In the ongoing fallout from the collapse of Yang Kee Logistics, much attention has been placed on Ken Koh, its former CEO, for going public with serious allegations—set out in a statutory declaration—against United Overseas Bank (UOB).
Some members of the public have questioned why Koh chose to speak to the media instead of suing the bank in court.
But a closer look at the facts reveals that this is not a case of personal vendetta or evading legal action.
Rather, it highlights the limitations of civil law in addressing alleged wrongdoing that affects a company, and the sluggish response of regulators in addressing serious misconduct.
Legal standing: Ken Koh is not the one who suffered the loss
The central issue is legal standing. The dealings with UOB—loans, securities, negotiations, and account disclosures—were between UOB and Yang Kee Logistics Pte Ltd (YKL), not Ken Koh personally.
Under Singapore law, YKL is a separate legal entity from Ken Koh. Any financial losses, asset seizures, or breaches of contractual obligations that affected YKL cannot be claimed as personal losses by Koh.
Courts have consistently upheld the principle of corporate personality: unless Koh himself was a party to the agreements or suffered direct personal harm, he has no legal basis to sue for company-related issues.
So even if UOB’s actions caused YKL to lose assets or suffer reputational damage, only the company—or its appointed receiver—can take legal action. Ken Koh cannot do so in his personal capacity.
Civil courts are not the right venue for criminal conduct
Some of the most serious allegations Koh has raised involve criminal conduct—not civil breaches. These include:
- Violation of the Banking Secrecy Act, if UOB disclosed confidential account information to third parties.
- Coercion or criminal intimidation, if threats or pressure were applied to force unwanted agreements.
These are criminal offences governed by Singapore’s Penal Code and the Banking Act. Civil courts do not try criminal matters or award damages for crimes. Such issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the police, or the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
In short, you cannot sue someone in civil court for a crime like criminal intimidation or breach of banking secrecy. You report it—and wait for the authorities to investigate.
Ken Koh did report the matter to MAS
Contrary to public belief, Ken Koh did not bypass legal channels. He submitted a formal complaint to the Monetary Authority of Singapore, the regulator that oversees banks and financial institutions.
However, Koh has since revealed that MAS has only acknowledged his complaint and said they were “looking into the matter”—with no substantive update five weeks later.
Given the gravity of the allegations and the national interest in how one of Singapore’s major banks handled confidential corporate information, going public was not a replacement for legal action—it was a way to pressure accountability in the face of regulatory silence.
The company is under receivership—Koh cannot act on its behalf
YKL and its subsidiaries are under receivership due to defaults triggered by bondholders and secured lenders. Once a company enters receivership:
- Control of its assets and legal rights shifts to the receiver, not the directors or founders.
- Ken Koh cannot unilaterally commence legal action in the company’s name—even if he believes wrongdoing occurred.
Therefore, even if YKL has a legitimate civil claim against UOB for financial losses or misconduct, only the receiver—not Ken Koh—can initiate that lawsuit.
Only a Committee of Inquiry could compel the full truth
Another overlooked consideration is the likely reluctance of key witnesses to speak openly if a legal case were brought to court.
In matters involving high-level banking operations and potential misconduct, many individuals with relevant knowledge may choose to remain silent—especially if they fear professional, legal, or reputational consequences.
A civil lawsuit lacks the legal mechanisms to compel full and candid testimony from third parties, particularly if those parties are not directly named in the case or are outside the immediate scope of the litigation.
By contrast, a Committee of Inquiry (COI), if convened, has the authority to summon witnesses, require them to testify under oath, and offer legal protections that encourage truthful disclosures.
Such proceedings are often the only effective way to ensure that all parties are compelled to tell the truth—and the full truth—on the record.
In the absence of such a mechanism, critical facts may never emerge, and accountability may remain elusive.
This further underscores why public disclosure was not simply an alternative route, but a necessary one to demand transparency and encourage a more robust investigative response.
Seeking justice for affected employees and protecting public interest
Beyond personal or corporate concerns, Ken Koh’s decision to go public also reflects a deeper sense of responsibility toward those impacted by the fallout—particularly the over 300 staff who lost their livelihoods when Yang Kee Logistics collapsed.
These employees, many of whom had years of service with the company, suffered sudden job losses, financial hardship, and career disruption through no fault of their own.
In a message shared publicly following the company’s collapse, Koh expressed deep remorse to the staff, acknowledging the pain and disruption they had experienced.
He apologised for the outcome and said that he owed them the truth about what had transpired behind the scenes.
By raising questions about how one of Singapore’s largest banks managed the financial affairs of a major logistics firm, Koh is also seeking to prevent similar failures in future.
The call for transparency and accountability is, therefore, not just retrospective—it is also forward-looking.
It is about ensuring that banks are held to higher standards, that regulators act decisively when serious misconduct is alleged, and that companies and their employees are not left defenceless in the face of institutional power.
This aspect of public interest adds weight to Koh’s decision to go public. It was not only about airing grievances, but about advocating for a system where such incidents are properly investigated and lessons are acted upon.
Public exposure was a last resort, not a substitute for legal action
The public criticism that Ken Koh “should have just sued UOB” reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how corporate and criminal law operates in Singapore.
Koh has no legal standing to sue UOB personally for company-related losses, and civil litigation is not the appropriate avenue to address alleged criminal offences such as breach of banking secrecy or criminal intimidation. Pursuing a lawsuit could, in fact, complicate matters by limiting public disclosure and shielding key information behind procedural constraints.
Instead, Koh followed the formal route—filing a complaint with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and raising the matter to the relevant ministers.
But when no meaningful response emerged, going public became not a last resort, but the most rational and transparent path forward—one that would bring critical attention to how a major financial institution handled the collapse of a local logistics firm and its hundreds of affected employees.
Koh’s decision to go public was not about legal positioning. It was a deliberate move to seek accountability, transparency, and systemic reform.
The post Why Ken Koh cannot personally sue UOB — And why he took his story public instead appeared first on The Online Citizen.
