SINGAPORE: Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng appeared in the High Court on Thursday (Feb 26) to seek damages from Mr Terry Xu, chief editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen (TOC), for defaming them in an article about transactions they made involving Good Class Bungalows (GCBs).
Mr Xu, who relocated to Taiwan after being sentenced separately for criminally defaming Cabinet members, did not appear. He also did not send any legal representatives.
Mr Xu was found liable for defamation against the two ministers in a judgment given in August 2025.
The opening statement tendered on Thursday by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who represents both ministers, did not indicate any figure for the damages sought.
The hearing was brief and mostly procedural, with the ministers taking the stand in turn to swear in their affidavits and respond to the judge's clarifications on their political portfolios.
The case was then adjourned for Mr Singh to file closing submissions, which will also have to be served to Mr Xu.
TOC published an article in December 2024 titled "Bloomberg: Nearly half of 2024 GCB transactions lack public record, raising transparency concerns".
This was off the back of a Bloomberg article, titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy", which was published on Dec 12, 2024.
The ministers have also sued Bloomberg and its reporter for defamation, with a trial slated for April.
According to Mr Shanmugam's affidavit, the offending words in the TOC article include paragraphs stating that Singapore's exclusive GCB market, increasingly defined by secrecy and the use of trusts, is at the centre of a growing debate over transparency.
The article cites Bloomberg's reporting that Dr Tan purchased a GCB in Brizay Park in 2023 for S$27.3 million.
It said that this was not Dr Tan's first foray into the GCB market, adding that the Business Times reported that he acquired a GCB along Peirce Road for nearly S$24 million while serving as managing director and CEO of IHH Healthcare.
The offending words in the article also include paragraphs about a transaction by Mr Shanmugam, where he sold a GCB in Queen Astrid Park for S$88 million.
In another offending paragraph, the article claimed that the "intertwining of political figures with opaque real estate practices underscores the need for stronger safeguards".
Mr Xu has purportedly refused to remove the offending article from the website.
Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam leaving the Supreme Court on Feb 26, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Ili Mansor)
In his opening statement on Thursday, Mr Singh stated that the effect of Mr Xu's failure to file a defence is that the facts in the statements of claim are taken to be admitted by him.
He is to pay the ministers' costs, cannot dispute liability and only the amount of damages and costs is to be determined.
Mr Singh said Mr Xu's defamatory allegations against the ministers are of "the gravest kind", since the article falsely alleged that the ministers exploited legal mechanisms for privacy in their property transactions, keeping them secret to avoid scrutiny and acting improperly.
"The higher the claimant's standing, the heavier the damages," said Mr Singh. He said the two ministers are public leaders and "persons of the highest integrity whose standing are beyond question".
"Instead of apologising and/or removing the article, the defendant has waged and continues to wage a public campaign to gain sympathy and support from Singaporeans against the claimants by publicly and falsely accusing them of 'suppressing legitimate journalism' and 'press freedom' through 'legal threats' or 'harassment'," said Mr Singh.
The judge will give her verdict at a later, unspecified date.
Continue reading...
Mr Xu, who relocated to Taiwan after being sentenced separately for criminally defaming Cabinet members, did not appear. He also did not send any legal representatives.
Mr Xu was found liable for defamation against the two ministers in a judgment given in August 2025.
The opening statement tendered on Thursday by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who represents both ministers, did not indicate any figure for the damages sought.
The hearing was brief and mostly procedural, with the ministers taking the stand in turn to swear in their affidavits and respond to the judge's clarifications on their political portfolios.
The case was then adjourned for Mr Singh to file closing submissions, which will also have to be served to Mr Xu.
WHAT HAPPENED
TOC published an article in December 2024 titled "Bloomberg: Nearly half of 2024 GCB transactions lack public record, raising transparency concerns".
This was off the back of a Bloomberg article, titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy", which was published on Dec 12, 2024.
The ministers have also sued Bloomberg and its reporter for defamation, with a trial slated for April.
According to Mr Shanmugam's affidavit, the offending words in the TOC article include paragraphs stating that Singapore's exclusive GCB market, increasingly defined by secrecy and the use of trusts, is at the centre of a growing debate over transparency.
The article cites Bloomberg's reporting that Dr Tan purchased a GCB in Brizay Park in 2023 for S$27.3 million.
It said that this was not Dr Tan's first foray into the GCB market, adding that the Business Times reported that he acquired a GCB along Peirce Road for nearly S$24 million while serving as managing director and CEO of IHH Healthcare.
The offending words in the article also include paragraphs about a transaction by Mr Shanmugam, where he sold a GCB in Queen Astrid Park for S$88 million.
In another offending paragraph, the article claimed that the "intertwining of political figures with opaque real estate practices underscores the need for stronger safeguards".
Mr Xu has purportedly refused to remove the offending article from the website.
Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam leaving the Supreme Court on Feb 26, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Ili Mansor)
OPENING STATEMENT
In his opening statement on Thursday, Mr Singh stated that the effect of Mr Xu's failure to file a defence is that the facts in the statements of claim are taken to be admitted by him.
He is to pay the ministers' costs, cannot dispute liability and only the amount of damages and costs is to be determined.
Mr Singh said Mr Xu's defamatory allegations against the ministers are of "the gravest kind", since the article falsely alleged that the ministers exploited legal mechanisms for privacy in their property transactions, keeping them secret to avoid scrutiny and acting improperly.
"The higher the claimant's standing, the heavier the damages," said Mr Singh. He said the two ministers are public leaders and "persons of the highest integrity whose standing are beyond question".
"Instead of apologising and/or removing the article, the defendant has waged and continues to wage a public campaign to gain sympathy and support from Singaporeans against the claimants by publicly and falsely accusing them of 'suppressing legitimate journalism' and 'press freedom' through 'legal threats' or 'harassment'," said Mr Singh.
The judge will give her verdict at a later, unspecified date.
Continue reading...