Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Scorned.

 

Singapore prides itself in being a very “conservative” place. We like to tell the world that our success is based on “Asian Values,” which means that we value the family as the building block of society and that we value the needs of society over the rights of the individual. Hence, the basis of our social policies is the fact that its usually good for the family or at least prevents harm to the idea of the family.

There is however, one area where “conservative” Singapore seems to be rather “open.” That is the area of sex, especially when it involves those who are well to do. We, have, for example a thriving sex industry. The official line is that when it comes to the lower end of the market, we need to give our foreign workers an outlet otherwise they’ll rape our women (read professional middle class Chinese) and at the higher end, we need to give our expatriate workers a chance to have fun so that they can do whatever they’re doing for Singapore.

As for the local Singaporean guy …. Well, let’s just say that things get particularly interesting, especially if you’re educated and a working professional. Voyeurism for example, seems to be a big thing among the guys at university, if one were to judge by the number of cases of guys getting caught peeping into the girl’s showers. Then there’s the inevitable story of a working professional getting involved in this or that sexual scandal.

The latest “sexual” story to hit Singapore’s press is the story of a doctor who sued a woman who accused him of sexual harassment for libel. Details of the story can be found at:

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/dr-julian-ong-awarded-costs-after-serene-tiongs-appeal-bid-falls-through; and

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/julian-ong-serene-tiong-defamed-doctor-judge-overturns-decision-13178276

This story has elements of a good drama. There is, for a start, money and brought two of our larger medical groups into the picture. Dr. Julian Ong is part of HC Specialist Limited, which is listed on the Catalyst Exchange and Ms. Serene Tiong is a business development manager of Thomson Medical Group.

Taken from ChannelNews Asia

Then there’s the twist in the personal relationships. Ms. Tiong sued Dr. Ong and a Dr. Chan for colluding to take advantage of vulnerable women patients and she claimed to be one of them. However, there is a twist, Ms. Tiong was Dr. Chan’s lover and sued at the point when she realized that she wasn’t in an exclusive relationship with him:

https://goodyfeed.com/man-sued-exclusive/

As was mentioned in the case, Ms. Tiong had never complained about being vulnerable and entered the relationship with Dr. Chan before she became his patient. If you take Ms. Tiong’s professional position into consideration, its hard to argue that Ms. Tiong was unable to give consent to any relationship with Dr. Chan. You can argue that Dr. Ong and Dr. Chan had discovered the truism of “hell hath no furry like a woman scorned.”

This aspect raises a question that should be asked – namely the question of whether sexual harassment laws have been weaponized. While I don’t disagree that laws against unwanted sexual harassment should exist, we also need to have some clarity of what defines unwanted sexual harassment. For example, can a man be sued for sexual harassment if he compliments a woman on the way she looks?

Sure, I know most women would argue that most cases the sexual harassment is real. I remember one of my part time waitresses complaining to me about a lewd remark that the main chef had made towards her. I tried to suggest that this was “boys crude humour,” but then she looked at me and said, “and how would you feel if someone asked your daughter if she preferred them circumcised,” I got the point and raised it with the restaurant owner during our nightly drinks session and the chef and the waitress ended up making peace.

However, I also had a waitress who knew how to utilize sexual harassment accusations. I first discovered it when she was asked to apologies to the Filipino colleague for throwing a tantrum in front of the customers. She refused based on the grounds that the Filipino was constantly eying her up and staring her at her breast. Within a week, the Filipino told me that there was a rumor going around that he was molesting her. The accusations were not true. This was a man I had worked with for five years and had never given the hint of being flirtatious. This was confirmed by Flesh Ball who had a stint washing cups in the Bistrot and by a friend of my kid (a friend whom my kid was quick to point out was far better looking than the waitress making the accusations). It was a struggle to make the restaurant owner understand that the Filipino guy was being shafted royally.

The same waitress then had another run in with a regular customer, and threatened him with sexual harassment accusations. As the Bistrot owner said “You know he’s touchy with the girls.” This was, once again not true, a fact that I confirmed with my daughter who was a witness to this man’s behaviour with the girls.

So, while I do agree that men do need to know their boundaries and that sexual harassment laws exists for a good reason, we also need to be very clear as to what constitutes sexual harassment and there needs to be a clear standard of what is proof. An amount of “innocent until proven guilty” need to apply to sexual harassment like it does to everything else and while one can argue reasonably that women don’t pull the trigger unless there’s a reason to, we cannot deny that sexual harassment accusations can be and have been weaponized against men, unfairly and with ill intent.