Bloomberg defamation case unprecedented for malice and aggravation: Ministers’ lawyers

Bloomberg defamation case unprecedented for malice and aggravation: Ministers’ lawyers


SINGAPORE – The lawyer for two ministers suing Bloomberg and one of its reporters over an allegedly defamatory article said the case is unprecedented for the malice directed at Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng.

In closing submissions on May 22, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh said that ill-intent was illustrated in e-mails exchanged within the financial news organisation in the lead up to the article, and in its decision to drop its paywall and provide access to the wider public, after it was issued with a correction direction under Singapore’s fake news law.

In summarising the claimant’s case, Mr Singh said it was important to note the context in which Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan are mentioned in the article “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy”, which was written by Mr Low De Wei.

He said an ordinary and reasonable reader in Singapore would have taken these mentions to falsely mean that the ministers took advantage of there being no checks and balances or disclosure requirements for their transactions, and that they wanted to hide their transactions and avoid scrutiny.

“This case is unprecedented for the malice, the determination to hurt and the aggravation,” said Mr Singh.

The article published on Dec 12, 2024 mentions the ministers’ property deals which took place in 2023 – Mr Shanmugam’s sale of his former home in the Queen Astrid Park area to UBS Trustees for $88 million, and Dr Tan’s purchase of a bungalow in Brizay Park for nearly $27.3 million.

It also discussed alleged opacity in high-end property transactions.

Bloomberg’s lawyer Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan said the news organisation has been consistent in its position and had employed the defence of responsible journalism to reflect the care it took in researching for the article.

He said understanding the meaning of the article, as taken by an ordinary and reasonable reader, would require ignoring the “strained meaning” asserted by the claimants as well as their sensitivity.

Mr Sreenivasan and Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah, who is representing Mr Low, said there was nothing defamatory of Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan in the article, which they described as a report on trends relating to the purchase of good class bungalows (GCBs) in Singapore.



Read Full Article At Source