Hyflux founder accused of directing edits to play down Tuaspring project risks, court hears

Draft versions of a news release about the Tuaspring project were altered under the guidance of Hyflux founder Olivia Lum and former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng to minimise focus on its energy component, a Singapore court heard on 19 Aug 2025. E-mails forming part of the evidence indicated that both executives gave input that led to the removal of key details regarding electricity sales. The prosecution said this was intended to avoid deterring investors by highlighting business risks at a time when the company was celebrating a landmark win. Hyflux, once a major water treatment firm, eventually collapsed due to weak electricity sales, leaving around 34,000 retail investors of perpetual securities and preference shares with losses totalling S$900 million.

The testimony from former communications head

The testimony came from Winnifred Heap Ah Lan, Hyflux’s former head of corporate communications and investor relations. She was giving evidence on the fourth day of the trial. Heap explained that the first draft of the release, prepared months before the project’s official announcement on 7 March 2011, described Tuaspring as comprising both a desalination plant and a 350MW combined cycle gas turbine power plant. This detail was meant to highlight how excess power would be sold to Singapore’s wholesale electricity market. However, by the third draft circulated on 19 January 2011, references to electricity sales had been removed. Heap testified that she lacked authority to exclude such key points and that changes of this significance must have been directed by Lum and Cho.

“Play down energy” instruction

The prosecution also produced a fourth draft, in which Heap noted that revisions were made “following input from Olivia and Wee Peng”. Her accompanying e-mail described the strategy as being to “play down energy while highlighting our expanded bench strength and core capabilities”. When questioned by Deputy Chief Prosecutor Christopher Ong on who had suggested this approach, Heap said it was “indicated in the e-mail” as coming from Lum and Cho. She stressed that details on electricity sales were critical for analysts and investors, as they directly impacted project viability and revenue projections.

PUB intervention and final version

Despite earlier omissions, the final news release submitted to the Singapore Exchange contained additional sentences about Hyflux constructing a 411MW gas turbine power plant and selling excess electricity to the grid. Heap said these inclusions originated from national water agency PUB, which had vetted the announcement before it was issued publicly. The court also reviewed correspondence between Hyflux executives and journalist Robert Clow in March 2011. Clow’s query suggested that banks financing the Tuaspring project feared that dependence on merchant electricity sales could destabilise cash flow. Heap testified that after Clow’s e-mail was circulated internally, Cho responded by saying discussions with banks were ongoing and confidential. Lum later advised the team to give “no comment”, indicating there should be no substantive reply to the journalist’s concerns. Asked why this response was chosen, Heap said that in her view there was no obligation to respond to a journalist’s enquiry.

Cross-examination by defence

For the final part of the 19 August hearing, Lum’s defence lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, began cross-examining Heap. He repeatedly pressed her on the reliability of her memory concerning events more than 15 years old. Singh emphasised that Heap had often said she could not recall details without e-mail evidence. Heap acknowledged that her recollection was limited and that even written records did not always refresh her memory fully. He also questioned her about former chief financial officer Sam Ong’s departure from Hyflux and whether the board of directors had reviewed the draft announcements. Heap said she could not recall these matters, noting that she was not involved in board-level processes. A significant point of contention during cross-examination involved an e-mail dated 19 January 2011. Heap had previously testified that the phrase “Make the changes” was a typographical error and should have read “Made the changes”. Singh challenged this, noting that she had volunteered the correction even though she was not directly asked about a mistake in the e-mail. He referred to testimony from Commercial Affairs Department investigator Jacqueline Wei Maojun, who had examined the same document. Heap maintained that she had only sought to clarify the error because it appeared incorrect to her. Singh suggested she had come to court prepared to present this point regardless of questioning. Heap denied this, saying she had no intention of volunteering evidence unnecessarily. Investor losses loom large The prosecution has consistently tied the alleged omissions in Hyflux’s communications to broader concerns about transparency with investors. By downplaying energy risks, prosecutors argued, the company presented a more optimistic picture than reality. This narrative helped attract investments in perpetual securities and preference shares. When electricity sales underperformed, Hyflux could not sustain itself financially, leading to its collapse and substantial investor losses. The trial, which is expected to examine extensive e-mail evidence, will continue with further cross-examination and witness testimony in the coming weeks. Lum, Cho and other former senior executives face charges linked to Hyflux’s disclosure practices, with prosecutors alleging that deliberate omissions were part of a wider pattern of misrepresentation.