Bloomberg GCB defamation trial concludes seven-day hearing; closing submissions set for 22 May 2026

The full TOC report of Day 2 proceedings

Day 3: Prior awareness of the POFMA direction and the letter of demand

Shanmugam confirmed on Day 3 that he had known the POFMA correction direction against Bloomberg’s article would be issued before it was made on 23 December 2024.

When Sreenivasan first put the question, Shanmugam said answering would require him to go into the workings of government and indicated he needed legal advice on Section 125 of the Evidence Act,on or regarding government privilege, and the Attorney General’s advice before responding. Sreenivasan clarified he was not seeking the government’s inner workings but only Shanmugam’s personal state of mind at the relevant time. Shanmugam said yes when Justice Lim then put the question directly to Shanmugam.

The POFMA direction was issued by Edwin Tong, then Second Minister for Law, under Shanmugam’s law ministry. Sreenivasan put to Shanmugam that there was a similarity between the points made in Shanmugam’s letter of demand, dated 19 December 2024, and the five subject statements identified in the government’s Factually article accompanying the POFMA direction four days later. Shanmugam agreed: “There is a similarity in the points being made.”

Shanmugam initially said the contents to “his” letter of demand was not made available to those drafting the POFMA direction. In re-examination by Singh later that day, he qualified this, saying he had kept senior colleagues and cabinet informed, and believed he might have shared the letter or summarised his position to some colleagues. Edwin Tong, who signed the direction, was Second Minister for Law in the ministry Shanmugam was then heading.

Regarding damages, Sreenivasan noted Shanmugam’s Nee Soon GRC team had secured a 73.81 per cent vote share at the May 2025 general election, an 11.91 percentage point swing exceeding the national PAP swing of 4.33 percentage points. Shanmugam confirmed the figures and agreed the article had not damaged his standing with the Prime Minister, who had appointed him Coordinating Minister for National Security following the election.

The full TOC report of Day 3 proceedings

Day 4: Tan See Leng cross-examination concludes; Madeleine Lim cross-examined on paywall

Tan See Leng confirmed on Day 4 that all factual details about his Brizay Park transaction in the article — the price, location, and date — were accurate. He confirmed he had received two pre-publication media queries from Low and had not commented on either occasion.

When asked about his reaction to Bloomberg’s description of his transaction as “off the radar,” he said he did not understand why that phrase had been used given that the reporter already had all the relevant facts — the price, the location, and the year of purchase. Sreenivasan put to Tan See Leng that the phrase had appeared in Low’s October 2024 media query to his press secretary as well as in the published article itself. Tan See Leng agreed. He said the transaction would have appeared in public records eventually and that the difference between a caveated and a non-caveated deal was simply a matter of weeks before it showed up.

The most contested exchange of the day concerned Bloomberg’s decision to remove the article’s paywall on 25 December 2024 following the POFMA correction direction. Madeleine Lim testified that the paywall was removed because a technical constraint on the mobile version prevented the Factually.sg hyperlink from being accessed by non-subscribers, and that removing the paywall across the article was the most expedient solution.

Singh put to Lim that Bloomberg’s own lawyers had advised keeping the paywall up at the time she gave the instruction to remove it, and that the removal was therefore anything but a straightforward compliance measure.

Singh put two further propositions to Lim directly: that the real purpose of removing the paywall had been to enable the public — not just Bloomberg subscribers — to read both the article and Bloomberg’s statement that it disagreed with and reserved the right to challenge the government’s position; and that Bloomberg had wanted to be seen to be standing up to the government of Singapore. 

He put to Lim that in doing so, Bloomberg had aggravated the alleged defamation. Lim disagreed with each characterisation. She said her primary consideration was making the Factually.sg hyperlink accessible as required under the direction, and that removing the paywall was the most practical solution available.

Singh confirmed on the record, in response to a question from Sreenivasan, that the paywall removal argument was formally part of the ministers’ pleaded case on aggravated damages.

The full TOC report of Day 4 proceedings

Day 5: Low cross-examined on article framing and the SLA data paragraphs

Low took the stand on Day 5. Singh examined him at length on the distinction between Realis and INLIS, the use of charged language including “shrouded,” “cloaking,” and “opacity,” and the relationship between consecutive paragraphs in the article describing the SLA’s data collection practices.

