Investigation officer: Doc accused of rape 'refused to give blood sample' for DNA test

Doctor Wee Teong Boo is accused of molesting and raping a woman, then a 23-year-old student, on Dec 31, 2015.
Doctor Wee Teong Boo is accused of molesting and raping a woman, then a 23-year-old student, on Dec 31, 2015.ST PHOTO: LEE JIA WEN

SINGAPORE - The police officer leading investigations into rape allegations against a doctor told the High Court on Wednesday (May 9) that when she asked him for a blood sample for DNA tests, general practitioner Wee Teong Boo initially refused.

Assistant Superintendent Carol Ong said that Wee, 67, had told her: "Why should I give you my blood sample. You can only take my DNA if you can find sperm in her vagina but I do not think you can."

Testifying on the seventh day of Wee's trial for molesting and raping his 23-year-old patient during two visits in 2015, ASP Ong said Wee's statement struck her as "unusual" and she made a mental note of it.

The investigator said that in her experience with suspects who turn out to be innocent, they would tell her they were "sure" that their DNA would not be found on their accusers.

Contrasting this with the words "I do not think" used by Wee, ASP Ong said: "There was some uncertainty in his statement."

ASP Ong said this exchange took place on the afternoon of Dec 31, 2015, when she and two other officers went to Wee's clinic in Bedok North Avenue 2, after the alleged victim lodged a police report that he had raped her when she saw him at the clinic late at night on Dec 30.

Wee agreed to give his blood sample at the clinic after she told him she could get a court order to compel him to do so, said ASP Ong. DNA tests eventually proved inconclusive.


Defence counsel Edmond Pereira accused ASP Ong of making up the conversation.

"You made up this evidence just to throw some doubt in this court about Dr Wee's actions," the lawyer contended. ASP Ong disagreed.

Mr Pereira questioned why ASP Ong had not noted the conversation down in her investigation diary. She replied that that there was no reason for her to record the conversation because Wee eventually gave a blood sample.

The lawyer contended that ASP Ong did not speak to Wee at all during the visit. Mr Pereira put it to her that it was her colleague, ASP Razali Razak, who spoke to Wee.

ASP Ong disagreed.

Earlier, on the fourth day of the trial, when ASP Razali was questioned by Mr Pereira, he testified that ASP Ong spoke to Wee that day, although he had left his mobile number with the doctor.

On Wednesday, Mr Pereira also put it to ASP Ong that she had tried to intimidate Wee into admitting to raping the patient.

The lawyer contended that after Wee was taken to the lock-up at the Police Cantonment Complex on Dec 31, ASP Ong met him that night at the reception area and tried to intimidate him into admitting to the rape.

Mr Pereira put it to ASP Ong that she repeatedly told Wee he should know better as a doctor, that DNA evidence would prove he was involved and that it was better for him to admit to the allegations and not get his family involved.

The lawyer contended that during this conversation, Wee told her he did not know how the "finger examination" he performed on the patient would lead to this.

The court earlier heard that Wee's case is that the wounds on the woman's genitals and a fresh tear in the hymen may have been caused when he inserted two of his fingers for a medical examination.

ASP Ong said no such conversation took place. She said she took Wee to the lock-up, but did not see him later that night.

The prosecution closed its case with ASP Ong's testimony.

Justice Chua Lee Ming found that the prosecution had shown a prima facie case against Wee and called for his defence.

Wee indicated he will take the stand on Thursday.