🔴 Content Warning: This article discusses sexual assault and includes references to victim-blaming language that may be distressing.

If you’re feeling upset, angry, or overwhelmed—your feelings are valid. Please read at your own pace. Support is available via AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre https://sacc.aware.org.sg or through trauma-informed professionals like myself. You are not alone.

TL;DR: A senior Singapore lawyer made a LinkedIn post implying victim-blaming in a recent rape case. As a sexologist and trauma specialist, I break down why his views are legally wrong, socially dangerous, and why consent must never be assumed.

I’m Dr. Martha Tara Lee, a Relationship Counselor and Clinical Sexologist based in Singapore. I work with individuals and couples to build healthier relationships, navigate sexuality with clarity, and heal from trauma. When I read a senior lawyer’s recent post suggesting that a woman forfeits her right to say no based on when or where she meets someone—I was stunned. Not just by the ignorance, but by the cruelty disguised as “advice.”

Let’s be clear: Consent means a clear, enthusiastic, and ongoing “yes.” Anything less—coercion, silence, pressure, or withdrawal—is not consent. This is not a grey area. It is the foundation of respectful relationships and legal justice.

The Case That Started It All

In March 2024, a young woman in Singapore was sexually assaulted by someone she’d met on a dating app just 90 minutes earlier. The court case, presided over by High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah, resulted in the perpetrator receiving 9½ years in jail and 10 strokes of the cane (Straits Times, 2024). While the victim’s name is protected for privacy reasons, the case received significant media attention and sparked important discussions about sexual consent in Singapore. I was relieved to see the serious sentence, which acknowledged the gravity of the offense.

But then something happened that made me genuinely angry.

What Chia Boon Teck Really Said—And Why It’s So Dangerous

On March 16, a senior lawyer named Chia Boon Teck (former vice-president of the Law Society, founding partner of Chia Wong LLP and a well-known figure in Singapore’s legal circles) decided to share his “wisdom” with the world. This makes his comments more damaging due to the weight of his professional influence. When I first read his post, I had to read it twice because I couldn’t believe someone in his position would write this:

“So many questions arising from this short report. People who indulge in one night stands may wanna take note to protect themselves from attack, or accusations of attack:

1) “… met on the dating app Tinder…” what’s Tinder well known for? It ain’t no LinkedIn.

2) “… two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration, and one count of outrage of modesty.” Wow. Was she awake throughout the marathon?

3) “The assault took place on Jan 21, 2021, in his bedroom after he took the woman back to the flat he shared with flatmates…” she went back to his flat and went into his bedroom? Hello? Could the flatmates testify what sounds they heard emanating from the room and what they observed about her when she left?

4) “… 30 years old… actress and model…” so not exactly a babe in the woods?

5) “… she hoped to get some advice on scriptwriting from him.” At that late hour on the bed of a Russian man she just met on Tinder?

6) “… he suddenly leaned in and kissed her on her lips, but she told him “no” and gathered her things to leave. But he sexually assaulted her and raped her on his bed…” how did “no” progressed to two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration, and one count of outrage of modesty?

7) “After they had sex, he asked for her address and booked a car on the Gojek app for her to get home.” That sounds rather like a date.

8) “She explained that she gave him her address because she just wanted to go home and would have given him anything he wanted.” Out of fear or affection? If fear, fear of what?

9) “She did not feel encouraged to make a police report after reading articles about low conviction rates for sexual assault.” Seriously? What articles? Were the articles even talking about Singapore?”

10) “… there were significant inconsistencies between what Panfilov said to police officers, what he said in his video-recorded interviews and what he said in court.” And that’s what did him in?

Bonus point: Case theory. Always have a case theory. Why would she wanna frame him if it’s not true?

My advice to both men and women on the dating scene: think through the above issues the next time you go on a date; and think through them again before you make a police report. These are the issues you would have to explain in court.”

I was genuinely shocked. These views aren’t just outdated – they’re dangerous and completely inconsistent with how consent actually works.

Let’s Break Down the Harm, Line by Line

As a Relationship Counselor and Clinical Sexologist, I need to address each part of Chia Boon Teck’s original post to show exactly why it’s so problematic:

“People who indulge in one night stands may wanna take note to protect themselves from attack, or accusations of attack.”

