ONLINE DEBATE OVER THE REPORTING OF EX-SCDF CHIEF CORRUPTION TRIAL
In reaction to The New Paper’s headline reading “She Pitifully BEGGED me for sex”, the online community has expressed their concern.
Ravi Philemon – “Making sure that their newspaper sells should not be the only goal of any newspaper. Newspapers have social responsibilities as well. Any responsible news agency would have headlined that front page story as 'Contradictions in Peter Lim's evidence' or something to that effect. That woman has got an eighteen-year-old son for god's sake! “
In the trial, the main focus is actually the contradiction of evidence given by the ex-SCDF Chief Peter Lim.
The following is the report as made by Yahoo Singapore:
At the trial of ex-SCDF Chief Peter Lim corruption case yesterday (27 Mar), Lim claimed that he was prepared to have sex with Ms Pang Chor Mui during their meeting in 2010 because she had “so pitifully begged” him for it. He added that he gave in to her “out of sympathy” for her.
Lim is charged with corruption for obtaining oral sex from Ms Pang in return for furthering the interests of her company, Nimrod Engineering.
Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) claimed Lim abused his position as SCDF commissioner by obtaining oral sex from Ms Pang and making use of her to satisfy his sexual desire. Lim disagreed.
In a statement recorded on Feb 22 last year, Lim defended himself saying he was never interested to have sex with Ms Pang but had given in to her “out of sympathy” and as she had “so pitifully begged” him for sex after their lunch meeting at Parkway Parade some time in Feb or Mar 2010.
DPP had sought to show in Lim’s statement to CPIB that this is false and that Lim had intended to have sex with Ms Pang all along. DPP argued that Lim then created the opportunity for it on May 2, 2010 – the day he is accused of corruptly obtaining oral sex from her.
Lim said he was mentally prepared to have sex with Ms Pang “out of sympathy” but he would not initiate it. Yet if she was to ask for it, he was prepared to agree to it.
There were a number of discrepancies between his statements made to CPIB and what he said in court during his 12-day corruption trial.
Both prosecution and defence lawyers will make written submissions on 30 Apr.