In a significant development in the Hyflux trial, ex-CEO Olivia Lum and five other senior executives have chosen not to testify in their defence regarding allegations of withholding key information about the Tuaspring desalination project.
- Prosecution ends case on Hyflux's 2011 information omissions
- Olivia Lum and five others will not testify in trial
- Defence to call expert witnesses as trial schedule set
What happened
The Hyflux trial, which began in August 2025, centers on allegations that senior executives failed to disclose important information about the Tuaspring water desalination project. This omission involved details about selling electricity through an associated power plant, which was not clearly communicated to investors.
On October 21, 2026, after the prosecution closed its case, lawyers for Olivia Lum and five co-accused indicated that none of the six defendants would testify. Instead, their defence will focus on presenting expert witness testimony. The trial will continue with defence proceedings scheduled for later dates.
Why it feels good
This stage in the trial marks a moment of clarity and progression, allowing for a focused examination of evidence and expert insights without prolonged personal cross-examinations of the accused. It also demonstrates the legal process’s respect for defendants’ rights to choose their mode of defence responsibly.
Moreover, the case shines a light on corporate transparency and accountability in Singapore’s business sector. It serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication with investors, which supports trust and healthy market practices.
What to enjoy or watch next
The defence will soon present its case, starting with expert witnesses that could provide new perspectives on the complex financial and regulatory issues involved in the Tuaspring project. This phase promises detailed legal arguments and important insights into corporate governance.
Observers and investors alike can follow the upcoming trial dates with interest, as outcomes may influence regulations and corporate conduct in Singapore’s water and power industries. The case offers a deep dive into how large infrastructure projects are managed and reported in public markets.