This line blames the very concept of casual sex rather than holding perpetrators accountable. Having a one-night stand is not illegal, nor is it an invitation for assault. The framing suggests that if something goes wrong, it’s the fault of the person for being sexually open—this is classic victim-blaming and fear-mongering, not helpful advice.

“1) ‘… met on the dating app Tinder…’ what’s Tinder well known for? It ain’t no LinkedIn.”

Using Tinder doesn’t imply sexual consent. It’s a social platform like any other—people use it for friendships, dates, or hookups, but intentions vary. No app creates automatic consent, and no one deserves harm or blame because of the app they used. The tone of the post is just as disturbing as the content—laced with sarcasm, disbelief, and contempt. This isn’t reasoned critique. It’s a thinly veiled attack on a survivor’s credibility dressed up as “questions.”

“2) ‘… two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration, and one count of outrage of modesty.’ Wow. Was she awake throughout the marathon?”

This is deeply offensive. Survivors often freeze, dissociate, or comply under duress—responses that are well-documented trauma reactions. Joking about whether she was “awake” minimizes the horror of the crime and mocks her experience. Questions like “Was she awake?” and “Hello?” aren’t inquiries—they’re rhetorical jabs meant to humiliate and cast doubt. They re-traumatize survivors and reveal a chilling lack of empathy.

“3) ‘… she went back to his flat and went into his bedroom? Hello?'”

Going to someone’s home—or bedroom—is not sexual consent. People go to others’ homes for many reasons, and even intimacy doesn’t override someone’s right to say no. The “Hello?” implies she invited harm, which dangerously shifts blame to the victim.

“4) ‘… actress and model…’ so not exactly a babe in the woods?”

This is both ageist and sexist. A woman’s job or public image does not disqualify her from being vulnerable. Suggesting someone can’t be assaulted because they’re experienced or attractive is a false and harmful belief.

“5) … she hoped to get some advice on scriptwriting from him.” At that late hour on the bed of a Russian man she just met on Tinder?

This statement mocks the woman’s stated reason for being there, as if seeking advice and being in someone’s bedroom automatically implies sexual intent. It again perpetuates the idea that certain locations and times override a person’s autonomy. Women do not lose their right to safety or respect because they engage in late-night conversations or are in someone’s bedroom. This framing ridicules her explanation rather than examining the accused’s actions.

“6) ‘… she told him “no”… But he sexually assaulted her and raped her…’ how did “no” progress to all that?”

This completely misunderstands how trauma, coercion, and fear operate. A clear “no” followed by any form of pressure, force, or manipulation still amounts to rape. Many survivors freeze or comply in hopes of avoiding worse violence.

“7) ‘He booked her a Gojek after they had sex.’ That sounds rather like a date.”

This trivializes the entire situation. Being polite after an assault doesn’t undo the harm. Perpetrators often act charming afterward to deflect blame or create doubt. This logic implies “niceness” cancels accountability—it doesn’t.

“8) ‘She gave him her address… would have given him anything he wanted.’ Out of fear or affection?”

When someone feels they must comply to stay safe, it’s not affection—it’s survival. This question undermines her fear and suggests that she must prove her terror to be believed. That’s not how consent or trauma works.

“9) ‘She didn’t feel encouraged to make a police report… articles about low conviction rates.’ Seriously? What articles?”

It’s well documented that survivors often don’t report due to fear, shame, and low conviction rates. Dismissing this as unserious or unbelievable only adds to the silencing and shame many already feel.

“10) ‘… significant inconsistencies…’ And that’s what did him in?”

Inconsistencies often arise in trauma cases due to the way memory is affected under stress. Courts assess credibility with many tools—this flippant line ignores the complexity of legal investigation and the seriousness of the crime.

“Bonus point: Why would she wanna frame him if it’s not true?”

This question implies deceit as a default. False accusations are rare compared to real assaults. The burden of proof should not automatically fall on the survivor to justify their trauma.

