Bloomberg 'wanted to be seen standing up to the government', ministers allege in GCB defamation trial

The fourth day of the Bloomberg GCB defamation trial on Friday, 10 April 2026, ended with a contested exchange over whether Bloomberg News had used its decision to remove the article's paywall not merely to comply with correction directions, but to publicly challenge the Singapore government's position — and whether that act amounted to an aggravation of the alleged defamation.

Manpower Minister Dr Tan See Leng and Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam brought the suit against Bloomberg L.P. and reporter Dexter Low De Wei over a 12 December 2024 article headlined "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy."

The article covered Good Class Bungalow (GCB) transactions in Singapore, referring to Shanmugam's sale of his Queen Astrid Park GCB for S$88 million and Dr Tan's purchase of a Brizay Park GCB for approximately S$27.3 million. The ministers allege it falsely implied they had exploited a lack of property transaction transparency to conceal their dealings, including in relation to money laundering.

The morning session saw the conclusion of Dr Tan's testimony. In the afternoon, Bloomberg called its first witness —Madeleine Lim, Senior Executive Editor of Bloomberg News  — who was cross-examined at length by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing both ministers.

Tan See Leng: cross-examination continues

When Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan, representing Bloomberg and Low, resumed cross-examination of Dr Tan, he pressed the minister on the sequence of approaches made by Low before the article was published.

Low had emailed Dr Tan's press secretary, Ms Sing Geok Shan, on 25 October 2024, describing his reporting intentions and seeking comment. He wrote again closer to publication. On 10 December 2024 — two days before publication — Low made a telephone call stating he wished to make clear the article was not intended to cast aspersions on the minister. Ms Sing indicated no comment, as she was not aware what Low was referring to.

Sreenivasan put to Dr Tan that Low had been explicit in his media query that Dr Tan's transaction would be described as "off the radar." Dr Tan agreed. He also agreed that the details about his transaction in the article — the price, location, and date — were factually accurate.

Despite these concessions, Dr Tan maintained that he had "no inkling whatsoever" that the media queries were for a story that would, through innuendo, imply criminal behaviour on his part. He described the reporter's approach to his press secretary as "just like checking a box."

Sreenivasan pressed Dr Tan that if Low had been upfront about the "off the radar" framing and had sought comment on multiple occasions, that position was inconsistent with claiming surprise at the article's contents. Dr Tan responded that the phrase "off the radar" alone could not have alerted him to the full scope of what was published.

Using a medical analogy, he said that when treating a skin cancer, a doctor does not look only at the cancer but considers the entire patient — adding that one should not look at a single line "and completely ignore what the entire article is trying to talk about or insinuate." He described the article as having "very clever, selective use of paragraphs, sequencing... it's pernicious, it's subtle."

The chart

Sreenivasan drew Dr Tan's attention to the bubble chart in the article. He put that Dr Tan's transaction appeared as the only red bubble in the lower left quadrant of the chart, and that a reasonable reader would recognise it as Dr Tan's because it was the only red bubble shown.

Dr Tan said he had initially been looking at the yellow bubble. When Sreenivasan put that the red bubble represented the lowest-value transaction in that position on the chart, Dr Tan said the chart did not take into account how prime the location was. Sreenivasan put that if Low had wanted to write about anti-money laundering matters and related issues in full, "the article will be the size of a book" — addressing Dr Tan's complaint that such context was absent from the published piece. Dr Tan said that to "summarily curate" the material in the way the article did was problematic.

Sreenivasan responded that the whole case turned on the meaning of the article and was not for the witness to comment on.

One of several people mentioned

Sreenivasan put that Dr Tan was one of five people mentioned in the article in connection with non-caveated transactions. Dr Tan said he did not know how many people were mentioned but agreed he was one of them.

Sreenivasan also put that none of Dr Tan's previous bungalow transactions had been referenced in the article. Dr Tan said a TOC article had referred to other properties.

