SINGAPORE: The lawyer for Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng on Wednesday (Apr 15) scrutinised how a Bloomberg reporter put together an article on property transactions, arguing that its skewed use of data, language and framing were designed to "stick the knife” into the two ministers.
Cross-examining journalist Low De Wei on the seventh day of a defamation trial, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh sought to show that the article was misleading in its use of a chart depicting Good Class Bungalow (GCB) deals, as well as editorial choices and words like "political fodder" used to describe Mr Shanmugam's property sale.
All these, Mr Singh argued, allowed Mr Low to write a "fictional piece full of falsehoods" to target his clients.
"Far from this being an exercise in responsible journalism, this article was written by a pen dipped in gall," Mr Singh put to Mr Low after questioning him over the course of three days.
Mr Low rejected all of Mr Singh's allegations, maintaining that his piece was factual.
Mr Singh finished his questions before the lunch break, and Bloomberg's lawyer, Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan then re-examined the journalist, submitting new evidence of how the authorities decided to respond to Mr Low's questions about GCB transactions.
The article in dispute, titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy" and published on Dec 12, 2024, is the subject of a defamation trial brought by Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan against Bloomberg and Mr Low.
Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan sued Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei for an allegedly defamatory article in December 2024 about Good Class Bungalows (GCBs).
The article mentioned Mr Shanmugam selling his GCB in Astrid Hill for S$88 million to UBS Trustees when he had bought it for S$7.95 million in 2003. It also referenced Dr Tan buying a GCB in Brizay Park for nearly S$27.3 million.
The ministers alleged that the article had defamed them by suggesting that they had taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances and disclosure requirements in carrying out property transactions in a "non-transparent manner".
So far, Mr Shanmugam has testified that he formed the view from a series of internal Bloomberg emails that he was being targeted. The emails show the news reporters wanted to write about his sale early on but needed more information to "wrap around" it.
He claimed the story was presented as an article about a broader trend in GCB transactions but was really meant to justify writing about his property transaction.
Bloomberg's defence lawyer has argued that the minister had been told early on that his transaction would be mentioned in the article, and early "drafts" or iterations of the article did not even mention his name.
The Bloomberg article said that more people are buying mansions using trusts to keep their identities private, and that buyers pay a premium for transactions "under the radar".
Mr Shanmugam said this was "utter nonsense" and that a caveat being filed or not does not affect the price agreed on between the buyer and seller.
The article had also stated that non-caveated deals are "harder to track" because they do not show up in an Urban Redevelopment Authority database. But Mr Shanmugam contended that while a non-caveated deal does not appear in the URA database, it can be found in an SLA database after the deal is completed.
Because transaction records have to be filed with government agencies, not filing a caveat and using a trust for the transaction does not make the transaction a secret one.
Dr Tan testified that he did not understand why his property transaction was described as "off the radar" since it would appear in public records eventually.
The difference between a caveated and a non-caveated deal was that it took some weeks before it showed up in public records, he said.
The defendants produced the senior executive editor of Bloomberg News Madeleine Lim, as well as Mr Low as witnesses.
Under questioning, Mr Low admitted that it was possible for the public to search for property information relating to buyers, sellers and purchase prices through a government-run database, albeit with effort and expense.
Mr Singh also accused the journalist of an editorial "agenda" to link two ministers' property deals to money laundering, but Mr Low maintained his article was not about money laundering.
Collapse Expand
A key focus of the hearing was an interactive infographic in the published article under the header "The price of quiet mansion deals: Buyers typically pay premiums for off-radar transactions in Singapore".
The chart showed a scatter plot of various GCB deals of various sizes and per square foot prices, categorised either as caveated or non-caveated purchases.
Mr Singh argued that the chart lacked a proper basis for comparison and said it did not account for variables such as property location, design, frontage, nor did it consider actual property valuations.
Mr Low accepted that he had not checked valuations or asking prices for the properties.
The court also heard that the chart was based on data from realtor List Sotheby's International Realty records.
Mr Singh pointed the court to an exchange between Mr Low and a source from List Sotheby, who had said that there was no difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing, which also depended on various factors.
He said Mr Low disregarded the answer and presented a false picture.
"You created a notion, a fiction of there being premiums paid for off-radar transactions," Mr Singh said. Mr Low disagreed.
The court also asked Mr Low who initiated such off-the-radar transactions, with Mr Singh noting that the article claims buyers are willing to "pay a premium" to keep these deals off radar.
Justice Audrey Lim asked what Mr Low meant by "pay a premium", and whether he agreed that it was the buyer, not the seller, who determines whether to put a caveat on the property or not.
Caveats are typically lodged by buyers to protect their interest in a property and prevent it from being sold to someone else, often in transactions where financing such as mortgages or bank loans is involved.
Mr Low agreed that the buyer decides, then stated that the article simply meant that buyers would pay more for non-caveated deals than caveated ones, and not that they would pay more to keep the deal off-radar.
Mr Singh rejected this explanation, arguing that there was "no basis for comparison" between the prices of caveated and non-caveated deals and likening the comparison to "apples and oranges".
Mr Singh then asked Mr Low: "What you were conveying was that a premium was being paid so that the buyer would also have the benefit of the seller keeping mum, and keeping this transaction off radar. Isn't that right?"
Mr Low replied that was "not right", but Mr Singh countered that "no other explanation makes sense".
Noting that he had given Mr Low "countless opportunities" to explain his position, Mr Singh suggested the chart, other paragraphs, and the headline were all "designed to stick the knife" into Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan.
Mr Singh also scrutinised a spreadsheet compiled by Mr Low as part of his research into GCB transactions.
The court heard that Mr Low had extracted property ownership data into this spreadsheet, which Mr Singh said only had a few entries.