“My advice to both men and women on the dating scene”

Framing this as “advice” for both men and women not only downplays the severity of sexual violence but implies that survivors should think twice before seeking justice. This is not neutral guidance—it’s a warning cloaked in authority that further deters survivors from seeking justice. That’s not empowerment—it’s intimidation.

The Public Response (Thank Goodness)

Fortunately, I wasn’t the only one concerned. AWARE Singapore quickly responded, calling his remarks “irresponsible and harmful” for the way they perpetuate misconceptions about consent.

Stephanie Yuen-Thio from TSMP Law Corporation was one of the first to speak out describing the views as “misogynistic and unacceptable.”

Lawyer Ashok Kumar was among several who publicly clarified that ‘consent can be withdrawn at any time,’ reinforcing the fact that Chia’s views were not just unpopular—they were legally incorrect. The Singapore legal community widely disagreed with Chia’s views.

Minister K. Shanmugam, Singapore’s former Law and Home Affairs Minister, also weighed in on the issue, stating publicly that “concerns of sexual assault victims should not be minimised or dismissed” (Singapore Law Watch, 2025). This was a rare and important signal from the top—emphasizing that consent and victim protection must remain a priority in our justice system.

I was grateful to see other professionals taking a stand.

The backlash was significant enough that Chia resigned from his firm just two days later.

Why This Hits So Close to Home

As someone who works with clients every day on relationship and intimacy issues, I find these kinds of statements deeply troubling. Let me explain why:

While some might dismiss Chia’s LinkedIn post as merely personal opinion, it’s crucial to recognize that when a senior legal professional speaks publicly, they do so with the weight of their professional standing. Even on social media, his comments cannot be separated from his role as a former vice-president of the Law Society. Whether paid or unpaid, his public statements reflect on the legal profession and influence public perception of how legal minds approach consent and sexual assault.

With professional authority comes public responsibility. Legal professionals, especially those who have held leadership positions, have a duty to uphold the principles of justice and protection for all citizens. When they instead promote views that undermine these principles, they betray this public responsibility and potentially erode trust in the legal system itself.

What’s particularly concerning is how these brief comments reveal deeper attitudes about consent, autonomy, and responsibility. These aren’t just abstract ideas – they potentially reflect the mindset that might guide professional judgment in legal settings. When legal professionals distort what consent means, they don’t just misinform—they fuel the very myths that courts work hard to dismantle. When someone in such an influential position demonstrates these views, it raises serious questions about how these perspectives might shape legal approaches to sexual assault cases more broadly.

The idea that entering someone’s home at any time implies consent to sexual activity goes against everything we understand about healthy relationships. Consent must be explicit – it cannot be “presumed” based on location or time.

I’m particularly bothered by the suggestion that someone cannot change their mind once intimacy has begun. This directly contradicts what we know about consent – that it’s ongoing and can be withdrawn at any point.

The framing of boundaries as “unfair” to potential partners creates an unhealthy dynamic where one person’s autonomy is seen as less important than another’s expectations.

What concerns me most is how these ideas affect real people. When influential figures spread such views, it reinforces harmful beliefs that make it harder for survivors to come forward and be believed.

🗓️ Timeline of Events

• March 15: Straits Times reports on the rape conviction.

• March 16: Chia posts his controversial statement on LinkedIn.

• March 17: Responses pour in from AWARE, Stephanie Yuen-Thio, and others.

• March 18: Chia resigns from his law firm.

Addressing Common Public Comments to Educate

Since this story broke, I’ve noticed several recurring comments online that need addressing. These comments provide an opportunity to educate about consent and sexual assault:

“Even if he had evidence, he should have voiced it differently.”
This misses the point entirely. The issue isn’t just how he expressed himself – it’s that the content itself fundamentally misunderstands consent. And what “evidence” could possibly justify saying a woman can’t change her mind? None. A person’s choice to enter someone’s home never constitutes proof of consent to sexual activity, regardless of timing or circumstances. Evidence in a legal case must be determined through proper judicial channels, not through assumptions about a person’s behavior or intentions.

