Bloomberg's lawyer challenges Shanmugam to specify falsehoods in article, he says it's 'completely false'
Mr Shanmugam said the article left out details on Singapore’s strict system of checks to counter money laundering in property transactions.
by Lydia Lam · 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: Bloomberg's defence counsel on Thursday (Apr 9) took issue with a correction direction by the government regarding its news article, challenging Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam to point out where the false statements were.
In his cross-examination of Mr Shanmugam, Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan noted that almost none of the false statements pointed out by the government appeared verbatim in what was eventually published.
At one point, Mr Shanmugam said the Bloomberg article was "completely false", noting that the article left out details on Singapore’s strict system of checks to counter money laundering in property transactions.
"It's crazy that this kind of article can be put up," he said. "This article is very carefully crafted to make all the false points as maliciously as possible."
The December 2024 article about Good Class Bungalows (GCBs), which Mr Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng allege was defamatory, was subject to a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order that Bloomberg did not challenge at the time.
Dr Tan also took the stand for the first time on the third day of the defamation trial, in which he repeatedly said he did not know what Bloomberg meant when it referred to his property transaction as "off the radar".
What the trial is about
Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan sued Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei for a defamatory article in December 2024 about Good Class Bungalows (GCBs).
The article mentioned Mr Shanmugam selling his GCB in Astrid Hill for S$88 million to UBS Trustees when he had bought it for S$7.95 million in 2003. It also referenced Dr Tan buying a GCB in Brizay Park for nearly S$27.3 million.
The ministers allege that they were defamed in the article by suggesting that they had taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances and disclosure requirements in carrying out property transactions in a "non-transparent manner".
So far, Mr Shanmugam has testified that he formed the view from a series of internal Bloomberg emails that he was being targeted. The emails show the news reporters wanted to write about his sale early on but needed more information to "wrap around" it.
He claimed the story was presented as an article about a broader trend about GCB transactions but was really meant to justify writing about his property transaction.
Bloomberg's defence lawyer has argued that the minister had been told early on that his transaction would be mentioned in the article, and early "drafts" or iterations of the article did not even mention his name.
DEFENCE TAKES SHANMUGAM THROUGH ARTICLE
Taking Mr Shanmugam through specific paragraphs, Mr Sreenivasan asked the minister to point out where exactly in the article could the "false statements" of fact be found.
The falsehoods, according to a Factually article that accompanied the POFMA order, include statements such as: There are no publicly available government records of GCB sale transactions if caveats are not lodged; that the government is not aware of the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner in such a transaction; and GCB property transactions can be carried out without any checks by the government on the owners' identities.
Mr Sreenivasan went through several paragraphs of Bloomberg's article to show that none of these "falsehoods" were actually written verbatim in the article.
He also sought to find out if Mr Shanmugam had known about the POFMA order before it was issued, and also asked why the minister's letter of demand for his defamation suit to Bloomberg had a similar view to the Factually article.
To this, Mr Shanmugam said he had recused himself from any decision by the government about the POFMA order, and that it was a "very serious allegation" to suggest that the Cabinet would collude with him on a civil action.
On why his letter of demand had a similar view to the Factually article, Mr Shanmugam responded to his lawyer Senior Counsel Davinder Singh that a fair number of people reading the article would have come to that same view.
"When I read it, I immediately said this is defamatory," he said. "I have two tests before I start any action. One, as your honour knows, I know something of this area of the law. And it has to satisfy me that it's not a 50-50 case, or a 60-40 case.
"After that, I will go to my solicitors, and you Mr Singh, you will have to tell me that it's better than a 60-40 case, that it is quite clear. And there have been many occasions you said it is not. So it's got to satisfy both those tests."
On Mr Sreenivasan's point that the article did not contain the false statements verbatim, Mr Singh agreed with this, but said his client's case is that the article "communicated" certain falsehoods.
