SINGAPORE — The prosecution yesterday called for former Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) Commissioner Peter Lim Sin Pang to be jailed five months, arguing that a deterrent sentence was necessary as the 53-year-old had “undermine(d) the standing of his office” and brought disrepute to the force.

Lim’s acts have also “severely undermined the integrity of the Government procurement process and tarnished the image of the Government at large, as being transparent and fair in all its dealings”, added Deputy Public Prosecutor Hon Yi.

Lim was found guilty last Friday of corruptly obtaining oral sex from Ms Angie Pang Chor Mui in exchange for furthering the business interests of her former employer Nimrod Engineering.

Yesterday, he also admitted to the facts in seven other similar corruption charges involving two more women, Ms Kelly Lee Wei Hoon, the Director of Singapore Radiation Centre and Ms Esther Goh Tok Mui, the Director of Business Development of NCS. These charges would be taken into consideration by District Judge Hamidah Ibrahim during sentencing. The prosecution will apply to withdraw two other charges Lim faces after his sentencing, scheduled for Thursday.

Mr Hon, who noted there are no sentencing precedents for Lim’s offences, yesterday drew references between Lim’s case and that of former National University of Singapore law professor Tey Hsun Hang in the sex-for-grades case.

Mr Hon said Lim’s offence “is far more egregious” than that of Tey. “He (Lim) was the most senior public officer in the SCDF. As the leader of thousands of officers in the SCDF, he should be an exemplar of public service and duty. Instead, he breached the trust that was reposed in him and engaged in corruption which has damaged the reputation of the organisation he has led,” said Mr Hon.

Thus, Lim “should receive a heavier sentence” than that meted out to Tey, who was jailed five months for corruption charges on Monday.

Lim’s lawyers Hamidul Haq and K Bala Chandran disagreed with the prosecution, as they cited “a lot of differences” between the two cases. Mr Haq argued that Ms Pang had not been taken advantage of and had not been required to spend money on Lim. There was also “no trickery”, “no malingering” and “no mockery” of the court and “no waste of judicial time”, he added.

Pleading with the court for leniency, Mr Haq said Lim’s actions did not cause detriment or loss to the SCDF as there had been no evidence that Lim had favoured Nimrod in any way. Lim had an “exemplary and unblemished” service and personal record, the lawyer added, as he read out portions of testimonials by his former colleagues, including former SCDF Commissioner James Tan Chan Seng.

Mr Haq also read out a testimonial by Lim’s wife, who had not attended any part of the 12-day trial. She said that she had “fully forgiven” Lim and that she “needs his presence in her life”. The couple has a young daughter studying in lower primary, the district court heard.

Mr Haq argued that Lim’s offence falls “within the lower end of the spectrum of criminality” and the imposition of a “hefty fine” would “sufficiently serve the ends of justice”. The lawyer added that if the court should decide on imprisonment, a short jail term would be “sufficiently grave punishment” for Lim.

Mr Hon, however, argued that a non-custodial sentence would make a “mockery” of other public servants who were sent to jail for corruption. Lim had also been an “evasive and untruthful witness” and his behaviour at the trial where he painted Ms Pang as a “seductress desperate for sex” showed complete lack of remorse for his behaviour, Mr Hon said.

Further, the charges Lim was convicted on and consented to be taken into consideration during sentencing showed “a clear pattern of behaviour”, he said. “The offence on which he has been convicted on cannot be regarded as a one-off moral failure on his part. Instead, the pattern shows that the accused had taken advantage of his position to obtain the sexual gratification,” Mr Hon added. Lim faces a jail term of up to five years or a fine of up to S$100,000, or both, for each charge.