Bloomberg defamation trial: Verdict reserved after court hears closing submissions
Both sides returned to the High Court on Friday (May 22) to wrap up the seven-day trial.
by Koh Wan Ting · CNA · JoinRead a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: The High Court on Friday (May 22) reserved its verdict in the defamation suit brought by Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng against Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei.
Wrapping up their arguments on Friday, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who represents the two ministers, urged the court to reject the defendants' argument that the article was merely about what was publicly known about Good Class Bungalow (GCB) transactions.
He noted that this was an "absurd" argument as the article had called for stronger checks and balances as well as mandatory disclosure rules, which were not directed at the public.
In their closing submissions, the defendants said the claimants were advancing “the most defamatory meaning conceivable”, while their case was based on a "plain and ordinary" reading of the article.
Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan, who represents Bloomberg, argued that the defence rested on "responsible journalism", with care taken in reporting and no malice involved.
Defending the article's premise, Mr Sreenivasan then noted that it was a fact that Mr Shanmugam, his lawyers and his bankers did not know the identity of the buyers behind the trust that purchased the minister's GCB.
"The proof of the pudding is in the eating," he said.
To this, Mr Singh said that the defence of responsible journalism does not apply in Singapore law, and accused the defendants of trying to suppress evidence during the proceedings.
He then said the case involved “unprecedented” malice and a determination to hurt the claimants, pointing in particular to Bloomberg’s decision to remove the article’s paywall and publicly stand by the story.
The trial stems from an article titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy" written by Mr Low and published on Bloomberg's website on Dec 12, 2024.
The article mentions multi-million dollar GCB transactions involving both Dr Tan and Mr Shanmugam.
Both ministers allege that the article had defamed them by suggesting that they had carried out the property transactions in an opaque manner after taking advantage of a purported lack of checks and balances.
They sued Bloomberg and Mr Low, with the trial spanning seven days in April.
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Singh said his clients were leaving the amount of damages they sought to the court, but were seeking a higher amount than was ordered for their case against chief editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen Terry Xu.
A court on Mar 31 this year had ordered Mr Xu to pay Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan S$420,000 (US$328,000) for defaming them in an article that related to the same issue.
Both ministers were not present in court on Friday.
No date for the judgment was fixed after Justice Audrey Lim heard the closing submissions.
KEY ARGUMENTS FROM THE TRIAL
Earlier during the trial, Mr Singh argued that the Bloomberg article falsely portrayed Singapore’s GCB market — and by implication their transactions — as linked to secrecy, opacity, weak oversight and money laundering concerns.
During the trial, Mr Singh argued that Mr Low and his colleagues had an agenda to target the two Cabinet ministers, and to link their conduct with a concern over money laundering.
Mr Low, in his cross-examination, denied having any agenda or targeting the two ministers and maintained that the article merely made references to money laundering.
Represented by Mr Sreenivasan and senior counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, Mr Low and Bloomberg argued that the article was a legitimate public interest story about transparency trends in Singapore’s GCB market, and did not allege any wrongdoing or money laundering.
A key issue in the trial was whether non-caveated property transactions were secretive, as suggested in Bloomberg’s article.
During cross-examination, Mr Low acknowledged that transaction details such as the buyer, seller, and purchase price could still be obtained through searches on Singapore Land Authority’s (SLA’s) Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS).
However, he said that while the information was available, it remained difficult and costly for members of the public to do such searches.
Mr Singh also pointed to internal Bloomberg emails discussing how Mr Shanmugam's GCB sale could be “wrapped” into a broader story about buyers using trust structures to transact properties.
Mr Low disagreed with the characterisation, arguing that his interest was primarily on the buyer of the property.
The internal emails presented during the trial also showed how Bloomberg editors had raised concerns about whether the article amounted to “naming and shaming” individuals whose transactions were not previously widely known.
Mr Singh argued that Mr Low had deliberately downplayed Singapore’s anti-money laundering safeguards despite being referred to information such as ministerial speeches detailing the country’s anti-money laundering regime.
Mr Low maintained that the article was not focused on money laundering, although he accepted under further questioning that the article did make repeated references to money laundering.
Another line of argument by Mr Singh centred on whether the article falsely implied that the Singapore government did not verify the identities of beneficiaries behind trusts.
The claimants alleged that the article suggested checks were largely left to private sector “service providers”.
Mr Low disagreed, stating that his article did not indicate that the private sector was the only responsible parties.
During Mr Sreenivasan’s questioning of Mr Low, the court also heard evidence from internal SLA correspondence that showed why officers did not include information about INLIS in their reply to Bloomberg’s queries.
This was due to concerns that publicising the platform could lead to abuse of personal information contained in records.
To this, Mr Singh pointed out that Mr Low was already familiar with INLIS by then.
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app