SINGAPORE: The friend of a woman who was allegedly molested by music producer Ken Lim stood by her recollection of “very graphic” details that the woman described to her, under questioning by Lim’s defence lawyer on Thursday (Nov 28).
Lim, 60, is accused of molesting the 25-year-old woman during a work interview at the Hype Records office on Henderson Road on Nov 23, 2021.
According to the woman, the alleged molestation took place during her third meeting with Lim, the former executive director of Hype Records.
Best known for being a judge on Singapore Idol, Lim also faces accusations that he made sexual remarks to women between 1998 and 2013.
He has denied all seven allegations made against him by a total of five women, and is fighting the charges in five separate trials.
The complainants’ identities are protected by gag orders that extend to the naming of other witnesses that could lead to them being identified.
On Wednesday, the then-boyfriend and friend of the woman who was allegedly molested testifed that she told them in 2021 that Lim groped her during a meeting.
The friend also told the court that the woman relayed “very graphic” details of the alleged encounter over a video call with her in November 2021.
According to the friend, the woman said that Lim asked her to perform a sex act on him and said he wanted to tie her up.
The woman also said that Lim asked her “whether she wanted things to change after she stepped out of the room and she responded that she picked change instead of no change”, the friend testified.
On Thursday, the friend was questioned about her recollection of the November 2021 video call by lead counsel for the defence, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng.
The court heard that the two women fell out in 2023 and are no longer friends. But in 2021, they were close friends who met at least once a week.
Mr Tan focused a portion of his questioning on the friend’s evidence that the woman told her Lim asked for a sex act during the interview.
On the stand, the friend recalled the woman telling her that after Lim propositioned her, she pretended she did not hear what he had said. The friend could not recall what the woman said about Lim’s reaction to that.
Mr Tan then informed the friend that over “a good four to five days” of testimony, the complainant never told the court that Lim asked her to perform a sex act on him.
“Could you have been mistaken?” he asked the witness. “I can’t answer for (the complainant),” she replied.
Mr Tan said that the complainant’s then-boyfriend also testified in court that the woman never mentioned being propositioned by Lim.
He asked if the witness wanted to “correct (her) evidence” of Lim propositioning the complainant for sex, now that she knew the evidence of the complainant and her then-boyfriend.
“I don’t. I stand by what I said,” the friend said.
From the dock, Lim smiled and shook his head after she responded.
When the hearing resumed after a short break, Mr Tan made a point of confirming with the witness that she had not been communicating with anyone about the evidence she was giving.
Ken Lim Chih Chiang (right) and his lead defence counsel Tan Chee Meng arrive at the State Courts on Nov 25, 2024. (Photo: CNA/Ili Nadhirah Mansor)
Earlier, Mr Tan noted that the witness previously told the court she could not recall the order of events relayed by the complainant on the video call.
He asked if this was also the case when she recorded her police statement at the end of 2021.
The friend said that from her first police interview, she told the investigation officer that she could not remember the order in which the complainant told her about the events as she was focused on giving the woman support.
“From the start, I did not seek to remember the order of things because I didn’t know it was important,” she said.
The friend previously testified that the woman was “very shaken up” and that the atmosphere of their video call was “very chaotic”.
On Thursday, the friend gave more details of the video call, including that the woman had “acted out” the alleged groping of her chest.
“I remember it so vividly, I can even tell you what she was wearing,” the friend said, adding that the complainant was crossing the road between Tang Plaza and Lucky Plaza in Orchard when she demonstrated how she was allegedly groped.
The friend also said that the complainant said “she was forced to kiss him as part of the interview”.
Mr Tan asked if the complainant said they were kissing at the time Lim allegedly groped her chest. The friend replied in the negative, saying “they were separate incidences”.
The lawyer asked if the complainant said Lim forced her to kiss him and then groped her, but the friend said she could not recall the order of events.
Saying this did not matter, Mr Tan doubled down: “Do you recall if she told you they were kissing when he grabbed her breast?”
“They were not kissing,” the friend said. She immediately asked to elaborate, but Mr Tan interjected to say there was “no need” and that the prosecution could re-examine her if she had more to say.
Later, when the prosecutor asked what she wanted to elaborate on, the friend said: “I think there is a difference between (when) both participants are willingly kissing each other versus being forced to kiss.
“What (the complainant) told me was that it was an event that was not consensual between both parties, not consensual on her end.”
The prosecution also asked the friend to elaborate on the complainant’s comment that she was forced to kiss Lim “as part of the interview”.
The friend said the woman mentioned she had kissed Lim during the interview process.
“It was not like both parties were both consensually doing it. She felt like she had to do it, she was forced to do it,” the friend testified. “It was like she had to complete it to pass this interview.”
Another detail the friend said the woman mentioned was that Lim said he had seen her artwork, which he described as “very dark and gruesome”, and that “he could help her push the boundaries of her work”.
After their video call in November 2021, the friend said there were other times the complainant talked to her about the alleged molestation and shared her “troubles” arising from the incident.
In their conversations, the friend said the complainant talked about not being aware of what it meant when she chose “change” during her meeting with Lim, and that if she had known “what that change entailed, which was her being molested”, she would not have gone to meet him.
The friend also said that she was not aware the police were going to interview her about the allegation until they approached her at the end of 2021.
She said the context was that the complainant had hesitated to make a police report, and that she had been trying to convince the woman to do so.
She also said the complainant was considering other ideas for what to do, such as “doxxing” Lim – revealing his personal information online – or “catching him in the act”, instead of going to the police.