The invidious comparison

Sreenivasan put that the article did not accuse Dr Tan of illegal behaviour. Dr Tan disagreed. When pressed to identify specifically what "invidious comparison" he was referring to, Dr Tan said the headline — "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy" — combined with references in the article to a S$3 billion money laundering scandal, the phrase "under the radar," non-caveated deals, and the mention of his purchase together created the impression he was alleging.

Sreenivasan put that "invidious comparison" meant comparing one thing with another, and asked Dr Tan what specifically he was comparing. The judge intervened to ask Dr Tan to clarify what he was referring to by the phrase. Dr Tan responded with a lengthy reply ending with his longstanding respect for Bloomberg and his surprise that such an article had been published.

Sreenivasan then put a series of formal positions to Dr Tan: that the meaning of the article was a matter of interpretation; that the article did not bear the defamatory meaning claimed; and that the article did not accuse Dr Tan of illegal behaviour. Dr Tan disagreed with each.

The expert quote

Sreenivasan took Dr Tan to WhatsApp messages between Low and property expert Alan Cheong of Savills Singapore, whose comments appeared in the published article. Dr Tan alleged Low had suggested the quote to Cheong, rather than eliciting it independently. Sreenivasan put that the more natural reading of the messages was that Low was checking back with his source on what the source had said during a prior phone conversation.

Dr Tan said he could not tell what Sreenivasan was suggesting. He added that "the journalist had very different standards when it comes to asking me" — the query to his press secretary, he said, had been perfunctory by comparison. He expressed disappointment that "a journalist can write in such a manner... working for such a reputable agency, Bloomberg, whom I've always respected all this while."

The Letter of Demand

Sreenivasan asked whether Dr Tan had shared his own Letter of Demand with any cabinet colleagues prior to the POFMA correction direction being issued. Dr Tan said he had not.

A related question — whether Dr Tan was aware of whether Shanmugam had shared his Letter of Demand with Edwin Tong — drew an objection from Singh, who said such a question should be put to Shanmugam if he were recalled. The judge ruled that Sreenivasan should move on.

Before doing so, Sreenivasan sought to put on the record that in the morning cross-examination of Shanmugam on Day 3, Shanmugam had answered "No" to the question of whether the Letter of Demand had been made available to those drafting the POFMA correction direction.

In re-examination later that day by Singh, Shanmugam qualified that answer, saying he had not personally given the letter to those who drafted the direction but had kept senior colleagues and cabinet informed, that he may have shared the letter or summarised his position to colleagues, and that he believed he might have shared a copy with some of them.

Edwin Tong, as Second Minister for Law, was the minister who signed the POFMA correction direction issued on 23 December 2024.

Brief examination by Low's counsel

Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, appearing for Low, briefly took Dr Tan through Low's outreach to the press secretary and the 10 December telephone call. Dr Tan "vaguely recalled" that his press secretary had indicated no comment, as she was not clear what Low was referring to.

On the upfront and surreptitious distinction

Singh then re-examined Dr Tan, drawing his attention to three passages in his own earlier testimony: where he agreed Low had been upfront in describing the transaction as "off the radar"; where he described the article as having "surreptitiously" put his name and transaction into the narrative; and where he said the journalist had "very different standards" when asking him compared with his approach to Alan Cheong.

Singh asked Dr Tan to clarify how those three positions were consistent. Dr Tan explained that when he first read Low's email, it described a "broader story" on "off-the-radar" GCB transactions and asked whether his minister wished to comment "on the above-mentioned details."

He said Low had already obtained all the information about his transaction — the price, location, and year — through his own searches more than a month before the October email to the press secretary. "I really didn't know what was there to comment," Dr Tan said.

He added that had he known the broader story included references to people "trying to hide, trying to cloak, trying to keep it secret" and how that was linked to money laundering and the absence of checks and balances, "I would have sought legal advice immediately."

