Banana actor convicted of sexual assault. 

The comments made by lawyer Chia Boon Teck, the vice-president of the Law Society, were seen as victim-shaming, drawing sharp criticism from members of the legal fraternity as well as the advocacy group AWARE.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam also said he was "surprised" to read Mr Chia's comments, while the Law Society has distanced itself from the remarks.

"Mr Chia in effect suggests that the female victim should not be believed. Even though the High Court found that the victim was 'an unusually convincing witness' whose evidence was 'internally and externally consistent'," Mr Shanmugam wrote on Facebook.

Mr Chia, who was not the defence lawyer for the offender Lev Panfilov, has since taken down the post and sought to clarify his comments in a response to CNA.  

He said his original LinkedIn post was meant to draw people's attention to their situational awareness to guard against being assaulted, and not to cast blame on any party.

Panfilov, a Singapore permanent resident from Russia, was convicted by a High Court judge last Friday (Mar 21) for raping, molesting and sexually assaulting a woman he met through Tinder on Jan 12, 2021. 

Panfilov met the victim at a Wine Connection restaurant on the day of the offence before the pair returned to his room, where he sexually assaulted her. Panfilov has yet to be sentenced for the crimes. 

Issuing the guilty verdict on Friday, Justice Pang Khang Chau said that the victim had been an "unusually convincing" witness, although he noted that her testimony was "not without difficulty". He cited several points in support of this but ultimately found that there were reasonable explanations.

In his LinkedIn post, Mr Chia, who is the co-managing director of the law firm Chia Wong Chambers, wrote that many questions arose from a media report he had read on the case. 

"People who indulge in one night stands may wanna take note to protect themselves from attack, or accusations of attack," Mr Chia said in the post.

Mr Chia then went on to list 10 points from the report, each followed by his comments. In one point, he noted the four charges Panfilov was convicted of and stated: "Wow. Was she awake throughout the marathon?" 

In another, Mr Chia cited the victim's age and her occupation as an actress and model, adding: "So not exactly a babe in the woods?"

He also noted how the victim had "hoped to get some advice on scriptwriting from (Panfilov)" and commented: "At that late hour on the bed of a Russian man she just met in Tinder?"

While the post is no longer available, it has been shared in screenshots by other LinkedIn users. 

Prominent lawyer Stefanie Yuen Thio, who is joint managing partner at TSMP Law Corporation, criticised Mr Chia's comments in a strongly worded LinkedIn post, saying that the issue went beyond "just comment on a criminal case". 

Ms Thio likened Mr Chia's comments to victim-shaming, which she said "goes against what the courts have actually said is appropriate cross-examination".

Apart from being a lawyer, Ms Thio is also the chairperson of SG Her Empowerment, an independent, non-profit organisation that seeks to empower Singapore women and girls. 

"I'm appalled at this attitude from an individual who holds the office of a leader of the Bar. I invite him to explain himself to the legal fraternity – both men and women. Absent an acceptable explanation, he should step down from Council of the Law Society," she added. 

Prominent lawyers, including criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan from Withers KhattarWong, have responded to her post echoing similar sentiments. Others, such as litigator Clarence Lun from Fervent Chambers, have called for Mr Chia to step down from his Law Society post.

According to his profile on his law firm's website, Mr Chia has been the vice-president of the Law Society since August 2023 and was its treasurer prior to that. 

In an official statement, the Law Society said that Mr Chia's comments "were not made on behalf of, and do not represent the views of the Law Society". 

"We are giving this matter serious consideration in line with our internal protocols and, in accordance with due process, will take further steps as appropriate," the statement read. 

The Law Society added that it expects all members to "adhere to the highest standards of professionalism", and that it was committed to "upholding the principles of justice and professionalism that lie at the core of the legal profession".

"We will not hesitate to take appropriate measures to uphold accountability and ensure that such occurrences are addressed with the seriousness they warrant."

MR CHIA RESPONDS

Mr Chia responded to queries from CNA on Monday morning, saying that the media report he read on the case "raised many red-flag situations" that happened between the victim and Panfilov during the night of the offence.

"My post was to draw people's attention to their situational awareness to guard against being assaulted, or being accused of assaulting. I was sharing my views as a criminal lawyer," he said. 

"I have always been providing commentary for crime cases and providing insights on how to prevent such situations as legal recourse may not always be sufficient."

He added that he appreciated the perspectives shared regarding his post.

"As a criminal lawyer, my intent was not to cast blame on any party, but to highlight the importance of situational awareness – both to guard against being assaulted and to avoid actions that could later be misconstrued.

"My comments were meant to encourage reflection on how individuals can better protect themselves in social situations. This is not about shifting responsibility but about understanding real-world risks."

BLAMING VICTIMS STEPS OVER THE LINE: SHANMUGAM

Posting on Facebook on Monday, Mr Shanmugam said that lawyers, especially those in senior positions representing the legal profession, must be mindful that when statements are made which minimise or dismiss victims' concerns, it can have a disproportionate impact on other victims who may then not be willing to report what happened to them.

Defence counsels too "must observe the proper boundaries in court", he added.

"And outside court too. Shaming and blaming victims steps over the line. And misogyny should have no place in our society." 

Mr Shanmugam noted that while Mr Chia has expressed his personal views, he is also the vice-president of the Law Society.

"My concern is that some people might actually think that the views he has expressed indicate the norms in Singapore. And I worry what impact his statement may have on other victims," he said, before highlighting the work done by the ministries he heads to better protect victims of sexual assault.

"Philosophically, I take a quite different view from those expressed by Mr Chia. And that has been expressed in changes that we have directed, both to the laws we have in Singapore, and the way police conduct their investigations," the minister said, providing details of 10 such changes.

"These changes have generally made it easier (and less expensive) for women to enforce their rights, in what is usually an unequal situation," he added.

Continuing, Mr Shanmugam said: "As I said earlier, we have been moving quite in the opposite direction from the personal views Mr Chia has expressed, no matter what institutional position he holds.

"I hope that we will continue to be a society that provides a proper framework to protect women in sexual assault cases. Too often victims remain silent. We need to help them come forward and report."

AWARE WEIGHS IN

The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) condemned Mr Chia's comments in a Facebook post on Monday, stating: "When a senior lawyer mocks a rape survivor, it isn't just offensive. It's dangerous."

Referring to the same points Mr Chia made, the women's rights group said none of these factors were consent to sex. 

"The real harm here isn't just the mocking tone of the commentary. It's the fact that even when a High Court judge finds a survivor 'unusually convincing' after 13 days of cross-examination, she will still be publicly doubted, dissected, and discredited. That her job, age, and dating history are fair game. That saying 'no' wasn't enough," the group said in its post. 

The group added that it heard from survivors every day at its Sexual Assault Care Centre, with victims grappling with whether to report their ordeal, and eventually, seven out of 10 victims choose not to.

"The most common reason is the fear of disbelief ... When those in senior legal positions echo these views, it perpetuates the victim-blaming mentality that we need to eradicate. It affects how people see the justice system. It affects whether survivors come forward to seek justice," the group said. 

"This isn't just bad for survivors. It's bad for public trust in the justice system. We can't afford messages like these anywhere – especially not from people in power. No woman should have to defend her character, her clothing, her profession, or her dating history when she has been sexually assaulted. Rape is a crime. Let's stop blaming the victim for being raped."