Bloomberg’s decision not to appeal against ruling shows it knew article was ‘full of falsehoods’: Shanmugam

SINGAPORE – Bloomberg’s decision not to appeal the High Court’s finding that the financial news provider and its journalist had maliciously defamed Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Tan See Leng revealed its true assessment of its case’s legal merits, Senior Minister Shanmugam said on Aug 29.

In a Facebook post two days after the window for appeal closed on Aug 27, Shanmugam said Bloomberg “has chosen to leave the court’s findings of malice, falsehoods and wrongful conduct unchallenged, on the record”.

The High Court had, on July 14, awarded both ministers $230,000 each in damages after ruling that they had been maliciously defamed by Bloomberg and its journalist.

Justice Audrey Lim found that real estate reporter Low De Wei, who wrote the article headlined “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy”, knew certain information used was false, or had published without caring whether it was true.

“I find there was malice on the defendants’ part,” she said, adding that malice in defamation means “any ill-will, spite or some wrong or improper motive”.

Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall for the article also demonstrated malice and was done to make the article accessible to the broader public, she added.

On July 31, the judge ordered Bloomberg and its journalist to pay a total of $290,000 as legal costs to the two ministers.

Shanmugam said in his Aug 29 post that the High Court had found that Bloomberg had falsely alleged in its article that him and Dr Tan had engaged in shady property transactions, and had published several falsehoods in its article.

The article by Low, published on Dec 12, 2024, mentioned the ministers’ property deals in 2023 – the sale of Shanmugam’s former home in the Queen Astrid Park area to UBS Trustees for $88 million and Tan’s non-caveated purchase of a bungalow in Brizay Park for nearly $27.3 million.

It stated that the ultra-rich in Singapore are increasingly cloaking their purchases of mansions in secrecy, such as by using trusts to keep their identities private.

It also stated that deals made without the filing of caveats are “harder to track” because they do not show up in a database maintained by the Urban Redevelopment Authority.

A caveat is a legal document that a person can lodge with the Singapore Land Authority to prevent others from buying a property.

In her written judgment, Justice Lim noted that the article mentioned money laundering, and cited the high-profile $3 billion money laundering scandal which saw 10 offenders convicted and jailed.

“The reader is therefore left to understand that the scrutiny the buyers wish to avoid is scrutiny for the very activity of money laundering,” she said.

Shanmugam said Bloomberg had responded to the judgment by insisting that its reporting was accurate, that the article was a “solid story”, and that it continued to stand by its journalists.

But its decision not to appeal the High Court judgment showed otherwise, said the Minister for Home Affairs.

Shanmugam noted that Bloomberg had earlier been subjected to a Dec 2024 Pofma order which pointed out various falsehoods in the same article, and that the news provider had not applied to set aside the order even though it had the right to do so.

This again showed that Bloomberg knew that the article was full of falsehoods, he said.

“Some media organisations adopt a superior attitude, believing themselves entitled to maliciously malign public leaders in non-Western societies and purvey falsehoods with impunity,” said the minister.

“They use their money and size to get away with this. They can’t do that in Singapore.”

On the same day, Minister for Manpower Tan See Leng said the passing of the appeal period against the High Court’s decision meant the matter had now come to a close.

“Glad to have been able to clear our positions and uphold the standing and integrity of the public offices we hold,” he said.

“Our focus remains where it has always been – on our commitment and work for Singapore and Singaporeans.”