Olivia Lum, ex-CFO not giving evidence in their Hyflux trial
Judge notes that opting to remain silent may draw an adverse inference against them
[SINGAPORE] Hyflux’s founder and former CEO Olivia Lum, former chief financial officer (CFO) as well as four 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, former CFO Cho Wee Peng and independent directors Teo Kiang Kok, Gay Chee Cheong, Christopher Murugasu and Lee Joo Hai.
He called for their defence and told them that they could 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 following the statement by the judge.
This was after the six had 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. Put simply, in a “no case to answer” submission, the accused is asking the court to acquit them immediately without it calling for a defence, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case.
The prosecution closed its case on Sep 29.
Lum, Cho and the directors are contesting non-disclosure charges under the Securities and Futures Act. The former CEO and the four directors each face two such charges, and 57-year-old Cho, one charge.
Lum, 65, also faces four Companies Act charges, but these have been stood down in this trial, which started in August 2025.
The counsel for the six said on Wednesday that their clients wanted the criminal case to proceed “expeditiously” and had therefore not submitted that there is no case to answer. However, they emphasised that the prosecution has not proven the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
SEE ALSO
Lum’s counsel Davinder Singh said that his client wants the case to end “as soon as possible”, as the lawyer noted the matters that spawned the charges date as far back as 2011.
Cho’s counsel Thong Chee Kun told the court that his client is not conceding that the prosecution had advanced a convincing case. “In fact, we think it is the opposite,” he noted. 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.
Thong pointed out that his client had already been “subject to rigorous questioning in the course of the Criminal Affairs Department’s investigation”.
The directors’ position is the same as Lum and Cho’s, said their lawyer Daryl Fong.
Although the six are not testifying, they will be calling an expert witness, Dr Christopher Decker, to counter prosecution’s expert witness Kevin Gin’s evidence.
The judge fixed a chambers conference for this case on Nov 23, with the accused persons continuing to be out on bail.
The non-disclosure charges against the six stem from the water-treatment company’s alleged intentional failure to disclose material information required under Singapore Exchange (SGX) listing rules in March 2011 and in an offer information document for 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 integrated water and power 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 Teo, 70; Gay, 70; Murugasu, 67; and Lee, 70; 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 and Hyflux’s external legal counsel on the share-issuance document were some of the prosecution witnesses that had taken 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 project.
He was fined S$90,000 and barred from becoming a director in any company; he also cannot take part in the management of any company for five years.
Hyflux, founded in 1989 by Lum, was known for its water-treatment and desalination technologies.
The company suspended trading in its stock in May 2018, and was placed under judicial management in November 2020.
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter. Delivered to your inbox. Free.
Copyright SPH Media. All rights reserved.
TRENDING NOW
GIC, Temasek deny allegations of pressuring MSCI to downgrade Indonesia
OCBC to add ringgit to Singapore-based savings accounts from Oct 23
Can South-east Asia’s energy transition survive a transactional world?
Cat A premium rises to S$132,004 in first tender after COE review announced; Cat B climbs to S$131,901