When Singh asked him to explain why he said Low was upfront and yet described the article as surreptitious, Dr Tan said: "When I read the email, it was quite upfront. I had no inkling whatsoever. When the article came out, I was very disturbed. I read the article a few times and I felt that it was a very clever, selective... use of paragraphs. Sequencing it. If I may use another medical word, it's pernicious. It's subtle, it's destructive, it's malicious."

The Singapore government feedback email

Singh showed Dr Tan an internal Bloomberg email from a staff member identified as Andrea Tan to another Bloomberg staff member. The subject line described it as sharing feedback from the Singapore government regarding the article being developed.

The email recorded several concerns communicated from the Singapore government side. One was that Bloomberg was portraying non-caveated deals as "shady and dodgy when it is within a buyer's right." Another was that the Manpower Minister was being positioned as a "super privileged rich individual." The email also contained a suggestion to add a line to the article establishing that Dr Tan had been chief executive of a listed healthcare group, in order to show that he was wealthy before entering politics.

Singh asked Dr Tan whether, at the time of publication, he had been aware that Singapore government representatives had communicated to Bloomberg that the story would portray non-caveated deals as shady and dodgy. Dr Tan said he had not. He said he only became aware of this when the document emerged in discovery for the trial.

Singh drew Dr Tan's attention to the suggestion in the email about adding a line to establish his background as a listed company chief executive. He noted that Sreenivasan had put to Dr Tan in cross-examination that it was well-known he was a man of significant success before entering politics, and asked what Dr Tan made of Bloomberg's own internal suggestion that such a line needed to be added to the article.

Dr Tan said: "I think they are really trying very hard to pull it through their story and trying to make sure that I don't feel that I'm being targeted. In actual fact, I was."

Singh asked Dr Tan to confirm his position on whether he was publicly known as wealthy before entering politics. Dr Tan said he disagreed that he was widely known as such, maintaining the position he had given earlier under cross-examination.

Low's assurance in his affidavit

Singh read to Dr Tan from Low's affidavit, which states that in the 10 December 2024 telephone call, Low wished to reach out to Dr Tan again to ensure he had the opportunity to comment, and that Low made clear the article was not intended to be a story on Dr Tan's purchase or to cast aspersions on him or more broadly any politician.

Singh asked Dr Tan: knowing what you now know, what do you say about that? Dr Tan said: "I think that's a complete falsehood."

Dr Tan was released from the stand.

Document selection and disclosure

After a short adjournment, Bloomberg called Madeleine Lim, its senior executive editor, as its first witness. She confirmed the contents of her affidavits before being cross-examined by Singh for the remainder of the day.

Singh put to Lim that Low's affidavit had relied on internal emails and drafts to support Bloomberg's claim that he acted responsibly and without malice, and that if Low was putting his state of mind in issue by reference to selected documents, a complete picture required all such documents to be produced.

Following an intervention by the judge, Lim testified that the decision on which documents to produce was a legal matter decided by Bloomberg's lawyers and legal team, who "looked at the whole complex of information" and "selected the... documents that they thought would be helpful to the court case."

When Singh asked her to name who "we" referred to, she named Bloomberg's Singapore and New York external counsel and in-house legal teams, as well as Low himself.

The claimants had applied for, and obtained by court order, a broader production of documents. Lim confirmed that when she had signed her own affidavit opposing that application, she had probably not reviewed every document being sought, though she had reviewed the general list.

One withheld email related to a Bloomberg reporter's source meeting. The email recorded off-the-record notes from a meeting with UBS concerning Shanmugam's sale of his property, noting that word in the market was that Shanmugam had sold his mansion to the wife of a Chinese businessman, referred to in court as "Mr X."

Lim said the email had not been disclosed due to source confidentiality concerns. She explained that the reporter had attended a source meeting and that disclosing the email would implicate that source interaction. She said she took a conservative view on source confidentiality matters.

