Olivia Lum, ex-CFO, not giving evidence in their Hyflux trial

[SINGAPORE] Hyflux’s founder and former CEO Olivia Lum, former chief financial officer (CFO) as well as four former directors will not be testifying after the judge called for their defence on Wednesday (Oct 21).

District Judge Toh Han Li found on day 55 of the trial that the prosecution had presented a sufficient case against Lum, ex-CFO Cho Wee Peng, and four independent directors Teo Kiang Kok,Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu, and Lee Joo Hai.

He called for their defence and told them that they can choose to give evidence on the stand and be liable to cross-examination. If they opt to remain silent, the court may draw an adverse inference against them in deciding whether they are guilty or not, the judge added. 

Lum and the other five opted not to take the stand.

This was after the six decided not to submit that there is no case to answer, which an accused can choose to make at the close of the prosecution’s case in a trial. In other words, the accused is asking the court to acquit the accused immediately without calling for a defence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove a prima facie case.

The counsel for the six said their clients wanted the criminal case to conclude “expeditiously”. However, they emphasised that prosecution has not proven the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt. 

Lum’s counsel Davinder Singh stressed that the judge’s finding of the prosecution having made a sufficient case against the accused is “statutorily mandated”.

Cho’s counsel Thong Chee Kun told the court his client is not conceding that prosecution has advanced a convincing case, “in fact we think it is the opposite”. However, in the interest of time, it is expedient for the trial to simply carry on so that a more certain conclusion can be reached, he added.

Although the six are not testifying, they will be calling an expert witness, Dr Chris Decker, to counter the prosecution’s evidence.

The judge fixed a chambers conference for this case on Nov 23, with the accused persons continuing to be out on bail.

Lum, Cho and the directors are contesting their non-disclosure charges under the Securities and Futures Act.

These stemmed from the water treatment company’s alleged intentional failure to disclose material information, with the 65-year-old Lum and the four directors each facing two such charges, and 57-year-old Cho one charge.

Lum also faces four Companies Act charges but these have been stood down in this trial, which started in August 2025.

The prosecution said the case arose from Hyflux’s non-disclosure of material information required under the Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules in March 2011 and offer information document in its issuance of S$200 million, 6 per cent preference shares in April 2011.

Specifically, the material information referred to three points.

One was Hyflux’s venture into a new business with the Tuaspring project. The second was that the project would derive the significant majority of revenue from the sale of electricity from its power plant. Lastly, the profitability of the billion-dollar project was contingent on revenue from that sale of electricity.

The information was material in influencing investors’ decisions to trade Hyflux securities, argued the prosecution. However, Hyflux’s statements misled investors and the market into believing that Tuaspring was primarily a desalination project.

Lum is accused of consenting to both instances of Hyflux’s non-disclosures in 2011; Cho was allegedly complicit in Hyflux’s non-disclosure to SGX, while the four directors were said to have been neglectful in both non-disclosures.

Former Hyflux staff who were involved in preparing the announcement or the documents on both occasions, bank representatives who interacted with Hyflux personnel in negotiating the financing of the Tuaspring project, Hyflux’s external legal counsel on the share issuance document were some of the prosecution witnesses that took the stand earlier.

Rajsekar Kuppuswami Mitta, a former independent director of Hyflux, had pleaded guilty ahead of the start of the trial against the six, to being neglectful in the insolvent water treatment firm’s failure to disclose to SGX relevant information related to the Tuaspring integrated water and power project.

He was fined S$90,000, barred from becoming a director in any company, and also cannot take part in the management of any company for five years.

Hyflux suspended trading in its stock in May 2018, and was placed under judicial management in November 2020.