\n<\/p>\n
After a brief re-examination of Bloomberg’s first witness, senior executive editor of Bloomberg News Madeleine Lim, Mr Low was called to the stand. He was briefly taken through his affidavit by his lawyer, Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, who finished within 10 minutes.<\/p>\n
Mr Singh then began his cross-examination of Mr Low.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Over the next few hours, Mr Singh pressed The London School of Economics and Political Science graduate on portions of his article, its choice of words, and the manner in which Mr Low conducted his research.<\/p>\n
In particular, Mr Low was asked on what he meant by the word “secret”, to which he answered that it meant it was secret from the public but not the government.<\/p>\n
In his testimony, Mr Low made a distinction between caveated transaction records that appear on the URA’s Real Estate Information System (REALIS) and non-caveated records that appear in SLA’s INLIS.<\/p>\n
When questioned by Mr Singh on the difference between the two, Mr Low agreed that retrieving records from both systems required payment, except that one must pay “a lot” for INLIS searches.<\/p>\n
To this, Mr Singh said: “So it would appear you are suggesting (that) information in REALIS is not secret, but information (that) would be available in INLIS is secret because you have to pay ‘a lot’, to use your own words, yes?”<\/p>\n
Mr Low responded: “In practice, yes.”<\/p>\n
Following this, Mr Singh then asked Mr Low why he included Dr Tan’s GCB deal in the article, to which the Bloomberg reporter said the transaction was an example of a non-caveated deal.<\/p>\n
Mr Singh suggested to the witness that, by including Dr Tan in an article framed around deals \u201cshrouded in secrecy\u201d, the report conveyed that his transaction was likewise secret.<\/p>\n
Mr Low initially disagreed, saying Dr Tan\u2019s purchase was cited as an example of a non-caveated or \u201coff the radar\u201d deal, rather than one involving secrecy.<\/p>\n
Under further questioning from both Mr Singh and the judge, Mr Low accepted that non-caveated transactions were described in the article as being \u201cshrouded in secrecy\u201d, and agreed that Dr Tan\u2019s deal was included as part of that category.<\/p>\n
At one point in the trial, Mr Singh accused Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei of \u201cdisingenuously\u201d recharacterising a government parliamentary reply to support a narrative of a lack of checks and balances in Singapore\u2019s property market.<\/p>\n
Mr Singh suggested that the journalist had created a false impression that the Singapore government did not know the identities of beneficiaries of trusts, and it was left to property agents and other service providers to perform verifications.<\/p>\n
Taking Mr Low through an Oct 14, 2024 written parliamentary reply from the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), which Mr Low was aware of and had cited in his article, Mr Singh pointed out that foreign individuals and foreign entities that wish to acquire landed residential property in Singapore must seek approval under the Residential Property Act (RPA).<\/p>\n
The law states that Singapore citizens are not required to seek approval under the RPA to acquire landed residential property, and MinLaw stated that SLA tracks all cases where approval is required, such as if the buyer is foreign.<\/p>\n
MinLaw’s reply also included a line that “beyond that, SLA does not collect general data on landed residential property that are acquired through trust companies”. This was paraphrased in Mr Low’s article as saying that SLA “does not collect general data on landed residential properties acquired through trust companies if the beneficiaries are Singapore citizens”.<\/span><\/p>\n Upon questioning, Mr Low said he was uncertain if he or an editor had paraphrased the words.<\/p>\n Mr Singh then turned to how the article drew conclusions from MinLaw’s reply.<\/p>\n He referred to the following paragraph in the published article which stated: “In essence, that means that property agents and other service providers involved in the transactions are primarily responsible for verifying the identities and source of wealth of Singaporean mansion buyers.”<\/p>\n Mr Singh argued that this was a misleading inference, creating the impression that the government did not know the identities of beneficiaries and that responsibility was left to property agents and other service providers instead of the authorities.<\/p>\n Mr Low disagreed, stating that property agents and other service providers were mentioned as “gatekeepers” and that it was based on his understanding from what SLA told him.<\/p>\n At this point, Justice Lim questioned the basis of how Mr Low made the inference, stating that she was not interested in what Mr Low understood, but what he said in the article.\u00a0<\/p>\n “I will read the article like an ordinary person,” she said, noting that the phrase \u201cin essence\u201d would be understood as a conclusion drawn from the preceding paragraph stating that SLA does not collect general data in certain cases. Readers would link the two paragraphs \u2013 that SLA did not collect such data, and that property agents and other intermediaries have the primary responsibility instead.<\/p>\n Mr Low stated again that his use of the word “primarily” did not indicate that property agents and other service providers were the only responsible parties.<\/p>\n Hearing this, Mr Singh asked Mr Low again why he falsely created such an impression that the responsibility was left to private service providers, adding: “I suggest to you, it becomes quite clear that you have written this piece to convey falsehoods.”\u00a0<\/p>\n Mr Low disagreed.<\/p>\n The trial will resume on Tuesday with the continued cross-examination of Mr Low.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n