Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and 5 others not testifying in trial, will call an expert witness

Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and five co-defendants will not testify in their criminal trial on charges including failing to disclose material information related to the Tuaspring integrated water and power project, with some having already been subjected to rigorous questioning by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD).

They will instead call one expert witness for the remainder of the trial.

This comes as Principal District Judge Toh Han Li found on Oct 21 that the prosecution had presented a sufficient case against Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng and four former independent directors – Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai – for violations of the Securities and Futures Act.

Lum’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, told the State Courts that the defendants would call on Christopher Decker as their joint expert.

Singh said the State Courts had already heard the testimony of the prosecution’s expert Kevin Gin, and it should also have the “opportunity to hear the (defence’s) expert whose reports have been admitted into the evidence”.

Decker is a principal at the London office of international advisory firm HKA and a research fellow specialising in law, economics and regulation at Oxford University.

He has advised international organisations, including the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and has been retained as a specialist adviser to the UK Financial Conduct Authority. He has also advised the UK National Infrastructure Commission on the water industry.

Rajah & Tann partner Thong Chee Kun, who represents Cho, said his client had already been subjected to “rigorous questioning” in the course of the CAD’s investigation.

The lawyers for the six defendants said their clients’ statements are before the court.

The defence on Oct 21 decided against making a “no case to answer” acquittal submission after the prosecution closed its case.

Such a submission means the defence believes that the prosecution has insufficient evidence to support its case, and that the accused should be acquitted immediately without calling for a defence.

Singh said his client “does not want to waste the court’s time on having to hear submissions on a test which ultimately may not matter”. “She would like to go straight to the point where the court will hear submissions on whether the prosecution has proved their case against her beyond a reasonable doubt so that the case is decided as soon as possible,” he said.

“For these reasons, she will not make a submission of no case to answer. She is aware that such a submission will involve the filing and making of arguments and that will take time and delay matters,” he added.

On Sept 29, the prosecution wrapped up its case after 54 days of trial, during which 22 witnesses were called over the collapse of the water treatment firm, one of Singapore’s largest corporate scandals.

During the criminal trial, which began in August 2025, the court heard why Hyflux allegedly did not disclose that it would have significant exposure to the electricity market and how it turned to retail and institutional investors to fund the Tuaspring project because it had trouble getting bank loans.

The court also heard that it was DBS Bank that floated the idea of Hyflux issuing preference shares to raise funds in 2011.

Hyflux was placed under judicial management in November 2020 and wound up in 2021. Its collapse due to weak electricity sales left about 34,000 investors in perpetual securities and preference shares – who had sunk a combined $900 million – with nothing.

The prosecution proceeded on 11 charges against the six defendants. These include two charges each against Lum and the four directors – Teo, 70; Gay, 69; Murugasu, 67; and Lee, 70.

Lum is accused of failing to disclose material information, including the now-defunct water treatment firm’s significant exposure in the electricity market, in its announcement of the Tuaspring project win in March 2011 and subsequent share issue the following month.

Cho faces one charge of conniving in Hyflux’s omission to disclose the information about Tuaspring.

Thong said on Oct 21 that his client did not concede that the prosecution “has advanced a convincing case”, and “in the interests of time, it is far more expedient for the trial to simply carry on so that a more certain conclusion and outcome can be reached”.

Shook Lin & Bok partner Daryl Fong, who represents the four directors, said his clients believed “the necessary ingredients of the charges against them cannot be made out beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial should proceed as expeditiously as possible to its conclusion”.

Of the six charges Lum initially faced, four under the Companies Act were stood down. The prosecution proceeded on the two remaining charges.

Those charges relate to her consenting to Hyflux’s omission of information regarding Tuaspring, when disclosure was required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules. The information was necessary to avoid the establishment of a false market in Hyflux’s securities.

According to one charge, she consented to intentionally failing to notify SGX that the Tuaspring project was Hyflux’s expansion into the new business of selling electricity, and the plant’s profitability was contingent on electricity sales revenue, which was projected to make up a significant proportion of overall revenue.

This had implications for Tuaspring’s resulting exposure to market risks arising from the volatility of electricity prices. If convicted of this charge, Lum faces up to seven years’ jail, a fine of up to $250,000, or both.

She was also charged over Hyflux’s omission to disclose information about Tuaspring in the offer information statement issued on April 13, 2011, for $200 million in 6% preference shares. If convicted of this, she faces up to two years’ jail, a maximum fine of $150,000, or both.

The four former independent directors were each charged with neglect over Hyflux’s failure to disclose information relating to Tuaspring as required and omitting material information in the 2011 offer information statement.

One other independent director, Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta, pleaded guilty on Aug 7, 2025, to a charge of neglect in relation to the March 7, 2011, announcement by Hyflux to SGX.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Global Rule of Law Conference - An Exclusive Fireside Chat with Chief Justices Singapore rises to 14th spot in global rule of law ranking; 2nd for absence of corruption