The trial continues.
Continue reading...
Lim, 60, is accused of molesting the 25-year-old woman during a work interview at the Hype Records office on Henderson Road on Nov 23, 2021.
According to the woman, the alleged molestation took place during her third meeting with Lim, the former executive director of Hype Records.
Best known for being a judge on Singapore Idol, Lim also faces accusations that he made sexual remarks to women between 1998 and 2013.
He has denied all seven allegations made against him by a total of five women, and is fighting the charges in five separate trials.
The complainants’ identities are protected by gag orders that extend to the naming of other witnesses that could lead to them being identified.
On Wednesday, the then-boyfriend and friend of the woman who was allegedly molested testifed that she told them in 2021 that Lim groped her during a meeting.
The friend also told the court that the woman relayed “very graphic” details of the alleged encounter over a video call with her in November 2021.
According to the friend, the woman said that Lim asked her to perform a sex act on him and said he wanted to tie her up.
The woman also said that Lim asked her “whether she wanted things to change after she stepped out of the room and she responded that she picked change instead of no change”, the friend testified.
Related:
On Thursday, the friend was questioned about her recollection of the November 2021 video call by lead counsel for the defence, Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng.
The court heard that the two women fell out in 2023 and are no longer friends. But in 2021, they were close friends who met at least once a week.
Mr Tan focused a portion of his questioning on the friend’s evidence that the woman told her Lim asked for a sex act during the interview.
On the stand, the friend recalled the woman telling her that after Lim propositioned her, she pretended she did not hear what he had said. The friend could not recall what the woman said about Lim’s reaction to that.
Mr Tan then informed the friend that over “a good four to five days” of testimony, the complainant never told the court that Lim asked her to perform a sex act on him.
“Could you have been mistaken?” he asked the witness. “I can’t answer for (the complainant),” she replied.
Mr Tan said that the complainant’s then-boyfriend also testified in court that the woman never mentioned being propositioned by Lim.
He asked if the witness wanted to “correct (her) evidence” of Lim propositioning the complainant for sex, now that she knew the evidence of the complainant and her then-boyfriend.
“I don’t. I stand by what I said,” the friend said.
From the dock, Lim smiled and shook his head after she responded.
When the hearing resumed after a short break, Mr Tan made a point of confirming with the witness that she had not been communicating with anyone about the evidence she was giving.
Ken Lim Chih Chiang (right) and his lead defence counsel Tan Chee Meng arrive at the State Courts on Nov 25, 2024. (Photo: CNA/Ili Nadhirah Mansor)
DEFENCE GRILLS WITNESS ON HER RECALL OF EVENTS
Earlier, Mr Tan noted that the witness previously told the court she could not recall the order of events relayed by the complainant on the video call.
He asked if this was also the case when she recorded her police statement at the end of 2021.
The friend said that from her first police interview, she told the investigation officer that she could not remember the order in which the complainant told her about the events as she was focused on giving the woman support.
“From the start, I did not seek to remember the order of things because I didn’t know it was important,” she said.
The friend previously testified that the woman was “very shaken up” and that the atmosphere of their video call was “very chaotic”.
On Thursday, the friend gave more details of the video call, including that the woman had “acted out” the alleged groping of her chest.
“I remember it so vividly, I can even tell you what she was wearing,” the friend said, adding that the complainant was crossing the road between Tang Plaza and Lucky Plaza in Orchard when she demonstrated how she was allegedly groped.
The friend also said that the complainant said “she was forced to kiss him as part of the interview”.
Mr Tan asked if the complainant said they were kissing at the time Lim allegedly groped her chest. The friend replied in the negative, saying “they were separate incidences”.
The lawyer asked if the complainant said Lim forced her to kiss him and then groped her, but the friend said she could not recall the order of events.
Saying this did not matter, Mr Tan doubled down: “Do you recall if she told you they were kissing when he grabbed her breast?”
“They were not kissing,” the friend said. She immediately asked to elaborate, but Mr Tan interjected to say there was “no need” and that the prosecution could re-examine her if she had more to say.
Later, when the prosecutor asked what she wanted to elaborate on, the friend said: “I think there is a difference between (when) both participants are willingly kissing each other versus being forced to kiss.
“What (the complainant) told me was that it was an event that was not consensual between both parties, not consensual on her end.”
The prosecution also asked the friend to elaborate on the complainant’s comment that she was forced to kiss Lim “as part of the interview”.
The friend said the woman mentioned she had kissed Lim during the interview process.
“It was not like both parties were both consensually doing it. She felt like she had to do it, she was forced to do it,” the friend testified. “It was like she had to complete it to pass this interview.”
Another detail the friend said the woman mentioned was that Lim said he had seen her artwork, which he described as “very dark and gruesome”, and that “he could help her push the boundaries of her work”.
After their video call in November 2021, the friend said there were other times the complainant talked to her about the alleged molestation and shared her “troubles” arising from the incident.
In their conversations, the friend said the complainant talked about not being aware of what it meant when she chose “change” during her meeting with Lim, and that if she had known “what that change entailed, which was her being molested”, she would not have gone to meet him.
The friend also said that she was not aware the police were going to interview her about the allegation until they approached her at the end of 2021.
She said the context was that the complainant had hesitated to make a police report, and that she had been trying to convince the woman to do so.
She also said the complainant was considering other ideas for what to do, such as “doxxing” Lim – revealing his personal information online – or “catching him in the act”, instead of going to the police.
The trial continues.
Continue reading...