Ken Lim acquitted of making sexual comments to woman in 2012, in first of five trials

SINGAPORE: Former Singapore Idol judge Ken Lim Chih Chiang has been acquitted of making sexual comments to an aspiring singer-songwriter 12 years ago.

The verdict was delivered by District Judge Wong Peck at the State Courts on Wednesday (Dec 11), in the first of five trials that Lim is fighting.

Lim was accused of asking a 26-year-old woman if she was a virgin and what would happen if he had sex with her right then on Jul 25, 2012.

This allegedly happened at their second meeting, when the woman met the music producer in his office at Hype Records for advice on a career in the industry.

She made a police report more than a decade later, in June 2023, after seeing news reports of Lim being charged with making sexual remarks to other women.

Lim was charged in September 2023 with insulting the woman's modesty, which carries a jail term of up to one year, a fine, or both.

At trial, the prosecution relied on evidence from the woman, as well as her husband and her family members on what she told them after meeting Lim.

Lim, 60, took the stand in his own defence at the trial, saying that the woman was telling "blatant" lies and took his comments on her music "too personally".

His defence team, led by Senior Counsel Tan Chee Meng from WongPartnership, also called singer-songwriter Corinne May and former nominated member of parliament Dr Gerard Ee as witnesses.

On Wednesday, Judge Wong said she did not find the testimony of the alleged victim to be "unusually convincing", which is the legal test for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Instead, the judge found that the woman had embellished evidence about her meeting with Lim, and that she was not a credible witness as she was unable to recall material aspects of the meeting clearly.

She also found that the woman had motive to falsely implicate Lim as she was hurt by his criticism of her singing and songwriting, and that the defence's argument that she was a "copycat" complainant could be believed.

In a statement, Lim said: "I am very happy with the outcome. I would especially like to thank my wife and my two boys, and all my friends for solidly standing by me."

He also thanked his lawyers, Mr Tan, Mr Paul Loy and Mr Samuel Navindran.

Lim faces six more charges involving four different women. He is fighting the allegations in four other trials.

The identities of all the women in his charges are protected by gag orders.

INCONSISTENCIES IN WOMAN'S EVIDENCE

Describing the woman's evidence as "riddled" with inconsistencies, Judge Wong noted, for instance, that the sequence of events she gave varied.

In the woman's police statement, she said that Lim uttered the allegedly insulting words before they smoked, but in her evidence at trial, she reversed this sequence.

The judge found that she reversed the sequence "to make her version more plausible ... because after the incident, she had claimed that she was traumatised and in a blur", but she could still remember their smoking session.

The woman's evidence "did not make sense at times", such as claiming that Lim uttered the allegedly insulting words after he had already told her he was not signing her to his record label.

It would have been more logical for the producer to make any indecent proposal before informing her he was not signing her on, when she would still have an incentive to accept the proposal, said the judge.

The woman also claimed that in their meeting, Lim had said Ms May, the local singer-songwriter, was "not successful" and "just a kindergarten teacher".

Judge Wong found this to be untrue based on Ms May's evidence that Lim knew her well and knew she was never a kindergarten teacher.

The judge believed Lim's testimony that he would never disparage Ms May's background and singing as she had sung at his wedding, and he had written her a recommendation letter for a prestigious music college.

Judge Wong also said the woman "could selectively recall some details and conveniently forget other details", such as how long she and Lim spent in the car park where the offence allegedly occurred.

"Most importantly, she conceded that she could not remember telling the prosecution witnesses such as (her sister, husband and father) the exact words of the insulting words on the night of the alleged offence."

On the whole, the evidence from other prosecution witnesses did not support the allegation that Lim uttered the insulting words, the judge said.

REACTION AFTER THE MEETING

The judge said that the woman's reaction around family and friends after her meeting with Lim did not indicate that she was traumatised by the alleged comments, as she had claimed.

Noting that victims of sexual crimes cannot be expected to act or react in a uniform manner, the judge highlighted the woman's evidence that she was traumatised, in a blur and in "survival mode" after the meeting.

However, a few minutes after leaving his office, the woman started replying to fans on Twitter to thank them for their support, and did so in a cheerful tone.

In court, the woman explained that she did this out of habit, and that she was only in a blur about Lim, but not about her fans.

"This explanation did not make sense as such a claim was tantamount to saying that one could selectively be in a blur about something specific and be clear headed about everything else," Judge Wong said.

"Even taking the prosecution's case at its highest in that her reaction to her fans was not unusual for a victim of a sexual crime, I found there was other evidence which pointed out that she was not in a state of trauma after the second meeting."

The judge pointed to cheerful exchanges the woman had with her sister and boyfriend, as well as a blog post in 2013 where she wrote about having been "fortunate not to have experienced a significant trauma".

THE "DARK SIDE"

The judge found that the allegations were also not substantiated by text messages exchanged between Lim and the woman at the time.

