In a case that has reignited debates over victim-blaming and legal ethics in Singapore, a prominent lawyer has come under fire for remarks about a rape survivor that have been widely condemned as inappropriate. Mr. Chia Boon Teck, co-managing director at Chia Wong Chambers and former vice-president of the Law Society of Singapore, met with Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam on April 10, 2025, to address the controversy. Following the meeting, Mr. Chia pledged to “reflect and change,” amid growing calls for accountability in how legal professionals discuss sensitive cases.
A Controversial LinkedIn Post Sparks Outrage
The controversy began on March 22, 2025, when Mr. Chia posted comments on his LinkedIn page—since disabled—about a High Court case involving Lev Panfilov, who was convicted of raping a woman he met through the dating app Tinder. In his post, Mr. Chia made remarks widely perceived as dismissive and derogatory, including the statement “Tinder ain’t no LinkedIn” in reference to how the victim and perpetrator met. He also described the 30-year-old survivor as “not exactly a babe in the woods” and questioned, “Wow. Was she awake during this marathon?” in relation to the assault. 
These comments quickly drew sharp criticism from across Singaporean society, with many accusing Mr. Chia of perpetuating harmful stereotypes and undermining the trauma experienced by survivors of sexual violence. The backlash highlighted broader concerns about attitudes toward rape victims within certain segments of the legal profession, prompting public figures and advocacy groups to weigh in.
Minister Shanmugam Responds with Call for Reflection
Minister K. Shanmugam, who has long advocated for reforms in how sexual violence cases are handled, described Mr. Chia’s remarks as “quite inappropriate” in a Facebook post on April 10, 2025. During their meeting on the same day, which Mr. Chia had requested, the minister urged the lawyer to undertake a “journey of deeper reflection and understanding” and to recognize the wrongfulness of his statements. “I told Mr. Chia that he needed to reflect on his comments, and his approach,” Mr. Shanmugam wrote, adding that Mr. Chia had committed to finding ways to contribute positively to society.
The minister also expressed concern about the potential impact of such remarks on other survivors. “I was worried about the impact Mr. Chia’s comments might have on other victims,” he noted in an earlier post. He contrasted his own philosophical stance with that reflected in Mr. Chia’s statements, pointing to legislative and procedural changes in Singapore aimed at protecting survivors. One significant reform he highlighted was the 2012 repeal of a provision in the Evidence Act that previously allowed defense lawyers to question an alleged rape victim’s moral character as a tactic to discredit her.
Advocacy Groups and Judiciary Weigh In
Among those condemning Mr. Chia’s comments was Ms. Sugidha Nithiananthan, director of advocacy and research at the gender advocacy group Aware. She emphasized the progress made in Singapore’s legal system in addressing sexual violence, noting that both Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justice Vincent Hoong, a High Court judge and presiding judge of the State Courts, have publicly stressed the importance of dismantling rape myths and avoiding victim-blaming narratives. “The law has made great strides forward in dealing with such cases,” Ms. Nithiananthan said, underscoring the need for cultural change to accompany legal reforms.
Her comments reflect a growing consensus in Singapore that outdated attitudes toward sexual violence must be challenged, not only in courtrooms but also in public discourse. The judiciary’s role in setting a tone of sensitivity and fairness has been pivotal, with recent rulings and statements reinforcing a zero-tolerance approach to victim-blaming.
Broader Implications for Legal Ethics and Survivor Support
The incident involving Mr. Chia has sparked a wider conversation about the responsibilities of legal professionals in shaping public perceptions of sexual violence. Singapore, often lauded for its stringent laws and efficient legal system, has made significant strides in recent years to ensure that survivors are treated with dignity during investigations and trials. The police, under directives influenced by leaders like Mr. Shanmugam, have revised their investigative approaches to minimize retraumatization, while legislative changes have aimed to close loopholes that once allowed survivors to be unfairly scrutinized.
Yet, this case underscores that legal reforms alone are insufficient without a corresponding shift in societal attitudes. Comments like those made by Mr. Chia, even if intended as casual or rhetorical, can deter survivors from coming forward, fearing judgment or disbelief. Advocacy groups argue that such remarks reinforce harmful stereotypes—such as the notion that a survivor’s behavior or choices somehow diminish the severity of the crime committed against them.
Moreover, the case raises questions about the role of social media in amplifying or mitigating these issues. While platforms like LinkedIn provide professionals a space to share insights, they also carry the risk of unfiltered commentary reaching wide audiences, often without the nuance or accountability expected in formal legal settings. Mr. Chia’s decision to disable his LinkedIn page suggests an awareness of the damage caused, but critics argue that more proactive steps—such as a public apology or educational initiatives—could better demonstrate accountability.
Public Sentiment and Calls for Accountability
Public reaction to the controversy has been swift and largely critical, with many Singaporeans expressing disappointment in Mr. Chia’s initial remarks. On social media platforms, users have called for greater education within the legal community about the impact of language and framing in cases of sexual violence. Some have suggested that professional bodies like the Law Society of Singapore should implement mandatory training on gender sensitivity and trauma-informed communication for its members.
Others have pointed to the power imbalance inherent in such situations, where a figure of authority like Mr. Chia—whose past role as vice-president of the Law Society lent additional weight to his words—can inadvertently perpetuate harm. “Lawyers have a duty to uphold justice, not just in court but in how they speak about cases,” one user posted on X, reflecting a sentiment echoed by many.
Singapore’s Evolving Approach to Sexual Violence
The backdrop to this controversy is Singapore’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its framework for addressing sexual violence. Over the past decade, the city-state has introduced tougher penalties for sexual offenses, enhanced protections for survivors during legal proceedings, and prioritized public education campaigns to combat stigma. These measures have been accompanied by a cultural shift, albeit gradual, toward recognizing the systemic nature of gender-based violence and the need for collective responsibility in addressing it.
Minister Shanmugam’s involvement in this case signals the government’s commitment to maintaining this momentum. His public statements, coupled with direct engagement with Mr. Chia, suggest that authorities view such incidents not merely as individual missteps but as opportunities to reinforce societal norms around respect and empathy for survivors.
At the same time, the case highlights the challenges of navigating freedom of expression within the legal profession. While lawyers are entitled to personal opinions, the line between private commentary and professional responsibility becomes blurred when statements risk undermining public trust in the justice system. Finding this balance remains a complex issue, particularly in a society like Singapore, where public discourse is often shaped by a combination of traditional values and modern sensibilities.
Looking Ahead: Reflection or Reckoning?
As Mr. Chia embarks on his promised journey of reflection, questions linger about what tangible change might look like. Will his commitment to “change and contribute to society” translate into meaningful action, such as advocacy for survivors or efforts to educate peers on the impact of harmful rhetoric? Or will the controversy fade from public memory without addressing the deeper issues it has exposed?
For now, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the power of words in shaping perceptions of justice. In a society striving to balance tradition with progress, the hope is that cases like this will catalyze not just individual accountability but also collective growth. As Singapore continues to refine its approach to sexual violence, the voices of survivors—and the responsibility of those in positions of influence to amplify rather than diminish them—remain at the heart of the conversation.
