SINGAPORE: The United Overseas Bank (UOB) was on Wednesday (Mar 4) awarded damages of S$125,000 (US$97,800) for defamation by Mr Terry Xu Yuan Chen and Miao Yi Infotech, a Taiwan-based company that publishes The Online Citizen (TOC).
UOB had sued Mr Xu, who relocated to Taiwan after being sentenced for criminally defaming Cabinet members in a separate case, over a series of articles and social media posts alleging financial scandal, criminal wrongdoing and coercive conduct towards UOB customers.
An article was published on TOC on Mar 27, 2025 headlined "Ex-CEO accuses UOB of coercion, threats, and S$500M corporate raid", along with three Facebook posts linking to the article.
The article alleged that UOB customers, Yang Kee Logistics (Singapore) and its chief executive officer, Mr Koh Kien Chon, had been "played out by bankers" in what it claimed was potentially Singapore's "largest financial scandal".
The article alleged, among other things, that the company had "damaging transactions" forced upon it, including convertible bonds with "an exorbitant 27 per cent annual interest rate", with terms imposed "under duress" and "threats".
Despite being sent a letter of demand from UOB's solicitors a day after the article was published, TOC published another article headlined: "Yang Kee Logistics: The Question isn't if Yang Kee struggled - it's what UOB did next" and a related Facebook post.
This article, UOB argued, claimed that the bank had caused the downfall of Yang Kee and had sabotaged Yang Kee in conduct that was not in integrity, fairness or trust.
TOC published another two articles on Mar 29, 2025 titled "Ken Koh's Story: Why only TOC published it" and "Why Ken Koh cannot personally sue UOB - And why he took his story public instead".
The article mentioned that TOC had published an "expose" on the "UOB-Yang Kee Logistics dispute" and was the only outlet to run Ken Koh's side of the story.
It questioned why other newsrooms did not investigate the issue including outlets under the publicly funded SPH Media Trust.
"At TOC, we refuse to be part of that silence. We vetted the facts, sought legal advice, and made the editorial call to publish. Because journalism isn't about playing it safe - it's about standing up when others look away," TOC wrote.
The court found that Mr Xu and the publisher of TOC had defamed UOB. The defendants did not file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim.
Assistant Registrar Vikram Rajaram found that the defamatory publications struck at the core attributes essential to a banking institution's reputation and were disseminated widely through online platforms.
Adverse comments from the public on the articles and posts showed that the allegations made damaged UOB's reputation, he added.
However, the court found that UOB had not established that the defendants acted with malice and could not conclude that the defendants knew the allegations were untrue.
"This is because the claimant had not adequately established the falsity of the statements in the words in the first place," the assistant registrar said.
"The claimant's sole factual witness did not substantively engage with any of the specific allegations raised in the article. For example, the claimant did not set out its version of events in relation to its dealings with Yang Kee," he said, adding that UOB had merely asserted without elaboration or supporting documents that the defamatory statements were "false and baseless".
There was also no evidence that UOB engaged "substantively" with the defendants to demonstrate that the allegations were false, the court noted.
On top of the damages of S$125,000, the defendants are to pay costs fixed at S$16,500 plus disbursements of about S$1,500.
Mr Xu is also being sued by ministers K Shanmugam and Dr Tan See Leng over an article about Good Class Bungalows. He has been found liable for defaming them and the quantum of damages has yet to be determined.
CNA has reached out to UOB via its lawyers for a statement.
Continue reading...
UOB had sued Mr Xu, who relocated to Taiwan after being sentenced for criminally defaming Cabinet members in a separate case, over a series of articles and social media posts alleging financial scandal, criminal wrongdoing and coercive conduct towards UOB customers.
An article was published on TOC on Mar 27, 2025 headlined "Ex-CEO accuses UOB of coercion, threats, and S$500M corporate raid", along with three Facebook posts linking to the article.
The article alleged that UOB customers, Yang Kee Logistics (Singapore) and its chief executive officer, Mr Koh Kien Chon, had been "played out by bankers" in what it claimed was potentially Singapore's "largest financial scandal".
The article alleged, among other things, that the company had "damaging transactions" forced upon it, including convertible bonds with "an exorbitant 27 per cent annual interest rate", with terms imposed "under duress" and "threats".
Despite being sent a letter of demand from UOB's solicitors a day after the article was published, TOC published another article headlined: "Yang Kee Logistics: The Question isn't if Yang Kee struggled - it's what UOB did next" and a related Facebook post.
This article, UOB argued, claimed that the bank had caused the downfall of Yang Kee and had sabotaged Yang Kee in conduct that was not in integrity, fairness or trust.
TOC published another two articles on Mar 29, 2025 titled "Ken Koh's Story: Why only TOC published it" and "Why Ken Koh cannot personally sue UOB - And why he took his story public instead".
The article mentioned that TOC had published an "expose" on the "UOB-Yang Kee Logistics dispute" and was the only outlet to run Ken Koh's side of the story.
It questioned why other newsrooms did not investigate the issue including outlets under the publicly funded SPH Media Trust.
"At TOC, we refuse to be part of that silence. We vetted the facts, sought legal advice, and made the editorial call to publish. Because journalism isn't about playing it safe - it's about standing up when others look away," TOC wrote.
The court found that Mr Xu and the publisher of TOC had defamed UOB. The defendants did not file a notice of intention to contest or not contest the claim.
Assistant Registrar Vikram Rajaram found that the defamatory publications struck at the core attributes essential to a banking institution's reputation and were disseminated widely through online platforms.
Adverse comments from the public on the articles and posts showed that the allegations made damaged UOB's reputation, he added.
However, the court found that UOB had not established that the defendants acted with malice and could not conclude that the defendants knew the allegations were untrue.
"This is because the claimant had not adequately established the falsity of the statements in the words in the first place," the assistant registrar said.
"The claimant's sole factual witness did not substantively engage with any of the specific allegations raised in the article. For example, the claimant did not set out its version of events in relation to its dealings with Yang Kee," he said, adding that UOB had merely asserted without elaboration or supporting documents that the defamatory statements were "false and baseless".
There was also no evidence that UOB engaged "substantively" with the defendants to demonstrate that the allegations were false, the court noted.
On top of the damages of S$125,000, the defendants are to pay costs fixed at S$16,500 plus disbursements of about S$1,500.
Mr Xu is also being sued by ministers K Shanmugam and Dr Tan See Leng over an article about Good Class Bungalows. He has been found liable for defaming them and the quantum of damages has yet to be determined.
CNA has reached out to UOB via its lawyers for a statement.
Continue reading...