During the trial, the woman claimed that Lim asked her to go over to the "dark side", which meant cheating on her boyfriend, smoking and taking drugs.

She claimed that Lim said her music was "too innocent", and that she had to experience the "dark side" to write songs that would enjoy mainstream success.

Lim testified that he would never say this and that no music producer would give such advice as behaviour like that would cause scandal.

"I found that the accused did not advise her to go to the dark side as she claimed," Judge Wong said in her decision.

The judge said it was apparent from Lim's puzzlement in a WhatsApp exchange with the woman on Aug 7, 2012 that he did not know what she meant by the "dark side".

She instead found that their conversation was about the "dark" meaning behind songs like Sarah McLachlan's Angel and Sara Bareilles' Gravity.

"I found that it was the complainant who had raised the concept of 'dark side' when the accused criticised her music," said the judge.

The woman and Lim also differed in their interpretations of another WhatsApp exchange immediately after their meeting.

She testified that Lim was talking about "dark side" experiences that he felt she required, and told her to delete her messages to hide what he was advising her to do.

Lim testified that they were talking about smoking – he had offered her a cigarette and she had smoked for the first time during their meeting.

He said that he was encouraging her to try new experiences, which meant getting out of her comfort zone.

Judge Wong said she found Lim's interpretation more plausible as the message immediately preceding the suggestion to delete the messages was about smoking.

Parties agreed that the message about brushing teeth was a reference to the woman smoking at the meeting.

"Since this was her first smoking experience in order to get her (to) come out of her shell, it made sense to inform her not to tell her parents and boyfriend and to delete message about smoking," said the judge.

Extrapolating this to taking drugs and cheating on her boyfriend was "a far stretch".

The judge found that there was "nothing sinister" about the text messages, and that the woman's cheerful and friendly banter with Lim after the meeting were at odds with her claim that she was traumatised.

SHE HAD MOTIVE TO FRAME LIM

Judge Wong further found that the defence had provided evidence showing the woman "bore a grudge" against Lim.

On the stand, the woman admitted to being hurt by Lim's comments, and that she had a "small hope" of securing a recording contract and was disappointed when he did not sign her on.

The prosecution argued that the woman had no reason to falsely accuse Lim as she had since established a successful career in music, and she would not have waited more than a decade to frame him if she wanted to.

The woman claimed that she did not make a police report earlier as she did not know the alleged words were a criminal offence.

Judge Wong cited the woman's blog posts from 2013 and 2016, where she said that she took criticism of her songs personally.

"When she learnt of the other accusations made by the other victims, she saw an opportunity to mount similar accusations against the accused as more accusers might indicate a higher likelihood that the accused did commit such criminal acts," said the judge.

This was supported by a text message the woman sent on Mar 30, 2023 – the day Lim was charged with molestation – where she said "maybe more ladies will speak up".

In court, the woman said her thinking was: "Because when people (are) in power, usually, they never just do it to one person; it's always to more than one person, right?"

Judge Wong noted that the woman made her police report in June 2023, after news reports of Lim being charged with making sexual comments to other women.

She found that this was because the June 2023 charges made accusations that were similar to the woman's, while the March 2023 charge was for a different offence of molestation.

"This lent credence to the defence's proposition that the complainant was a 'copycat' complainant," Judge Wong said.

The judge then addressed the prosecution's argument that Lim's evidence was inconsistent. She said that Lim was able to give plausible explanations for those inconsistencies, if any.

One example was that Lim initially could not recall who the complainant was when he recorded his police statement in August 2023, but was later able to give more details of their meeting.

The prosecution argued that Lim had reconstructed his version of events by conducting research online and finding the woman's blog and social media, and urged the court to treat his evidence with suspicion.

However, Judge Wong found Lim's explanation plausible – that he initially could not remember the meeting as it happened more than a decade ago, and that he did research to jog his memory after he was charged.

This was reasonable "because as the owner of a talent management agency, he would no doubt have come across many aspiring singers and songwriters in the course of 11 years", said the judge.

"It would be reasonable to conclude that as nothing untoward had happened at the two meetings such as the subject offence, he would not recall much as the two meetings were unremarkable and not memorable at all."

After the verdict, Judge Wong permitted Lim to leave Singapore for multiple trips before his second trial resumes on Feb 4, 2025.

Of Lim's remaining six charges, the most serious charge is for molesting a 25-year-old woman in his office in 2021. The trial in this case is ongoing before Principal District Judge Lee Lit Cheng.

The punishment for outraging a person's modesty is up to two years in jail, which may come with a fine or caning.

Lim is also accused of making sexual comments to a female artiste and unbuckling and removing his belt at his office in 2013.

Between 1999 and 2002, he allegedly asked another female artiste if she was a virgin and offered himself as a sexual partner.

He is also accused of showing another female artiste pornography and saying that he could help her with her sexual inexperience between 1998 and 1999.

If found guilty of insulting their modesty, he could be jailed for up to a year, fined, or both for each charge.