Trial of ex-SCDF chief Peter Lim: Prosecution says he obtained oral sex corruptly
Published on Feb 18, 2013 11:25 AM
Former SCDF chief Peter Lim knew or had reason to believe that a woman would give in to his request for oral sex because she was interested in having further business dealings between her company and the SCDF, a court heard on Monday morning.
Lim, 52, faces 10 counts of corruption in a sex-for-contracts case. But, as decided earlier, the prosecution will proceed with one charge involving Ms Pang Chor Mui from Nimrod Engineering first.
In his opening address, Deputy Public Prosecutor Tan Kiat Pheng said that Lim, who was the Commissioner of the Singapore Civil Defence Force, knew that Nimrod was an existing vendor to SCDF at the time of the oral sex on May 2, 2010.
Nimrod had supplied products to SCDF, and also provides after-sales warranty services for those products.
When he obtained oral sex from Ms Pang, he knew she was the general manager in Nimrod Engineering and he knew that she was aware of his position at the SCDF, the court heard.
The DPP said she was concerned about the existing good relationship that she and her company had with Lim, and she did not wish to jeopardise this relationship by upsetting him if she did not give in to his request for oral sex.
The prosecution said it will also provide evidence to show that after Lim had corruptly obtained oral sex, he contacted Ms Pang to ask about the supply of Radiation Portal Monitors to the SCDF. This was when SCDF's need for such monitors was not yet publicly known, and Nimrod also did not supply them at that time.
With this information, Nimrod proceeded to source for suppliers of these monitors, and later submitted a bid for a contract to supply them to the SCDF, the DPP said.
The prosecution said that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, any gratification given to or received by a civil servant, from a person who has or is seeking to have business dealings with the Government, shall be deemed to have been given and received corruptly. The burden of proof is on the civil servant to prove otherwise.