Skip to content
Sign in
Politics · Asia Pacific

Lum and five co-defendants forgo acquittal bid as Hyflux trial continues

Olivia Lum and five co-defendants will not ask the court to acquit them without hearing a defence case, so their Hyflux trial will continue. Their lawyers said the six accused will not testify, and plan to call one expert witness.

AI-assisted synthesis · Based on 4 outlets' reporting · Article text read from 2 of 4 outletsHow it's made

View timeline · 10 entries
This story was corrected on Oct 21, 2026 following an editorial review.
4 outletsLatest reporting 3 min read
Coverage: Center OnlyL 0 · C 3 · R 0 · 1 unrated
Updat3 graphic: Asia Pacific
Updat3 graphic · Map data: Natural Earth Natural Earth (public domain)

What happened

Key facts

  • The trial began in August 2025.
  • Olivia Lum and five co-defendants will not make a “no case to answer” submission seeking acquittal.
  • The prosecution completed its case after 54 days of trial and called 22 witnesses.
  • The case concerns an alleged 2011 failure to tell investors key information about the Tuaspring water desalination project, including details about selling electricity.
  • The six accused said they would not testify in their own defence.
  • Their lawyers said they would jointly call an expert witness.
  • Lum’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, said she wants the court to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
  • Lum and four former directors face charges over alleged failures to disclose Tuaspring risks and electricity exposure.

The brief

Olivia Lum and five co-defendants will not seek an acquittal without presenting a defence, allowing the Hyflux criminal trial to continue. The accused also said they would not testify in their own defence; their lawyers plan to call one expert witness jointly. The lawyers made their position known in court on Oct 21.

A “no case to answer” submission would have asked the court to acquit the accused before a defence case. Instead, Lum’s lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, said she wants the court to decide whether the prosecution has established its case against her beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution finished presenting its case after 54 days of trial, with 22 witnesses called.

The charges concern alleged failures by senior Hyflux personnel to give investors information about the Tuaspring water project in 2011. The accusations include alleged omissions about the project’s risks and the company’s electricity exposure; the accused have not been convicted.

The six accused are Lum and five others, including four former directors, according to the reported account of the charges. The trial is therefore moving from the prosecution’s evidence to the defence’s planned presentation, with the defendants choosing not to give testimony themselves and their lawyers intending to rely jointly on expert evidence.

The prosecution’s case also connected Hyflux’s unsuccessful entry into Singapore’s power market with the company’s collapse. According to the prosecution, about 34,000 investors holding perpetual securities and preference shares were affected, with S$900 million owed to them.

Those figures describe the financial consequences alleged by the prosecution; they are not a finding of guilt against the accused. Lum’s lawyer said she believes the prosecution has not and will not prove its charges against her beyond reasonable doubt.

The lawyer for co-defendant Cho said his client did not accept that the prosecution had presented a convincing case, but argued that continuing the trial was the more expedient way to reach a definite outcome. A conference was fixed for Nov 23 to set the next trial dates.

The court’s next scheduling step will determine when the defence begins presenting its case, including the jointly planned expert testimony.

Why it matters

  • The prosecution says about 34,000 investors holding Hyflux perpetual securities and preference shares were affected by the company’s collapse, with S$900 million owed to them.
  • The case concerns alleged omissions about Tuaspring project risks and electricity exposure in information given to investors in 2011.
  • The prosecution’s case took 54 trial days and included 22 witnesses; the accused intend to call one expert witness jointly and will not testify themselves.
  • The prosecution linked Hyflux’s unsuccessful move into Singapore’s power market to the collapse, while the accused contest the strength of the prosecution’s case.

What to watch next

  • Whether the court sets the next trial dates at the conference fixed for Nov 23.
  • When the defence begins presenting its case after the prosecution’s 54 trial days.
  • What evidence the jointly called expert witness gives.

How it's being covered

Coverage analysisShow details
5 source articles · 4 unique outlets
Outlet political mix: Center Only· 3 Center · 1 unrated
Where the outlets are based: Asia 100%
Outlet political mix
Center Only
Left
Center
Right
0 outlets
3 outlets
0 outlets
The marker shows coverage balance: each unique outlet counts once. 1 unrated outlet is not included.
Geography
Where the outlets covering this story are based.
4 unique outletsDominant coverage: Asia
Coverage imbalance
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among Center-rated outlets (3 of 3 rated sources); comparatively few Left or Right-rated outlets have published on the event.
  • Coverage is currently concentrated among outlets based in Asia (4 of 4 geographically-identified sources).
How we measure coverage

How outlets' accounts compare

2 framing differences · 2 uncorroborated claims · 2 information gaps
The reports repeat the same account with different emphasis; its central claims are not independently confirmed in the reporting Updat3 read.Compared across 2 reports whose article text Updat3 read; 2 other outlets were checked by headline only.
Framing / emphasis differences
Sources emphasise different angles, actors or consequences of the same reporting.
  • The Straits Times highlights Lum’s position that the court should decide whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and reports Cho’s lawyer’s view that continuing is more expedient.
  • CNA emphasizes that the six accused will not testify and that their lawyers plan to call one expert witness jointly; it also reports the prosecution’s account of investor losses.
Updat3: These are differences of emphasis, not disputes about what is reported. They do not show that the reported claims are true.
One-sided or uncorroborated claims
Claims that come from one party or one source family and are not independently corroborated.
  • Davinder Singh said Lum wants the court to determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
  • The prosecution said about 34,000 investors were affected and were owed S$900 million.
Updat3: Not independently corroborated yet — treat as a claim, not an established fact.
Not established by the reporting
Information the available reporting does not contain or confirm. This is a gap, not a disagreement.
  • The sources do not report the defence expert’s identity, the substance of the expert evidence, or the next trial dates.
  • Lum’s lawyer and Cho’s lawyer challenge the strength of the prosecution’s case; the sources do not report a verdict.
Updat3: Updat3 cannot conclude anything about this from the current sources.

Timeline

Developments from this story's sources, dated background we compiled and fact-checked, and our earlier coverage. Each row says which.
  1. Olivia Lum founded Hyflux as a water-treatment company.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  2. Hyflux listed on the Singapore Exchange.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  3. Singapore enacted the Securities and Futures Act, which governs securities offerings and disclosure.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  4. AllegedThe case concerns alleged failures by senior Hyflux personnel to disclose information about the Tuaspring project to investors in 2011.
    Reported in this story's sourcesSource:The Straits Times
  5. PUB awarded Hyflux the contract to build the Tuaspring desalination plant.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  6. Tuaspring began supplying desalinated water.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  7. In 2018, Hyflux entered financial distress and sought a restructuring after missing payments to investors.
    Background · from our historical context
  8. Singapore prosecutors charged Olivia Lum and five former Hyflux personnel over alleged disclosure failures concerning Tuaspring.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3
  9. The trial began in August 2025.
    Background · from our historical context
  10. The trial of Olivia Lum and five co-defendants began.
    Background · compiled and fact-checked by Updat3

How we got here

Singapore’s Securities and Futures Act 2001 established rules governing securities offerings and disclosure to investors, including criminal liability for certain false or misleading statements.

Those rules form the legal backdrop to the prosecution’s allegation that Hyflux failed in 2011 to disclose material information about its Tuaspring desalination project, including its exposure to electricity sales; the allegation remains for the court to assess. Tuaspring became central to Hyflux’s finances as the company pursued a large water-and-power project.

Original sources

5 articles from 4 outlets · Asia · Show all

Every story links to the reporting it was built from. How we choose sources

Spotted a factual error, a broken link or a misleading summary? Tell us.