Singh pressed her on who the source was. Lim acknowledged there was no individual source named in the email — it mentioned a company and a conversation. She then added a second reason: the email was not relevant to the story Low ultimately wrote, as it concerned matters outside the scope of the published article.

Singh put that Bloomberg's own lawyers had not maintained a source confidentiality claim over this document when producing documents under the court order — meaning the document had been produced without that protection being asserted. Lim said she had not known that because this was not a document she had reviewed.

After the lunch break, Singh returned to the same point. He put to Lim that the source confidentiality concern could have been addressed by redacting the relevant portion, leaving the remainder disclosable. Lim said the email was in any event not particularly material to the case, and that she would have taken legal advice on that question.

Singh put to Lim that the source confidentiality reason was "contrived" to justify withholding the emails, adding that it had been "trumped up" given that Bloomberg's own lawyers had not asserted that protection when the documents were eventually produced under court order.

Lim disagreed with that characterisation. Sreenivasan objected to Singh's language. The judge indicated Singh should move on.

The "why now" emails

Singh drew Lim's attention to an internal Bloomberg email chain from September 2024, in which a staff member asked a colleague: "What's the why now on reason for writing this more than a year after the deal? Is there something compelling that we can say or a forward spin?"

The reply from the colleague identified three features she considered compelling: the size of the transaction at S$88 million; that the seller was "Singapore's most powerful minister"; and that the minister had said he did not know the buyer's identity while being someone who should "lead by example" given that the police, immigration, and the courts reported to him.

Singh put that the email showed Bloomberg was internally looking for a reason to write about something that had taken place over a year earlier. He put that the third feature reflected an internal view that Shanmugam's account of not knowing the buyer was not accepted.

Lim disagreed with Singh's characterisation. She said such exchanges were normal newsroom practice in which story ideas and tips were tossed around and various people weighed in, with some pushing for a story and others urging caution.

She explained that in Bloomberg terminology, "forward spin" means looking to the future to see if a story idea has "validity to a future trend." She said she could not speculate on what the writer of the third feature meant, noting the email was not one she had written or been copied into.

She emphasised that Low did not feature in that exchange at all, and that the story ultimately published was a trend piece on the GCB market rather than a story about Shanmugam's individual sale.

Singh noted neither colleague identified in the emails was being called as a witness.

The naming and shaming email

Singh referred to an email from Bloomberg editor Stephanie Phang, asking colleagues whether the team was "OK with the tone" and whether there was a "bias against rich Chinese." The email asked whether the article should be put to lawyers to check whether it was "OK naming and shaming the rich people in the story if their purchases were not previously known."

Lim said she did not know why Phang had framed it in that way, and described it as part of Bloomberg's "rigorous enforcing of our editorial standards." When Singh pressed on whether the email was material to the defamation case, Lim said she could not judge that.

Singh drew a contrast: earlier, Lim had said with certainty that withheld emails relating to source confidentiality were not material — but was now uncertain about the materiality of the Phang email. Lim accepted the contrast but did not change her characterisation.

On whether Bloomberg had shamed the ministers, Lim said they had been "named" but not "shamed." She said: "We write about wealthy people. That is what we do. We wanted to be fair and accurate. Shaming is not what we do."

Paywall removal: compliance or confrontation?

The most contested line of examination concerned Bloomberg's decision to remove the article's paywall on 25 December 2024.

On 23 December 2024, Bloomberg received a POFMA correction direction. Bloomberg's lawyers advised, as of that Monday, to keep the paywall up. An addendum — in which Bloomberg stated it respectfully disagreed with the correction direction and reserved its right to challenge it — was drafted within approximately six hours and posted on the article that evening.

Bloomberg editor Lulu Chen flagged a concern shortly after the addendum was posted that on the mobile version of the article page, the paywall was cutting off the addendum after the first line, leaving the hyperlink to the government's fact-checking website Factually.sg inaccessible to non-subscribers. She asked whether the paywall cutoff position could be adjusted so the full statement would be readable.

