Singapore Doctor Admits to Forging Certificates for Aesthetic Clinic License

In a case that raises serious questions about medical ethics and public safety, a Singaporean doctor has pleaded guilty to forging certificates of competence to secure a license for his aesthetic clinic. Dr. Bernard Tan Wen Sheng admitted to altering his wife’s documents to falsely claim qualifications for certain procedures, submitting them to the Ministry of Health (MOH) as part of his application process. The incident, which unfolded in early 2023, has sparked concerns over the integrity of licensing processes and the potential risks to patients seeking aesthetic treatments.

A Bid to Launch a Clinic

Dr. Tan, a registered medical practitioner in Singapore, sought to establish his own practice, Bay Aesthetics Clinic, at Marina Bay Link Mall in February 2023. As part of the mandatory licensing process overseen by the MOH, he was required to provide certificates of competence demonstrating that he had attended workshops and passed examinations for each aesthetic procedure his clinic intended to offer. These included botulinum toxin injections, filler injections, chemical peels, and intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments for hair removal.

However, Dr. Tan encountered a significant hurdle: he lacked the original certificates for some of these procedures. For chemical peels and IPL treatments, he had never attended the requisite workshops. For botulinum toxin and filler injections, he claimed to have completed the training in March 2017 but had lost the documentation. Instead of addressing this issue transparently, he resorted to deception by using his wife’s certificates—issued in 2017 for the same procedures—as templates.

Dr. Tan printed his name in a matching font size, placed it over his wife’s name on the documents, and scanned the altered versions. On February 21, 2023, he emailed these forged certificates to the MOH, falsely representing them as proof of his qualifications. This act of forgery, though described by his defense as “rudimentary,” was a deliberate attempt to bypass the stringent requirements designed to protect public health.

Maintaining the Deception

The MOH, upon reviewing the submitted documents, raised concerns within a week. An employee from the ministry contacted Dr. Tan, noting that the Aesthetic Dermatology Education Group (ADEG), which issued the certificates, had no record of his attendance at workshops for chemical peels and IPL treatments. The employee requested original certificates or email confirmation from ADEG and explicitly warned Dr. Tan about the legal consequences of providing false information.

Despite this warning, Dr. Tan doubled down on his deception. He insisted that he had attended the workshops but lost the originals in a house fire in October 2017, claiming the “grainy” copies he submitted were scans of water-damaged documents. He reiterated this falsehood in subsequent correspondence, maintaining that the certificates were authentic. The MOH ultimately approved his application on March 13, 2023, but only for botulinum toxin and filler injections—services for which his attendance could be verified. Dr. Tan was not permitted to offer chemical peels or IPL treatments at that stage.

In a belated attempt to rectify the situation, Dr. Tan attended the necessary workshops for chemical peels and IPL hair removal on April 29, 2023. However, this remedial action came after his initial deception had already been uncovered, raising questions about whether he would have pursued the training had his forgery not been detected.

Legal Consequences and Public Safety Concerns

On June 30, 2024, Dr. Tan pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery and one count of providing false information to a public servant, with additional charges taken into consideration for sentencing. The prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutor Ariel Tan, sought a jail term of four to six months, emphasizing the gravity of the offenses. “Had the forged certificates gone undetected, Dr. Tan would have gotten away with a license to provide four aesthetic services despite not being certified as competent to provide two of these safely” said Ms. Tan. She argued that the nature of the crime—committed against a public institution and with potential implications for public health—warranted a deterrent sentence.

Aesthetic treatments, while often seen as cosmetic, carry significant risks if performed by unqualified practitioners. Chemical peels and IPL treatments, in particular, can result in burns, scarring, or other complications if not administered correctly. The prosecution underscored that Dr. Tan’s actions undermined the trust placed in medical professionals and the regulatory framework designed to safeguard patients.

Defense Arguments and Mitigation

Dr. Tan’s lawyer, Kalidass Murugaiyan, sought a high fine instead of imprisonment, citing precedents where offenders received penalties between S$6,000 (US$4,700) and S$10,000. In mitigation, Mr. Kalidass claimed that Dr. Tan genuinely believed he had completed the necessary training but lost his documents in a 2017 house fire that destroyed many of his personal belongings. He further noted that Dr. Tan had completed a Certificate in Aesthetic Medicine Course with the American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine in 2019, which he argued was comparable to the ADEG workshops.

“In Dr. Tan’s mind, sending a copy of the relevant certificates of competence was a matter of formality, given his bona fide belief that he had indeed attended and completed the ADEG courses in question” said Mr. Kalidass. The defense characterized the forgery as a “kneejerk reaction” rather than a premeditated act, pointing out that it was executed in a matter of minutes under the stress of setting up a new clinic. Additionally, it was emphasized that Dr. Tan never provided chemical peels or IPL services without proper certification and that no actual harm to patients resulted from his actions.

Mr. Kalidass also highlighted Dr. Tan’s previously unblemished professional record, noting that in 11 years of practice, no complaints had been lodged against him. The defense argued that these factors, combined with his eventual completion of the required workshops, should mitigate the severity of the punishment. Sentencing is scheduled for July 29, 2024, with potential penalties including up to four years in jail or fines for each forgery charge, and up to six months in jail or a S$5,000 fine for providing false information.

Broader Implications for Medical Regulation

This case casts a spotlight on the robustness of Singapore’s medical licensing system, widely regarded as one of the most stringent in the region. The MOH’s diligence in verifying Dr. Tan’s credentials prevented potentially unqualified services from being offered, but the incident raises questions about how such forgery could initially slip through the cracks. It also underscores the pressures faced by medical practitioners venturing into the lucrative field of aesthetic medicine, where demand for treatments like botulinum toxin injections and fillers has surged in recent years.

Public trust in healthcare professionals is paramount, particularly in a field like aesthetics, where patients often lack the expertise to assess a practitioner’s qualifications. Dr. Tan remains a registered doctor, according to the Singapore Medical Council’s database, with his practicing certificate set to expire at the end of 2024. Whether this incident will impact his registration or future ability to practice remains to be seen, pending the outcome of his sentencing and any subsequent disciplinary actions by the council.

What’s Next for Disgraced Dr. Bernard Tan Wen Sheng?

As Singapore continues to position itself as a hub for medical excellence, cases like Dr. Tan’s serve as a reminder of the importance of vigilance in upholding professional standards. The outcome of his sentencing may set a precedent for how similar breaches of trust are addressed, balancing the need for accountability with the context of individual circumstances. For now, the public awaits clarity on whether Dr. Tan’s actions will result in a custodial sentence or a financial penalty—and what it means for the broader landscape of aesthetic medicine in the city-state.