Justice Lim intervened to put directly to Low that a reader encountering the phrase “in essence, that means” would draw a connection between the SLA’s data collection limitations and private intermediaries bearing primary responsibility for verifying buyers’ identities. She said she was not interested in what Low had understood the SLA reply to mean but in what the article communicated to its readers.

The full TOC report of Day 5 proceedings

Day 6: Internal editorial emails, paragraph placement, and the William Wong paraphrase

On Day 6, Singh examined Low over internal Bloomberg editorial emails from August to October 2024 in which senior editors raised questions about government access to trust beneficiary identities and anti-money laundering standards. Low acknowledged he had not told senior editor Emily Cadman that money laundering was not the focus of the article, and that the questions raised by editors Lulu Chen and Serena Ng were relevant to the draft.

Singh also produced a comparison between an October 2024 draft and the published article showing that two paragraphs discussing anti-money laundering measures in the United Kingdom and New York had been moved in the final version to appear between the references to Tan See Leng’s and Shanmugam’s transactions. Low acknowledged the paragraphs had moved but said he could not recall whether he or an editor had made the change. He confirmed the final published article was satisfactory to him in terms of what was said, how it was said, and where it was said.

Justice Lim asked Low to produce the correspondence in which market specialist William Wong had provided the specific details attributed to a paraphrase of him in the article. Justice Lim then called on Sreenivasan to assist Low in locating the relevant material. Sreenivasan was also unable to produce it. Low subsequently acknowledged Wong had not provided the specific details about China-born Singapore residents, rental figures, or conviction numbers contained in that passage.

The full TOC report of Day 6 proceedings

Day 7: Story origins, the SLA document, and close of evidence

Singh opened Day 7 by revisiting the article’s origins, pressing Low on the internal email chain from March 2024 in which a Bloomberg colleague described Shanmugam’s GCB sale as a politically sensitive story. Singh also addressed the phrase “political fodder” used in the article, establishing that no source had provided the specific phrase and that it had been inserted by Low or his editor.

Singh further examined Low on the bubble chart purporting to show premiums paid on non-caveated transactions, with Low confirming he had not checked the valuation or asking price of any individual property in the chart.

Singh closed his cross-examination with a submission put directly to Low: “Far from this being an exercise in responsible journalism, this article was the work of a pen dipped in gall.” Low disagreed.

During Sreenivasan’s subsequent re-examination, an internal SLA document was introduced into evidence. The document recorded that when Low had asked the SLA in October 2024 what the reasons were for not requiring the ultimate buyer and transaction value of large properties to be published in a public database, the SLA’s internal position was to decline to mention INLIS to the reporter.

The stated reason was that the SLA does not proactively share the platform with media outlets to minimise the risk of the public extracting identification numbers and ownership details. Low confirmed the SLA had not drawn his attention to INLIS during their engagement. The document was the final substantive piece of evidence before both defendants formally closed their cases at approximately 3.34pm.

In re-examination, when Sreenivasan asked Low directly about Singh’s characterisation of the article, Low told the court he did not know how to express it in English, then cited the Chinese idiom 杯弓蛇影 — describing a person who imagines a threat where none exists, as in the classical image of someone mistaking the reflection of a bow in a cup for a snake. He applied the idiom to Singh’s characterisation of him, saying there was no hidden agenda to see. “I had no intention to mislead and did not do what you are alleging,” Low said.

The full TOC report of Day 7 proceedings

Close of proceedings and next steps

Both defendants’ cases are now formally closed following seven days of oral testimony. Written closing submissions are expected to be filed ahead of an oral hearing fixed for 22 May 2026 before Justice Audrey Lim. 

The proceedings follow a default judgment delivered by Justice Lim on 31 March 2026 against Terry Xu, chief editor of The Online Citizen, over a TOC article reporting on the same GCB transactions based on Bloomberg’s December 2024 report. Xu was ordered to pay each minister S$210,000 in damages. He did not file a defence.

TOC also received a POFMA correction direction on 23 December 2024, issued on the same date as the direction served on Bloomberg, in connection with its coverage of the same GCB transactions. TOC does not agree with that direction.