Bloomberg defamation case: Singapore ministers' statement

SINGAPORE – The defamation case initiated against Bloomberg is not about the freedom of the press, but whether a news organisation can maliciously target individuals and publish “grave allegations founded on falsehoods”, said Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Tan See Leng on July 17.

This comes after the High Court awarded the two ministers $230,000 each in damages on July 14 after ruling that they had been maliciously defamed by the financial news provider and its journalist.

Posting on their Facebook pages, the ministers said they received several media queries following the judgment, and wanted to address some of the issues raised.

“This case is not about freedom of the press. It is about whether a news organisation can maliciously target individuals, publish grave allegations founded on falsehoods, and deny those accused a fair opportunity to respond. The court held that it cannot,” they said.

Shanmugam and Tan had sued Bloomberg for defamation over an article on transactions involving good class bungalows in Singapore.

The article, 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.

In her judgment, Justice Audrey Lim found that Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei, who wrote the article, knew certain information used was false, or had published without caring whether it was true.

On July 17, Shanmugam, who is Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs, and Tan, who is Minister for Manpower, noted that some commentators, “particularly in the Western media”, had said that defamation suits have a “chilling effect”.

In an article titled Bloomberg Loses Landmark Libel Case In Singapore, The New York Times quoted an academic warning that the verdict might have a chilling effect on speech.

The ministers said in their posts that Singapore’s experience does not bear this out.

“Singapore supports robust journalism and vigorous public debate. But freedom of expression carries responsibilities. It does not extend to publishing false and defamatory allegations without basis. That is the principle reaffirmed by the court in this case,” they added.

Shanmugam and Tan said the High Court’s findings were comprehensive and unequivocal.

They added that the court found Bloomberg had maliciously defamed and deliberately targeted them, and that its claim that the article formed part of a broader story of public interest was merely a “cover” devised to publish allegations about them.

“The court further found that Bloomberg had failed the standards of responsible journalism. The article contained multiple falsehoods, made grave allegations without basis, and denied us a fair opportunity to respond.”

They added: “These findings formed the basis of the court’s decision, including its award of aggravated damages.”

In a July 14 statement responding to the verdict, Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait said the organisation was very disappointed by the ruling, but that “we will of course respect it”.

Micklethwait added: “We argued at trial that our reporting was accurate and served an important public interest, and we continue to believe that the ministers have imposed an extremely strained meaning on what was a solid story.

“Our newsroom – and our reporter – conducted themselves with integrity, and met all our editorial standards in preparing the story at the centre of this trial. We continue to stand by them.”

The ministers noted that while Bloomberg said it respects the High Court’s decision, it has maintained that “its reporting was accurate, its story was solid, its reporters acted with integrity, and all editorial standards were met”.

“These positions are difficult to reconcile. If Bloomberg truly respects the court’s decision, then it should address the Court’s findings, as any responsible organisation should,” they said.

Read Full Article At Source