“Singapore laws don’t protect women anyway.”
This isn’t accurate, and it’s a harmful generalization. While no legal system is perfect, Singapore does have laws against sexual assault, as this case demonstrates. The legal system did function to hold the perpetrator accountable. Perpetuating the idea that seeking justice is pointless only discourages reporting. Yes, there’s room for improvement in how our systems handle sexual assault cases, but dismissing the entire legal framework ignores the progress that has been made and the protections that do exist.

“She shouldn’t have gone to his house.”
I hear this kind of comment far too often, and it frustrates me every time. Going to someone’s house – at any hour – is not consent to sexual activity. Period. This kind of thinking places responsibility on potential victims rather than on people who choose to violate boundaries. It also perpetuates the harmful idea that people (especially women) should restrict their movements and freedom rather than expecting others to respect basic boundaries. This perspective incorrectly shifts responsibility from perpetrators to victims.

“This was just one man’s opinion, why make such a big deal?”
When the “one man” in question is a former vice-president of the Law Society, his opinions carry weight and influence. Public figures, especially those in the legal profession, help shape societal attitudes and potentially influence how cases are handled. Harmful views from influential figures deserve robust pushback precisely because of their potential to influence others and normalize dangerous misconceptions about consent.

“Men need protection too – false accusations can ruin lives.”
While false accusations are indeed serious, research consistently shows they are rare compared to actual sexual assaults. More importantly, this comment creates a false equivalence and derails the conversation from the much more prevalent problem of sexual violence. A proper understanding of consent protects everyone – creating clear standards of respectful behavior benefits all genders.

“What about cultural differences in how we view dating and relationships?”
Cultural context matters, but basic principles of consent transcend cultural differences. Regardless of cultural background, everyone has the fundamental right to bodily autonomy. Different dating norms may exist across cultures, but the principle that entering someone’s home does not equate to sexual consent is universal. Cultural sensitivity should never be used to justify overriding someone’s right to say no.

“Dating apps are for hookups anyway, what did she expect?”
Dating apps serve many purposes – from finding serious relationships to casual connections. Regardless of the platform, using a dating app never waives someone’s right to consent. Each interaction should be approached with respect for boundaries, regardless of how the connection was initially formed. Presuming someone’s intentions based on their use of a particular app is both reductive and dangerous.

What Consent Actually Means

Let me be clear about what consent really means from a professional perspective (FRIES Framework):

• F – Freely Given – Consent must be given voluntarily, without pressure, manipulation, or influence of drugs or alcohol.
• R – Reversible – Anyone can change their mind at any time, for any reason.
• I – Informed – Consent requires honesty. You can only agree to something if you know all the relevant facts.
• E – Enthusiastic – Look for an excited, confident “yes.” Anything less is a no.
• S – Specific – Consent for one act doesn’t automatically apply to others. Each activity requires its own consent.

These principles form the foundation of healthy relationships and interactions. Understanding consent isn’t just about avoiding legal troubles—it’s about creating meaningful connections based on mutual respect and genuine care for others’ wellbeing.

Why This Still Matters

Some may wonder why we’re still discussing Chia Boon Teck’s post when he has already resigned and faced public criticism. The answer is simple but profound: words from those in positions of power shape our collective understanding of justice.

When a senior legal professional publicly questions a survivor’s credibility using sarcasm, innuendo, and victim-blaming, it does three harmful things:

1. It silences future survivors. Every person who has experienced assault and reads those comments thinks, “This is why I shouldn’t come forward. This is what will happen to me.”
2. It influences legal perspectives. Other legal professionals may absorb these attitudes, consciously or unconsciously affecting how they approach sexual assault cases.
3. It normalizes harmful myths. When respected figures express these views, they gain undeserved legitimacy in public discourse.

The issue extends far beyond one LinkedIn post. These attitudes persist in our courtrooms, workplaces, and social spaces. They shape how we respond to disclosures of assault, how we interpret consent, and ultimately, how safe people feel in our society.

Pushing back against these harmful narratives isn’t overreaction—it’s a necessary step toward a more just system. It’s how we protect both current and future survivors.

Key Points To Remember

Understanding Consent:

• Consent must always be explicit, enthusiastic, and ongoing – it can never be presumed based on circumstances, location, or time.
• Everyone has the right to change their mind at any point, even after initially expressing interest or after intimacy has begun.
• Consent is SPECIFIC – agreeing to one activity doesn’t mean agreeing to everything.

