Shanmugam alleges Bloomberg lied to press secretary, says failure to remove article grounds for aggravated damages

“I don’t see any mention,” said Mr Shanmugam.

“So now, you had told us yesterday repeatedly that the main thrust (of the article) was your transaction, and the rest of the story was a wrap-around. Would you agree that insofar as what you say is the main thrust, it doesn’t exist in the first draft?” asked Mr Sreenivasan.

Upon hearing this, Mr Singh, lawyer to both ministers, interjected and said that the document was not a draft, and was instead a summary of the points Mr Low wanted to use to persuade a superior to give him permission to write the article.

“So this is by no means a draft of the article, it’s just a summary and when he did write a draft, no doubt my learned friend will come to that and show it to the witness,” said Mr Singh.

Mr Sreenivasan said that Mr Low had referred to it in his own affidavit as his first draft but said he was “not going to quibble” and would call it a document, later stating that there were 121 versions or drafts in the Bloomberg system.

This was because any time someone works on the document, it appears as a different version, said the defence counsel.

Mr Singh responded: “I agree that that’s what they have told us about their system. I don’t accept that this is a draft of the article.”

Mr Sreenivasan then took Mr Shanmugam through more versions of the article, and the latter agreed that he was not mentioned in any of these. When he came to the third document, Justice Audrey Lim interjected and asked him not to “waste time”, saying “surely we’re not going to go through like a hundred of these drafts, right?”

Mr Sreenivasan later put it to Mr Shanmugam that when one reads the contents of the various emails and “drafts”, the emails did not show him as being targeted “in any way”.

“I disagree completely,” said the minister in response.

BUNGALOW TRANSACTIONS IN THE MEDIA

Mr Sreenivasan then said that Mr Shanmugam was given the opportunity to respond to the article, and was told that his GCB sale will be mentioned in it.

He produced a September 2024 email where a Bloomberg employee had told Mr Shanmugam’s press secretary that Mr Low was working on a feature story about “off-radar” GCB transactions. The email included a plan to include Mr Shanmugam’s transaction in the story.

Then, Mr Sreenivasan noted Mr Shanmugam’s testimony from the day before in which he wondered why anyone would want to write about his transaction, which was a “completely private” one.

Mr Shanmugam had added at the time that there were some “scurrilous newspapers” that would want to write about it.

Pointing to examples from news outlet The Straits Times, Mr Sreenivasan argued that high-value property transactions, including those involving GCBs, are routinely covered in mainstream media.

Mr Shanmugam replied: “I agree that such private transactions are sometimes reported, but you will have to go and look at the context of each, as to why they were being reported.”

“I don’t recall coming across a report one year after the transaction had taken place. Nor did I come across any of the other things that this article suggests,” he said, referring to the fact that Bloomberg’s report came a year after he sold his GCB.

Moving on, Mr Sreenivasan then took Mr Shanmugam through Bloomberg’s published article, referring to specific paragraphs that did not mention the minister or his co-claimant Dr Tan by name.

At this, Mr Shanmugam said that while Dr Tan was not referred to directly for most of the article, there was “indirect reference” if the article is read as a whole. 

Mr Shanmugam also disagreed with a line in the article that said the sale of his property, originally bought for S$7.95 million in 2003, has become “political fodder”. 

This is referring to a line in the article that said an opposition party leader, Mr Chee Soon Juan, had questioned how the bungalow’s recent valuation was determined and who the new owner was. Mr Sreenivasan noted that internal Bloomberg emails said another political opposition figure – which he did not identify – was also “talking this up”.

Mr Shanmugam disagreed that the sale had become “political fodder”, adding: “To me, two politicians who have no seats in parliament, and who have been, if my recollections serve me right, never won a seat in parliament, raising questions, does not make it political fodder.

AGGRAVATED DAMAGES?

Towards the end of Wednesday’s hearing, Mr Sreenivasan questioned Mr Shanmugam’s assertion that Bloomberg’s failure to take down the article was a basis for aggravated damages.

“You have pleaded, as a matter of malice, that (Bloomberg) was issued with a POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act) (order),” said Mr Sreenivasan. “So how does this amount to malice?”

Mr Shanmugam said this was obvious, adding: “You are being told by the government of Singapore that your article contains various falsehoods, and the Factually article sets out all the falsehoods. 

“Now a responsible news organisation which is told it (has) got all these falsehoods will say – oh, yeah, let’s take it down. Instead of that, despite being told it’s false … (your) client doesn’t apply to court to set aside the POFMA order, which they were entitled to up till today.”

Instead, Bloomberg kept the article up, said Mr Shanmugam.

“I think I’m entitled to say, that shows what their intentions are, and how malicious they are behaving,” said the minister.

Mr Sreenivasan then asked: “So because Bloomberg took the position that they didn’t agree with the basis of the POFMA order, that is evidence of malice?”

“I didn’t say that,” said Mr Shanmugam in reply. “You have been told that it is false. And despite that, you have chosen to keep it up, and actions speak louder than words.”

The minister added: “If Bloomberg believed that they were indeed right in publishing it, they had a right to come to court to set aside the POFMA order. Up to today, 15 months, they have not done so.”

The hearing ended at lunchtime and will resume on Thursday.