Sex abuse trial: Doubts over when man went for enlargement procedure

SINGAPORE — Prosecutors yesterday continued to refute a man’s claim that a botched penis enlargement procedure made it impossible for him to sexually abuse his daughter, suggesting that he got the job done after his daughter’s accusations.

An expert witness from Singapore General Hospital agreed that this was a possibility, but stressed that it was also impossible to pin down when the procedure was performed due to a lack of clear records.

Urology consultant Lee Fang Jann, the defence’s final witness, told the court that it was possible that the accused — who cannot be named to protect his daughter’s identity — underwent the procedure after criminal charges were launched against him.

The 42-year-old food stall assistant is on trial for sexually assaulting his then-11-year-old daughter — the oldest of his three children — in their family home between the end of 2011 and April 2014. He faces 10 charges, including committing an indecent act with a child, sexual assault by penetration and outraging the modesty of a minor under age 14.

He claimed that he underwent penis enlargement in Johor, Malaysia, in 2005, 2007, and 2009 upon the request of his ex-wife — the daughter’s mother — to improve their sexual relationship, but things went awry after the last procedure resulted in deformities. The accused was examined by Dr Lee in October last year for purposes of the trial.

When cross-examined yesterday, Dr Lee acknowledged that side effects from such procedures, including pus and blisters, are “very unlikely” to persist for seven years from 2009 as they are typically carried out by injecting collagen or other natural compounds which will eventually be absorbed into the body.

While he agreed that it was possible for the third procedure to have been done between September 2015 and April last year — the dates when the accused gave his statement to the police and when his defence was served on the prosecution prior to trial — Dr Lee also acknowledged that there was “no way to tell when the procedure was executed” because there were no medical records.

He pointed out that the fillers injected for the final procedure was silicone rather than collagen, which may lead to more permanent deformities.

“Silicone, paraffin are synthetic materials which the body does not absorb. So they do stay in the body after injection,” he told the court.

To this, Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) April Phang said: “There are two possibilities. The practitioner that performed the first two procedures with collagen switched to silicone, resulting in the permanent state of his penis. Second possibility is (the accused) had gone to a different practitioner between Sept 4, 2015, and April 5, 2016, who used a different material.”

Dr Lee agreed that these two scenarios are possible. She also asked if there are procedures to remove the fillers causing the deformity and Dr Lee told the court that these are available, too.

Earlier in the trial, DPP Phang had asked the accused why the side effects would not have faded by now, if his last surgery was in 2009.

The court is expected to issue a verdict on Feb 20, after both sides have delivered their written submissions.