CDL director Philip Yeo says Sherman Kwek’s statement an ‘attempt to distract’ from issues


Mr Yeo waded into the war of words on Friday, calling on Mr Sherman Kwek to work with the entire board to make money for all shareholders.

“CDL was acquired by Mr Kwek Hong Png, Mr Kwek Leng Joo and Mr Kwek Leng Beng,” he added, referring to Mr Kwek Leng Beng’s late father and brother.

“I know all three of them well. The men of our era all dared to dream. That is how the three of them executed so well to build a multi-billion-dollar Singaporean company that competes on a global scale. The CDL CEO must learn from them. Just pure hard work to serve all shareholders!”

Mr Yeo is a former civil servant whose decades of experience includes serving as executive chairman of the Economic Development Board (EDB) from 1986 to 2001 and as executive co-charmain at EDB from 2001 to 2006. 

SHERMAN’S ALLEGATIONS “MISLEADING”: KWEK LENG BENG

In a separate statement on Friday, Mr Kwek Leng Beng reiterated that his legal action stemmed from serious concerns about his son’s attempt to undermine the governance structure of CDL.

He also hit back at his son’s remarks about a court hearing on Wednesday afternoon. Mr Sherman Kwek had described the court hearing as an attempt to “ambush” the majority directors, giving them only two and a half hours notice. This resulted in the majority directors voluntarily offering undertakings to preserve the status quo until a full hearing could take place.

“The allegations made by Sherman regarding the remarks of the court are misleading,” said Mr Kwek Leng Beng.

“The urgency of our application stemmed from our serious concerns about Sherman and the directors acting with him attempting to undermine and disrupt the governance structure of CDL,” he added.

“The bottom line is that following the court hearing, the two additional independent directors cannot act and the changes to the board committees and the management of the relevant CDL subsidiaries are frozen, pending any further court order.

“It is important to highlight that Sherman and the directors acting with him provided those undertakings only because they were sued.”

Add a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Keep Up to Date with the Most Important News

By pressing the Subscribe button, you confirm that you have read and are agreeing to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
Advertisement
Parlour News
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.