The POFMA Office wrote later that night confirming that Bloomberg had fulfilled the requirements relating to the insertion of the correction notice on the article page itself. The outstanding non-compliance it noted was a separate matter — the requirement to post the correction notice prominently at the top of Bloomberg's main website landing page. The POFMA Office invited Bloomberg to submit a formal variation request specifying the technical constraint and the length of time needed.

On Christmas Eve, Bloomberg wrote back asking for time to check with its technical team in New York. The POFMA Office replied, again inviting a formal variation request. Singh put that no such request was made.

On the morning of Christmas Day, Lim sent an email instructing that the story be made publicly accessible. Her email read that Bloomberg would "like people to be able to read it and judge for themselves." Following initial resistance from Bloomberg's lawyers, senior management in New York signed off. The paywall was removed that morning.

Singh put it to Lim that the real reason for removing the paywall was not POFMA compliance but a decision to enable the public — not just Bloomberg subscribers — to read both the article and Bloomberg's statement that it disagreed with, and reserved the right to challenge, the government's position. He put to her: "You wanted to be seen to be standing up to the government of Singapore." He further put that "In doing that, Bloomberg aggravated the libel."

Lim disagreed with each characterisation. She said her primary consideration was making the Factually.sg hyperlink accessible as required, and that removing the paywall was "the straightforward solution" — the more expedient and compliant path. She testified that when the Singapore team had inquired about the time needed for a redesign, the New York team was "not able to give an answer in hours and minutes" and indicated that a redesign for a single instance was not an option they would have considered. Singh put to her that at the time she gave that instruction, Bloomberg's own lawyers had advised keeping the paywall up — meaning the removal was anything but straightforward internally. Lim said the legal position had evolved following discussions with senior management in New York.

The judge intervened to clarify the mechanism: with the paywall in place on the mobile version, the hyperlink to Factually.sg could not be accessed by anyone who was not a Bloomberg subscriber. Lim confirmed this was correct.

Singh put that Bloomberg had chosen not to pursue the alternative of redesigning the paywall for this specific instance, even after the POFMA Office had twice invited it to make a variation request for more time. Lim said she had not followed up because the straightforward solution was already in place.

Singh put that as of the date of the hearing — approximately sixteen to seventeen months after the paywall was removed — it remained down. Lim confirmed the website had not been redesigned in that period.

Defence counsel puts ministers' paywall argument on the pleading record

After a series of questions from Singh, Sreenivasan intervened. He observed that Singh had been "suggesting" to Lim that Bloomberg was challenging the Singapore government.

He said that if Singh was "putting" this — as opposed to merely suggesting — then it must constitute the claimants' case.

He asked the court to confirm whether this was in fact the claimants' pleaded position. Singh confirmed it was a "put" and therefore the claimants' case.

The exchange established, on the record, that the aggravated libel argument arising from the paywall removal is advanced as a formal part of the ministers' pleaded case.

The Addendum

Singh also examined Lim on the circumstances under which the addendum was prepared. Lim said the drafting had taken place within a six-hour window on the night of 23 December, involving herself, Bloomberg's senior management in New York, and in-house legal teams. She confirmed she had not spoken to Low about the article, or about the correction direction, at any stage.

Singh put that the addendum — in which Bloomberg publicly stated its disagreement and reserved the right to challenge the direction — had therefore been issued without Lim having reviewed the relevant underlying facts. Lim disagreed. She said she had read the published article and that "what matters is the published article."

When pressed further on whether the article had been intended to suggest wrongdoing on the part of those named, Lim said: "There was no implication or indication that we were looking to suggest any kind of wrongdoing on behalf of anybody mentioned in the article. It was about rich people and what they were transacting… and how."

The trial resumed on Monday (13 April), with Sreenivasan to re-examine Lim with Low taking the stand following that.