Responsibility & Accountability:

• The only person responsible for sexual assault is the perpetrator – not the victim’s choices, clothing, location, or time of day.
• Professional voices, especially in law and counseling, have a responsibility to promote accurate understandings of consent and boundaries.
• Speaking up against harmful views matters – collective voices can create meaningful change, as evidenced by the response to Chia’s post.

Creating Systemic Change:

• We need to focus on teaching everyone about respect, clear communication, and healthy boundaries rather than placing the burden of prevention on potential victims.
• Singapore’s legal system does provide protections against sexual assault, and we should continue to strengthen both legal frameworks and social responses to sexual violence.
• Educational approaches should emphasize that consent is a fundamental aspect of all human interactions, not just sexual ones.
• Creating a culture of respect and accountability benefits everyone, regardless of gender or background.

From Awareness to Action

I hope this incident serves as more than just a temporary controversy—that it becomes a catalyst for lasting change in how we understand and talk about consent in Singapore.

The robust response to Chia’s post shows that many Singaporeans reject outdated views and support survivors. This gives me hope. But awareness alone isn’t enough—we need concrete action at multiple levels:

1. In our legal system: Continue strengthening frameworks that protect survivors and ensure fair, trauma-informed processes.
2. In our education system: Implement comprehensive consent education that goes beyond biological basics to address respect, communication, and boundaries.
3. In our professional spaces: Hold leaders accountable for perpetuating harmful myths, especially those in positions of influence.
4. In our personal relationships: Practice and model clear communication about boundaries and respect.

Each of us has the power to challenge harmful myths when we encounter them. Each conversation about consent helps shift our culture toward one that truly respects everyone’s autonomy and dignity.

The path forward requires all of us—legal professionals, educators, parents, and community members—to commit to understanding consent not as a legal technicality, but as a fundamental expression of respect for human dignity.

💬 What are your thoughts? Have you ever encountered harmful myths about consent in your circles or profession? Let’s keep this conversation going—compassionately, respectfully, and with the goal of change.

✅ If You’re a Survivor

Please know this wasn’t your fault. Your story matters. Support is available at AWARE’s Sexual Assault Care Centre or through trauma-informed therapy. You deserve to be heard and believed.

🎓 If You’re Ready to Learn

Start by reviewing consent basics with this AWARE resource: https://www.aware.org.sg/consent

If this article helped clarify things for you, please share it. Conversations about consent matter—and every voice helps push culture forward.

Call out victim-blaming when you see it.

And above all, listen—especially to those who’ve been silenced.

References

Association of Women for Action and Research. (2024, March 17). AWARE responds to Chia Boon Teck’s LinkedIn post. Retrieved from https://www.aware.org.sg

Koh, V. (n.d.). Who is Chia Boon Teck? The Peak Magazine. Retrieved March 26, 2025, from https://www.thepeakmagazine.com.sg/influence/who-is-chia-boon-teck

Kok, X. Y. (2024, March 18). Lawyer Chia Boon Teck resigns from firm after LinkedIn post on rape case sparks backlash. TODAY Online. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawyer-chia-boon-teck-resigns-llp-comment-rape-case-2134886

Mothership. (2025, March 23). S’pore lawyers respond to Chia Boon Teck’s post on 18-year-old male sentenced for rape. Mothership.sg. https://mothership.sg/2025/03/singapore-lawyers-respond-chia-boon-teck-post/

Singapore Law Watch. (2025, March 25). Concerns of sexual assault victims should not be minimised or dismissed: Shanmugam. https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/Headlines/concerns-of-sexual-assault-victims-should-not-be-minimised-or-dismissed-shanmugam

Straits Times. (2024, March 15). Man jailed, caned for sexually assaulting woman he met on dating app. https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/man-jailed-caned-for-sexually-assaulting-woman-he-met-on-dating-app

Yuen-Thio, S. (2024, March 17). [LinkedIn post]. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stephanieyuenthio

This article reflects my professional views as a Relationship Counselor and Clinical Sexologist, with a focus on education and harm reduction.

About Dr. Martha Tara Lee