SINGAPORE: The Vice-President of the Law Society of Singapore, Boon Teck Chia, is facing backlash over controversial LinkedIn comments widely condemned as victim-blaming, following the recent rape conviction of Singapore-based TikToker Lev Panfilov.
Chia, who is also Co-Managing Director at Chia Wong Chambers, made the remarks in response to the High Court’s 21 March conviction of Panfilov, a Singapore permanent resident originally from Russia, for multiple sexual offences.
Panfilov, a former scriptwriter-actor with the popular YouTube channel Wah!Banana, was found guilty of two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration, and one count of outrage of modesty.
The assault occurred on 12 January 2021 in his bedroom after he brought the woman back to the flat he shared with flatmates to work on her script.
The woman, who was then 30 years old, had worked as an actress and model and was trying to branch out into comedy writing.
The two had matched on Tinder and later moved their chat to WhatsApp before arranging to meet in person at a restaurant in Robertson Quay.
She said his Tinder profile described him as a writer or scriptwriter, and she had verified his claim of working with Wah!Banana by checking YouTube.
At the restaurant, she opened her laptop and began working on her script with him. After waiters asked if they had any last orders, Panfilov suggested continuing the work at his place, and she agreed.
There, she testified that Panfilov kissed her without consent. When she attempted to leave, he allegedly raped and assaulted her. She saw a doctor four days later and subsequently filed a police report after confiding in her mother.
During the trial, Panfilov admitted to having sex with the victim but claimed it was consensual. His defence questioned the victim’s delay in reporting the incident and her decision to provide him with her home address.
She explained that she simply wanted to get home safely and feared not being believed.
Justice Pang Khang Chau found her testimony consistent and credible, describing Panfilov as an unreliable witness who gave shifting accounts.
Chia’s Deleted LinkedIn Comments Spark Outrage
Following the verdict, Chia posted a series of remarks on LinkedIn that drew strong public and professional condemnation.
The post, which was later deleted, appeared to cast doubt on the victim’s credibility and imply that she bore some responsibility for the assault.
“So many questions arising from this short report,” Chia wrote.
He suggested that individuals who engaged in one-night stands might want to take precautions — either to avoid being attacked or being accused of an attack.
He then listed 10 points from the report, each accompanied by his own commentary.
Commenting on the fact that the woman had used Tinder to meet Panfilov, he wrote, “What’s Tinder well known for? It ain’t no LinkedIn.”
Referring to the four charges Panfilov was convicted of, he asked, “Wow. Was she awake throughout the marathon?”
He also highlighted the victim’s age and profession as an actress and model, remarking, “So not exactly a babe in the woods?”
Quoting the report that the woman had hoped to get scriptwriting advice from Panfilov, Chia questioned, “At that late hour on the bed of a Russian man she just met on Tinder?”
Referencing her testimony that she said ‘no’, he asked, “How did ‘no’ progress to two counts of rape, one count of sexual assault by penetration, and one count of outrage of modesty?”
He went on to suggest that the encounter resembled a consensual date, pointing out that Panfilov had even arranged for her to get home via Gojek.
Legal Community Rebukes Chia for Victim-Blaming Comments
Chia’s comments drew ire from prominent lawyers, including Stefanie Yuen Thio, joint managing partner at TSMP Law Corporation.
Thio expressed disappointment that Chia had taken down the comments without explanation or apology.
“So without explanation or apology the original post was taken down,” she wrote.
“I think the victim and the whole legal fraternity deserve an explanation or an apology.”
She said she chose to speak out because the issue extended beyond one person’s opinion on a criminal case — it concerned the conduct expected of Law Society office bearers.
“This is an office bearer of the Law Society — the organisation that the community relies upon to seek justice,” she added.
Thio likened Chia’s comments to victim-shaming, which she said “goes against what the courts have actually said is appropriate cross-examination.”
“I’m appalled at this attitude from an individual who holds the office of a leader of the Bar,” she added.
Calling for accountability, she urged Chia to explain himself to the legal fraternity — and said that if no acceptable explanation was forthcoming, he should step down from the Law Society Council.
Another member of the legal fraternity, Joel Sherard, also criticised Chia’s remarks on LinkedIn, emphasising the professional responsibility lawyers carry.
“Such insinuations are, in my view, quite unacceptable, especially from someone who should be setting an example for younger members of the profession,” he wrote.
Sherard cited several past High Court rulings — GCM v PP [2021] SGHC 18 at [90]–[101], Ng Jun Xian v PP [2017] 3 SLR 933 at [40]–[43], and PP v Ong Jack Hong at [23] — noting that the judiciary has repeatedly denounced “victim blaming” submissions.
“We can debate the veracity of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses, but there are lines that should not be crossed,” he added.
Lawyers need to be mindful when they make statements: Shanmugam
Minister of Law K. Shanmugam also weighed in, expressing deep concern over Chia’s remarks.
“I am surprised that we still come across someone saying this: When a woman says ‘No’, she does not actually mean ‘No’.”
He warned that such remarks from a Law Society Vice President risk giving a false impression of legal norms in Singapore.
Shanmugam stressed that both the Ministry of Law and the Ministry of Home Affairs have long moved in the “opposite direction” through legislative reforms aimed at better protecting victims of sexual assault.
“Lawyers (in particular those in senior positions representing the legal profession) need to be mindful that when we make statements which minimise or dismiss victims’ concerns, that can have a disproportionate impact on other victims – who may then not be willing to report what happened to them,” he said.
AWARE Condemns Chia’s Remarks
The Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) condemned Chia’s comments in a Facebook post on Monday (24 March), calling them not just offensive but dangerous.
“When a senior lawyer mocks a rape survivor, it isn’t just offensive. It’s dangerous,” the group stated.
Referring to the same points Chia raised, AWARE stressed that none of them amounted to consent. “Even when a High Court judge finds a survivor ‘unusually convincing’ after 13 days of cross-examination, she is still publicly doubted, dissected, and discredited — her job, age, and dating history treated as fair game. Saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough.”
AWARE said it hears from survivors daily at its Sexual Assault Care Centre, with 7 in 10 choosing not to report their assault — most commonly due to fear of disbelief.
“When those in senior legal positions echo such views, it perpetuates victim-blaming, damages trust in the justice system, and discourages survivors from coming forward.”
“No woman should have to defend her character, clothing, profession, or dating history when she’s been sexually assaulted. Rape is a crime. Let’s stop blaming the victim.”
Chia Responds
In response to media queries, Chia said his original post was meant to draw attention to the importance of situational awareness — not to cast blame on any party.
He said the media report he read “raised many red-flag situations” that happened between the victim and Panfilov on the night of the offence.
“My post was to draw people’s attention to their situational awareness — to guard against being assaulted, or being accused of assaulting. I was sharing my views as a criminal lawyer,” he said.
“I have always been providing commentary for crime cases and providing insights on how to prevent such situations, as legal recourse may not always be sufficient.”
He added that he appreciated the perspectives shared regarding his post.
“As a criminal lawyer, my intent was not to cast blame on any party, but to highlight the importance of situational awareness — both to guard against being assaulted and to avoid actions that could later be misconstrued.”
“My comments were meant to encourage reflection on how individuals can better protect themselves in social situations. This is not about shifting responsibility but about understanding real-world risks.”
TOC has reached out to the Law Society for comments and will include its response once received.
The post Law Society Vice-President draws fire over LinkedIn post on TikToker rape case appeared first on The Online Citizen.