Among other things, Mr Shanmugam said the article suggested he was involved in a "shady deal" with possibilities of money laundering, using words like "the rich cloaking their purchases in secrecy".
DAMAGES
Bloomberg has not challenged its POFMA order, despite stating that it stood by its reporting. The article remains up, a fact Mr Shanmugam said was grounds for aggravated damages.
On this point, Mr Sreenivasan argued that the article did not actually damage Mr Shanmugam's standing. The article was published before the 2025 General Election in May that year.
After the election, Mr Shanmugam was "promoted" to coordinating minister for national security, and his ward saw an increase in the number of votes for his team, said Mr Sreenivasan.
The lawyer also pointed out that the article attracted more views after Mr Shanmugam made a Facebook post saying the article was defamatory.
After Mr Sreenivasan ended his cross-examination of Mr Shanmugam, Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, who is acting for Mr Low, asked him a few questions briefly.
Mr Shanmugam agreed with Mr Chelva on a few points, that the first two versions of the article did not refer to him, and that one paragraph had made a reference to his property transaction.
However, he "wholly" disagreed with Mr Chelva's suggestion that the article itself did not allege any criminal, illegal or improper conduct on his part in relation to the property sale.
DR TAN TAKES THE STAND
During Dr Tan's testimony in the afternoon, the manpower minister stated from the outset that he was not a lawyer and this was his first time being cross-examined.
Mr Sreenivasan described him as a "very well-known and successful person in the field of medicine and healthcare", telling him he did not need to be modest.
Asked if it was correct to say that it was common knowledge that Dr Tan had reached the "top of the very top" of his career before he entered into politics, Dr Tan paused.
"I cannot say that. If you know our motto, for medicine. From my medical school that I graduated from, we've always been taught - not the pride of knowledge but the humility of wisdom. So I cannot say that," said Dr Tan.
Dr Tan later said he read the Bloomberg article the day it was published, possibly because his press team flagged it to him.
"I was quite disturbed by the article after reading it when it came out," he said. "I read it over and over again because I'm not a lawyer, I just felt that the way the article was drafted, put me in not a very good light."
He said he quickly consulted his lawyer, Mr Singh, and then decided to commence legal proceedings.
He recalled Mr Low sending an email to his press secretary in October 2023, saying he planned to report "a broader story" on the "off the radar" GCB transactions, and said Dr Tan was involved in non-caveated purchase in Brizay Park.
Dr Tan said his press secretary asked him if he wanted to comment.
"I didn't think too much about what is there to comment," he said, adding that the reporter already had all the facts about his purchase including the price, location and date of purchase.
Dr Tan also said he did not understand why the transaction was described as "off the radar" by the Bloomberg reporter, since it would appear in public records eventually. The difference between a caveated and a non-caveated deal was that it took some weeks before it showed up in public records, he said.
When asked by Mr Sreenivasan if it was a "sensitive issue" for locals that Singapore had granted citizenship to wealthy migrants who are paying large sums for private properties - a point raised in the article, Dr Tan said it had to be taken "in context".
Dr Tan said: "Well, I think that when you talk about sensitive issues for locals, it's really too all-encompassing a word ... for instance, if I may refer to myself - I grew up in a HDB setting, I would say, for the first half of my life.
"I really wasn't bothered about wealthy migrants paying large sums for private properties such as GCBs because they were out of my reach to begin with. I was more concerned with getting the next BTO (Build-To-Order) flat."
However, he agreed that the issue of Singapore granting citizenship to wealthy migrants who pay large sums for private properties is a sensitive one for locals.
At one point, lawyers sparred over a line of questioning from Mr Sreenivasan, who said the claimants were "putting sinister twists to innocently published articles".
Mr Singh also tried to object when Mr Sreenivasan asked for the hearing to continue the next day, saying he thought the latter would have come prepared.
"Let's just be reasonable," said Justice Audrey Lim in response. "The same rules apply to you, when you are cross-examining the two witnesses for the defendants."
The trial continues on Friday.
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