Singapore’s Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has accused Bloomberg of deceptive conduct, testifying that the news organization misled his press secretary regarding the intent of a report he claims is defamatory. During a high-stakes court hearing on Wednesday, April 8, the minister argued that the publisher’s refusal to remove the article following a government directive constitutes “malicious behavior” that should justify aggravated damages.
The testimony comes as part of a defamation trial brought by Mr. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng against Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei. At the heart of the dispute is a December 2024 article titled “Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy,” which scrutinized high-value property transactions in the city-state. The ministers allege the report falsely suggested they utilized a lack of transparency and disclosure requirements to carry out property deals in a non-transparent manner.
The proceedings have shifted toward a battle over internal communications and editorial intent, with Mr. Shanmugam asserting that Shanmugam alleges Bloomberg lied to press secretary Ms. Ng Siew Hua to mask the article’s true focus. The minister claims that while Bloomberg publicly framed the piece as a broad trend story on real estate, internal evidence suggests the primary goal was to publish details of his personal property sale.
Allegations of Deception and Internal Conflict
Under cross-examination by Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan, Mr. Shanmugam detailed a sequence of events beginning in October 2024. He testified that when his press secretary questioned whether the upcoming article was an indirect way of reporting on his mansion sale, a Bloomberg journalist responded that the piece was “not targeted” at the minister and was instead part of a wider trend analysis.
Mr. Shanmugam characterized these assurances as lies, citing internal Bloomberg emails produced during the trial. He alleged that the news organization’s Singapore-based employees were not only misleading his office but were also not “telling the complete truth” to their own management outside of Singapore. While he stopped short of calling the communication with management a lie, he emphasized a lack of transparency regarding the article’s nature.
The defense countered this narrative by presenting a document from August 2024, which they identified as the first draft of the article. Mr. Narayanan pointed out that this version contained no mention of the minister, challenging the claim that the transaction was the “main thrust” of the story. However, the ministers’ lawyer, Davinder Singh, interjected that the document was not a draft but a summary intended to persuade a superior to approve the story.
The dispute over documentation became a point of contention, with the defense noting that the Bloomberg system recorded 121 different versions or drafts due to the fact that every edit created a new version. Justice Audrey Lim eventually intervened to prevent the court from reviewing every individual draft, urging the parties not to “waste time.”
Disputed Transactions and Regulatory Standards
The article in question highlighted two specific transactions involving the ministers, which the plaintiffs argue were presented in a defamatory light. The report referred to Mr. Shanmugam’s S$88 million (US$69 million) sale of a Good Class Bungalow (GCB) in the Queen Astrid Park area, as well as Dr. Tan’s purchase of a Brizay Park GCB for approximately S$27.3 million.
| Minister | Transaction Type | Estimated Value | Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| K Shanmugam | Sale | S$88 million | Queen Astrid Park |
| Tan See Leng | Purchase | S$27.3 million | Brizay Park |
Beyond the personal transactions, Mr. Shanmugam took issue with Bloomberg’s portrayal of Singapore’s anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks. The article claimed that property agents and service providers were primarily responsible for verifying the identities and wealth of mansion buyers. Mr. Shanmugam testified that this was “completely inaccurate,” stating that the Singapore Land Authority provides material showing “very strict” levels of checks.
The minister argued that the reporter “deliberately downplayed” a system he described as tighter than those in New York, Switzerland, Hong Kong, or Dubai. He further disputed the article’s claim that his property sale had become “political fodder,” dismissing questions raised by opposition figures who do not hold seats in parliament as insufficient to justify such a description.
The POFMA Directive and Claims of Malice
A significant portion of Wednesday’s hearing focused on whether Bloomberg’s actions after publication warrant aggravated damages. Mr. Shanmugam pointed to a directive issued under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which identified falsehoods within the article.
The minister argued that a responsible news organization would have removed the article upon being notified by the government that it contained falsehoods. Instead, Bloomberg kept the content live without applying to the court to set aside the POFMA order—an action Mr. Shanmugam says they were entitled to do for 15 months.
“You have been told that We see false. And despite that, you have chosen to keep it up, and actions speak louder than words,” Mr. Shanmugam testified.
The defense questioned whether disagreeing with the basis of a POFMA order automatically equates to malice. Mr. Shanmugam responded that the failure to challenge the order in court while simultaneously refusing to remove the content demonstrated the publisher’s true intentions and malicious behavior.
Note: This report covers ongoing legal proceedings. The claims made in court are allegations until a final judgment is delivered by the court.
The hearing concluded at lunchtime on Wednesday and is scheduled to resume on Thursday, where further testimony and evidence regarding the editorial process are expected.
Do you have thoughts on the intersection of press freedom and defamation laws in Singapore? Share this article and join the conversation in the comments below.
