Singapore High Court Orders Bloomberg to Pay Over $357,000 in Damages

The High Court in Singapore has ordered Bloomberg News and one of its reporters to pay S$460,000 (approximately $357,000) in damages, ruling that an article published by the outlet on the city-state’s luxury real estate market defamed two ministers. In a judgment released on Tuesday, Singapore’s High Court ordered Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei to jointly pay S$230,000 to Minister of Manpower Tan See Leng and K. Shanmugam, the coordinating minister for national security and the minister for home affairs. This comprised S$170,000 in general damages and S$60,000 in aggravated damages. High Court Judge Audrey Lim found the story was written with malice and was conceived to impugn the reputation of both claimants, especially Shanmugam. The two ministers brought the defamation case over a December 2024 article under Low’s byline that examined the market in “Good Class Bungalows,” or GCBs, ultra-premium residences that are often worth tens of millions of dollars. Described by one real estate agent as “the most tightly regulated – and among the most coveted – properties in the country,” GCBs generally have plot sizes of at least 1,400 square meters – a kingly size in land-scarce Singapore – and are located in lush residential areas. The price of such properties typically starts at around S$15 million ($11.6 million). The article alleged that “Singapore’s ultra-rich are increasingly cloaking their purchases of mansions in the city-state in secrecy, to avoid drawing attention to their wealth and social status.” It said that “close to half” of GCB purchases, as measured by value, failed to include legal filings known as property caveats, which make the transactions widely known. It added that “more individuals” were acquiring these properties “using shell companies or trusts that help keep their identities private.” While the article focused mostly on GCB transactions involving recently naturalized Chinese citizens, it also mentioned two property deals involving the two ministers: the sale of Shanmugam’s former home to UBS Trustees for S$88 million ($68.2 million) and Tan’s non-caveated purchase of a GCB for $27.3 million ($21.2 million), both of which took place in 2023. According to The New York Times, which covered the trial, neither minister disputed the accuracy of the reporting on these transactions. However, they argued that the framing of the article – in particular, the use of words like “shrouded,” “secrecy,” and “cloaking” – left readers with an impression of misconduct. In a statement on Facebook yesterday, which recapitulated the arguments that he made during the trial, Shanmugam stated that the article suggested that he and Tan “had engaged in shady property transactions with the possibility of money-laundering.” He added, “The article and its falsehoods have also spun off further lies from others, such as that the proceeds of my sale were paid directly to me entirely in cash to circumvent money laundering checks or that I had received more monies because the buyer used a trust. These are completely untrue.” In a written judgment, High Court Judge Audrey Lim agreed with the ministers, arguing that readers of the article would be left with the impression that they had taken advantage of the absence of checks and balances or disclosure requirements “requirements to conduct their property transactions in a non-transparent manner, and that they did so to hide their transactions and avoid scrutiny that might extend to the possibility of money laundering.” Lim also said that ​Low had been reckless ‌and false in describing the ​opacity of local government records ​for non-caveated GCB transactions. She added that Bloomberg’s decision to removal a paywall from the article after receiving a correction directive issued under Singapore’s Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, was a demonstration of malice. While a Bloomberg editor told the court that the paywall had been removed so that readers could see its correction notice, she ruled that this was done “to make the Article accessible to the broader public.” Throughout the trial, Bloomberg denied malicious intent, arguing that the article was fair, balanced, and in the public interest – a position that was restated by Bloomberg’s Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait after Tuesday’s verdict. “We are very disappointed by this ruling but we will of course respect it,” Micklethwait said in a statement. “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.” In an email to Reuters, he added, “we continue to believe that the ministers have imposed an extremely strained meaning on what was a solid ​story.” In line with the High Court’s judgment, the article was removed from Bloomberg’s website. It has now been replaced with a retraction notice. Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage. Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year. Already have an account? Log in. Sebastian Strangio is Southeast Asia editor at The Diplomat. Get briefed on the story of the week, and developing stories to watch across the Asia-Pacific.