27 March 2013.  Prosecution pointed out some discrepancies between the court testimony and the statements Peter Lim gave to CPIB last year.  On grounds of these discrepancies, prosecution applies to the court to impeach the evidence given by Peter Lim in the court.  In his statement to the CPIB last year, he said that he had the opportunity to have sex with Ms Pang when he attended a wedding dinner at Fullerton Hotel some time in 2010.  He asked her for a lift as he had consumed liquor and did not want to drive. When Ms Pang arrived he directed her to park in the car park at national stadium.  He said that when they reached the car park he directly asked her whether she wanted to have sex with him. She then asked him to unzip his pants and proceeded to perform oral sex on him.  But on Monday when Lim took the stand he told a different story. In the court he said that he played a  passive role in the lead up to the events that night and that it was Ms Pang who instigated a the six.

Lim could not explain clearly the discrepancies in his statement to the CPIB and what he told the court. But he accepted the CBI the statement as the truth.  But later he changed his mind and said that he could not recall asking Ms Pang for sex although he remembered her asking him to unzip his pants.
At the court he testified that Ms Pang was a close friend but in his statement to the CPIB he said that she was not a friend per se.
If respect of radiation monitors he told CPIB that his intention was to bring in the supply so that should there be a need a tender could be put and the replacement monitors could be procured.
Due to these discrepancies the prosecution asked to substitute what he said in the court with certain parts of his statement to the CPIB. This came after an intense session of cross examination.
Prosecutions sought to establish that Lim was fully in control and he could not have been tipsy as he was a health conscious man and was not in the habit of getting drunk.
Lim also flip-flopped when he earlier told the court that he did not like trust his staff as they were very slow. But later in reply to a question from the DPP he said that his role was merely to endorse the winning bids after they have been examined thoroughly by a team of officers whom he trusted.

In the case of an impeachment the judge will have to decide which part of the evidence will be accepted and what will be discarded.