The High Court of Singapore ruled on Tuesday (14 July) that a defamation suit brought by Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law K. Shanmugam and Minister for Manpower Dr Tan See Leng against international financial media Bloomberg and its reporter was successful, awarding each of them S$230,000 in damages.
The defamation case arose from an article published by Bloomberg on 12 December 2024, titled “Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasing Shrouded in Secrecy.” The piece focused on the growing practice of buyers using trusts and shell companies to conceal their identities in transactions involving Good Class Bungalows (GCBs) in Singapore. It mentioned that Mr Shanmugam had sold a bungalow in the Queen Astrid Park area through a trust structure, with a transaction price as high as S$88 million. It also noted that Dr Tan See Leng had purchased a GCB near Brizay Park for approximately S$27 million.
The two ministers filed separate lawsuits against Bloomberg and the article’s author, Low De Wei, on 6 January 2025. The plaintiffs argued that the article, by juxtaposing their legitimate property transactions with discussions of opaque practices such as money laundering, constituted defamation. Mr Shanmugam further alleged that the article deliberately linked him to “shady deals.”
The trial commenced on 7 April 2025 before the High Court and lasted seven days. Both parties made their oral closing submissions on 22 May. Senior counsel representing the two ministers, from the law firm Davinder Singh Chambers, argued that Bloomberg had behaved in an egregious and unreasonable manner during the course of the proceedings.
In her written judgment, Justice Audrey Lim found that the natural and ordinary meaning of the article would lead readers to believe that the two ministers had used an environment lacking checks and disclosure requirements to conduct property transactions in an opaque manner, with the aim of evading scrutiny and possibly involving money laundering. The judge emphasised that accusing someone of deliberately arranging property dealings to avoid potential anti‑money laundering investigations would inevitably lower that person’s reputation in society.
Justice Lim also rejected Bloomberg’s reliance on the “Reynolds defence” — a common‑law privilege often invoked in public‑interest journalism — stating that the defence does not apply under Singapore law. Furthermore, the court found evidence of malice on the part of Bloomberg. In defamation law, malice is defined as “any spite, ill‑will or improper motive.” During the proceedings, disclosed emails showed that the reporter had referred to Mr Shanmugam as a “favourite minister” and described the sale of his bungalow as an “eye‑watering sum,” which Mr Shanmugam contended indicated that he had been specifically targeted.
Ultimately, the court awarded each minister S$170,000 in general damages and S$60,000 in aggravated damages, bringing the total to S$230,000 apiece. Bloomberg was ordered to pay a combined sum of S$460,000.
It is noteworthy that the two ministers had previously won another defamation case against the online news platform The Online Citizen, whose editor, Terry Xu, was fined for republishing Bloomberg’s report and adding his own commentary.
As early as the time of the article’s publication in 2023, both the Singapore Land Authority and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had publicly stated that the ministers’ rental procedures were fully compliant and that no impropriety was found. A few days after the article appeared, the Singapore government issued a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), requiring Bloomberg to publish a correction notice. Although Bloomberg complied with the order, it stated that it did so “under threat of sanction” and maintained its editorial position.
The two ministers have said that they initiated the legal action to correct the public record and to uphold public trust in State institutions. The judgment has once again sparked debate over the boundaries of media scrutiny and the application of defamation laws in Singapore.