Terry Xu ordered to pay over S$154k in costs to Singapore ministers over GCB article dispute

SINGAPORE: High Court Judge Audrey Lim on 11 May 2026 ordered The Online Citizen (TOC) chief editor Terry Xu to pay a total of S$154,462.50 in legal costs and disbursements to ministers K. Shanmugam and Dr Tan See Leng in defamation proceedings linked to reporting on Good Class Bungalow (GCB) property transactions.

The latest order comes on top of the S$420,000 in damages previously awarded to the two ministers in March, bringing the total costs and damages ordered against Xu in the case to S$574,462.50.

The dispute arose from TOC's republication of a Bloomberg article published in December 2024 concerning transparency issues in Singapore's luxury property market and selected GCB transactions involving the ministers.

Xu was found liable for defamation in a default judgment issued in August 2025 after he did not file a defence in the proceedings.

On 31 March 2026, Justice Lim ordered Xu to pay S$210,000 to each minister in damages — comprising S$160,000 in general damages and S$50,000 in aggravated damages.

Shanmugam serves as Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs while Dr Tan is Minister for Manpower in the ruling People’s Action Party government.

Breakdown of the latest costs order

At the hearing on costs for the defamation suit, Justice Lim ordered Xu to pay costs to each minister across multiple stages of the proceedings, including the assessment of damages and related applications.

In total, Xu was ordered to pay S$39,000 in legal costs to each claimant.

He was also directed to pay S$44,398.25 in disbursements to Shanmugam and S$32,064.25 in disbursements to Dr Tan.

The combined amount totalled S$154,462.50.

Xu's public rebuttal

On 25 December 2024, Xu publicly rejected demands from both ministers to remove articles concerning their GCB transactions and issue an apology.

Xu argued at the time that the reporting raised legitimate public-interest questions regarding transparency in Singapore’s luxury property market.

He also maintained that the facts reported were accurate.

Xu further stated that he would not contest any defamation lawsuit in Singapore, arguing that the country’s legal framework was unfavourable to independent journalism and press freedom.

TOC also received a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) on 23 December 2024 in relation to its reporting on the same transactions.

The direction was issued on the same day as a similar order served on Bloomberg.

TOC stated that it did not agree with the correction direction.

Bloomberg GCB defamation trial

The same two ministers separately sued Bloomberg LP and reporter Low De Wei on 6 January 2025 over the underlying Bloomberg article.

According to their statements of claim, the ministers argued that the report falsely implied they had exploited legal loopholes and disclosure gaps to conduct property transactions in a secretive manner.

The article referenced Shanmugam’s use of a trust structure in the sale of a GCB at Queen Astrid Park for S$88 million.

It also referred to Dr Tan’s purchase of a GCB in Brizay Park for S$27.3 million in 2023 without lodging a caveat.

A caveat is a legal notice filed with the Singapore Land Authority to indicate a purchaser’s legal interest in a property transaction.

The ministers alleged that the article suggested they deliberately avoided scrutiny or regulatory oversight, including possible implications relating to money laundering concerns.

In their 49-page statements of claim, the ministers described those implications as “false and baseless”.

They argued that the article was intended to damage both their personal reputations and their standing as Cabinet ministers.

Bloomberg and Low denied the article was defamatory.

Their defence argued that the report addressed broader trends in Singapore’s GCB sector and used the ministers’ transactions as illustrative examples without suggesting wrongdoing.

The defence also stated that the reporting constituted responsible journalism on a matter of public interest.

Unlike Xu, Bloomberg contested the proceedings and filed formal defences.

The seven-day oral hearing in the Bloomberg matter has concluded before Justice Lim, with closing submissions scheduled for 22 May 2026.

On why contesting was not a viable option

Xu has said that contesting the lawsuit was not a realistic option because Singapore civil procedure required him to appear in person before the court for his evidence to be admitted.

According to Xu, appearing physically in Singapore would have exposed him to separate legal risks beyond the civil proceedings.

He said those risks included the possibility of his passport being seized as part of police investigations, potentially preventing him from leaving Singapore.

Xu had relocated to Taiwan prior to the proceedings.

By Xu’s account, the requirement to appear physically before the Singapore court created a structural barrier for defendants operating outside the country’s jurisdiction.

Comparisons with Lee Hsien Yang case

The TOC case has drawn comparisons with an earlier defamation dispute involving Lee Hsien Yang.

Lee paid S$619,335.53 to ministers Shanmugam and Dr Vivian Balakrishnan after a default judgment was entered against him for failing to file a defence in a defamation suit linked to a Facebook post concerning the Ridout Road rental properties.

Unlike Xu, Lee had Singapore-based assets that were vulnerable to enforcement. In his Facebook post announcing the payment, Lee stated that he had paid the sum to protect his family home at 38 Oxley Road, which he described as his significant asset in Singapore.

The threat of seizure of that property left him with little practical choice but to satisfy the judgment. Xu, who relocated to Taiwan prior to the proceedings and holds no assets or business interests in Singapore, faces no equivalent enforcement exposure.

The ministers later announced that the sum paid by Lee would be donated to charity.