Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and five co-defendants will not take the witness stand in their ongoing criminal trial, which involves charges related to the failure to disclose material information about the Tuaspring integrated water and power project. Instead, the defence plans to call a single expert witness to address issues raised during the proceedings.
The decision follows a ruling on October 21 by Principal District Judge Toh Han Li, who found the prosecution had established a prima facie 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—under the Securities and Futures Act.
Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing Lum, informed the court that the defence would present Christopher Decker as their joint expert witness. Decker is a principal at the London branch of international advisory firm HKA and serves as a research fellow specializing in law, economics, and regulation at Oxford University. His advisory experience includes work for the World Bank, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the UK Financial Conduct Authority, and the UK National Infrastructure Commission, particularly in the water sector.
Singh emphasized that the defence’s expert testimony would balance the prosecution’s expert, Kevin Gin, whose reports and testimony had already been presented. “The State Courts should also have the opportunity to hear the defence’s expert whose reports have been admitted into evidence,” he stated.
Cho’s lawyer, Rajah & Tann partner Thong Chee Kun, noted that his client had undergone “rigorous questioning” during the investigation by the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD). Representatives for all six defendants confirmed that their clients’ statements are included in the court record.
Following the close of the prosecution’s case on September 29, after 54 days of hearings involving 22 witnesses, the defence chose not to submit a “no case to answer” motion, which would argue that the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to proceed. Singh explained that Lum preferred to bypass this step to avoid unnecessary delays and move directly to final submissions on whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial, which began in August 2025, centers on allegations that Hyflux failed to adequately disclose its substantial exposure to risks in the electricity market. The company reportedly turned to retail and institutional investors to finance the Tuaspring project after struggling to secure bank loans. The court heard that DBS Bank suggested Hyflux issue preference shares in 2011 as a fundraising measure.
Hyflux was placed under judicial management in November 2020 and subsequently wound up in 2021. Its collapse, attributed to weak electricity sales, resulted in significant losses for approximately 34,000 investors holding perpetual securities and preference shares, who together invested nearly S$900 million.
The prosecution has filed 11 charges against the six defendants in relation to the company’s financial disclosures and conduct. The trial continues as the defence prepares to present its expert testimony.