Former deputy CEO of Hyflux said company not perceived as utilities firm before bid for Tuaspring
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Mr Sam Ong Eng Keang said there was nothing in the company’s business that would point to it being a utilities firm prior to the successful bid.
PHOTO: ST FILE
Follow topic:
SINGAPORE - The former deputy chief executive of Hyflux said investors had perceived the firm as a growth company before it won the bid for the Tuaspring project in 2011, and not a water utilities firm.
Mr Sam Ong Eng Keang, who on Sept 24 was testifying in the ongoing criminal trial involving senior managers at Hyflux, said there was nothing in the company’s business that would point to it being a utilities firm prior to the successful bid.
Hyflux was named the preferred bidder for the integrated power and desalination plant in March 2011. The tender for the project closed in October 2010.
Mr Ong, who is the eighth prosecution witness to take the stand in the criminal trial of Hyflux founder Olivia Lum, former chief financial officer Cho Wee Peng and four independent directors
DCP Ong had asked Mr Ong, who joined Hyflux in 2006 as its chief investment officer and had also served as chief financial officer and deputy CEO, to clarify whether the implications of Hyflux being perceived as a utilities firm were raised in risk management committee meetings before Jan 21, 2011.
The implications were raised in earlier proceedings by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who is representing Lum.
Mr Singh noted that Cho and Hyflux’s then head of corporate communications and investor relations, Ms Winnifred Heap, had urged those present at meetings in May 2010 and Jan 21, 2011, to think about how Hyflux could portray itself as a growth company.
They said if Hyflux was seen as a utilities firm, it could have lower market valuations.
Mr Singh said that those remarks were made when Hyflux had reason to believe in the validity and viability of its own projections of sale of electricity.
Hyflux had intended to subsidise the cost of desalination with profits from power generation.
During the hearing on Sept 24, DCP Ong also asked Mr Ong why Cho was running the Tuaspring project before January 2011 when the accused was then the firm’s chief investment officer.
DCP Ong noted that this was prior to Cho replacing Mr Ong as the company’s chief financial officer.
In response, Mr Ong said it was because of the way Hyflux designed its succession planning.
He added that Cho did not report to him on the Tuaspring bid.
Mr Ong said that he was not part of the task force for that project, adding that Cho instead reported to Lum, who was the project lead.
Ms Michelle Lee, who is representing Cho, separately sought clarity from Mr Ong on his earlier testimony regarding the issue of compliance at the company.
In earlier proceedings, Mr Ong had said that the role played by Ms Peggy Lim, the former head of compliance and secretariat, was not filled after Ms Lim left Hyflux in 2010.
Mr Ong said the compliance role was not replaced, but Ms Lim Poh Fong did take over the secretarial role.
Ms Lee pointed out that it was not the case that the company did not have anyone to oversee compliance.
Mr Ong agreed that this was done by the firm’s legal team, including Ms Lim and Ms Yang Ai Chian, who was legal head.
The hearing continues on Sept 30.
