Singapore’s court has mandated that Bloomberg compensate ministers with $356,000 in a defamation lawsuit
A Singapore court has mandated that Bloomberg and one of its reporters compensate two ministers with S$460,000 ($356,000; £266,000) following a defamation lawsuit concerning an article that mentioned their property transactions.
Last year, ministers K Shanmugam and Tan See Leng took legal action against Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei over a 2024 article that referenced their property transactions.
Bloomberg stated that it did not suggest any misconduct and had utilized them as illustrations of a wider trend.
The judge determined that, when considered in its entirety, the piece suggested misconduct by the ministers, as it also referenced secrecy and money laundering.
In a statement released by Bloomberg News, editor-in-chief John Micklethwait expressed that the outlet was “very disappointed by this ruling, but we will of course respect it.”
“We contended during the trial that our reporting was precise and fulfilled a significant public interest, and we maintain that the ministers have placed an excessively strained interpretation on what was a robust story,” he stated.
What information was provided in the article?
The article titled “Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy” examined how certain affluent buyers in Singapore conceal their acquisitions of Good Class Bungalows—a type of multimillion-dollar mansion in Singapore—by employing shell companies that obscure their identities.
It was reported that Shanmugam, the coordinating minister for national security and former law minister, sold a bungalow for S$88m ($68m; £51m) to an unnamed buyer through a trust.
The article also highlighted that Tan, the minister for manpower, had purchased a good-class bungalow for approximately S$27m, presenting him as one instance among a roster of other public figures who had acquired luxury estates via a non-caveated deal, which complicates the tracking of those involved in the transaction.
The article was removed from Bloomberg’s website following the court’s order after the verdict on Tuesday.
What prompted the ministers to file a lawsuit?
The ministers announced their intention to pursue legal action just days after the article’s December 2024 publication.
In April’s trial, the minister and their legal team contended that the reference to the ministers in the article unjustly linked their property transactions to the other issues discussed, which raised concerns about transparency and money laundering.
Shanmugam contended that the Bloomberg article was crafted to focus on him and report on the sale of his property.
Bloomberg and Low contended that the narrative did not suggest any misconduct by the ministers but instead identified them as “newsworthy examples” of bungalow deals.
The ministers had interpreted the piece in the “most defamatory” manner, contrasting with how an ordinary reader would perceive it, according to Bloomberg’s lawyers.
They noted that the article underwent thorough research and verification and that its reporter had reached out to the ministers for comment on several occasions.
In her ruling, High Court judge Audrey Lim stated that the “natural and ordinary meaning” of the article suggests that the ministers “took advantage” of existing regulations to manage their properties in a “non-transparent manner,” and that they did so “to avoid scrutiny that might extend to the possibility of money laundering.”
“These are serious allegations that directly challenge the claimants’ personal integrity, character, and professional reputation,” Lim stated, noting that this was a consideration in the determination of the damages awarded.
In addition to the defamation case, Singaporean authorities mandated that Bloomberg display a “correction notice” on the article, in accordance with the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).
Introduced by the government in 2019 to address misinformation, the anti-fake news law requires correction notices to be attached to online content identified by authorities as false. However, some contend that it is frequently used to target criticisms of the government.
Bloomberg adhered to the POFMA order but included a statement indicating that, although it was obligated to publish the government’s note “under threat of sanction,” it maintained its position on the reporting.
Correction notices under POFMA were issued to news outlets that had either reshared the Bloomberg story or published commentaries regarding it.
Shanmugam and Tan also successfully filed a defamation suit against the editor-in-chief of a local independent outlet. The Online Citizen, regarding a commentary he published about the Bloomberg piece.
Singapore’s leaders have consistently achieved success in taking legal action against critics and foreign news organizations for defamation. They assert that such actions are intended to safeguard their reputations; however, critics argue that they actually suppress political dissent.
In 2009, the Far Eastern Economic Review, an Asian business magazine that is no longer in operation, was ordered by a court to pay over S$400,000 after it was determined that one of its articles had defamed then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, who was Singapore’s first prime minister.
The Economist and the New York Times are among several foreign outlets that have been mandated to pay damages in defamation lawsuits.