Mr Singh suggested this showed a focus on a “small minority” of persons — including the claimants — whose names were identified.
Mr Low disagreed, saying the spreadsheet was a work in progress.
Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan arriving at the High Court on Apr 15, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Lim Li Ting)
Reiterating a line of questioning from the previous day's hearing, Mr Singh challenged the article’s concluding paragraph, also known as a “kicker”.
The article had quoted Mr Alan Cheong, executive director of research at real estate consultancy Savills Singapore, on how "things may go out of control if there are no checks and disclosures", and that it would be "better if all private property deals are subject to mandatory disclosure rules".
Mr Singh noted that Mr Low had been provided with official material by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), including parliamentary statements and speeches outlining Singapore’s anti-money laundering (AML) regime.
This included a statement from then-Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo on AML regulations.
Despite this, the article did not set out those safeguards, instead ending with language suggesting the absence of “checks and balances” and mandatory disclosure rules, Mr Singh said.
Under questioning, Mr Low said he did not consider himself under an obligation to set out the AML system in Singapore in the article, maintaining that his article was not focused on money laundering.
Mr Singh said: "Despite knowing and understanding that there were all these checks and balances and disclosure rules, in your article at the end ... you said there are no checks and balances and no mandatory disclosure rules."
Mr Low disagreed.
Mr Singh then described the ending paragraphs as "knowingly false" which Mr Low had added to "grab" the reader's attention.
Mr Low denied the paragraphs were knowingly false but agreed that a kicker was meant to grab the reader's attention.
Senior Counsel Davinder Singh (centre) arriving at the High Court on Apr 15, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Lim Li Ting)
Both sides also sparred on the use of the phrase “political fodder” in relation to Mr Shanmugam’s property sale.
Asked what he meant by the words, Mr Low said "a political talking point", prompting Mr Singh to ask Mr Low if he was serious.
"Do you not agree with me that political fodder refers to material that can be the subject of a scandal in political context?" Mr Singh asked.
Mr Low agreed but added this depended on the context.
Mr Singh then asked if any source or other person had suggested that Mr Shanmugam's sale had become political fodder. Mr Low initially replied yes, referring to
But asked to identify the source of the specific phrase, Mr Low accepted there was none.
He agreed that the words were inserted in the article, either by himself or by his editor, but added that they referred
Mr Singh appeared to react in disbelief upon hearing this, before moving on.
Mr Singh then turned to internal emails and the development of the story, pointing out that Mr Low had pitched the idea as early as August 2024 — before a September 2024 article by The Online Citizen (TOC) that focused on Mr Shanmugam's GCB sale.
He argued that Mr Low had been looking for a “peg” to report on Mr Shanmugam’s sale and Dr Tan’s purchase.
Emails exchanged between Mr Low and his Bloomberg
At the time, Mr Low replied that a possible way to write the story was to "wrap" it in a broader story about how the rich were using trusts to buy property in Singapore.
Grilling Mr Low on this, Mr Singh accused him of coming up with this idea of "wrapping up a story about Mr Shanmugam's sale".
Mr Low disagreed with the characterisation, arguing that his interest was primarily on the buyer of the property.
He claimed that Mr Singh was conflating two different things, pointing out that he only came up with the story later in 2024 based on trends he saw.
He also dismissed any suggestion of personal motive, saying that he had no incentive.
Mr Low told the court that he didn't "go to bed every night thinking" about Mr Shanmugam or how to "bring him down".
Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei (centre) leaving the High Court on Apr 15, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Lim Li Ting)
After Mr Singh wrapped up his questioning, Mr Sreenivasan sought to have new evidence admitted. This included an email chain showing how the SLA handled Mr Low's questions.
These questions included whether the government tracks data on transactions, whether naturalised citizens had bought GCBs in recent years, and whether the government had access to the identities and flow of funds of people who use trusts or corporate structures to buy GCBs.
While Mr Singh initially objected, he relented after Justice Lim indicated that he would be given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr Low on the same issue.
Exchanges read out in court by Mr Sreenivasan showed that SLA had set out how it would respond to each of Mr Low's questions, including by directing him to the Hansard, providing links to parliamentary responses, or engaging him through a phone call.
Mr Singh objected to the remaining portions relating to the SLA’s Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS) database being read out on the basis that they were irrelevant, but Mr Sreenivasan maintained that they were pertinent.
The judge allowed the portion to be read out.
It showed that SLA was not inclined to mention INLIS to Mr Low, as it typically does not proactively share the platform with media outlets for fear that individuals’ personal details could be abused.
In his cross-examination, Mr Singh countered that despite SLA’s assistance, and despite Mr Low’s own knowledge of the INLIS property database, Mr Low had still produced a "false article full of fiction".
Mr Low disagreed. He said that SLA had emphasised to him
He added that he had sought to reflect that position in his reporting.
Mr Low was released as a witness at the end of the hearing and the trial was
Continue reading...
Cross-examining journalist Low De Wei on the seventh day of a defamation trial, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh sought to show that the article was misleading in its use of a chart depicting Good Class Bungalow (GCB) deals, as well as editorial choices and words like "political fodder" used to describe Mr Shanmugam's property sale.
All these, Mr Singh argued, allowed Mr Low to write a "fictional piece full of falsehoods" to target his clients.
"Far from this being an exercise in responsible journalism, this article was written by a pen dipped in gall," Mr Singh put to Mr Low after questioning him over the course of three days.
Mr Low rejected all of Mr Singh's allegations, maintaining that his piece was factual.
Mr Singh finished his questions before the lunch break, and Bloomberg's lawyer, Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan then re-examined the journalist, submitting new evidence of how the authorities decided to respond to Mr Low's questions about GCB transactions.
The article in dispute, titled "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy" and published on Dec 12, 2024, is the subject of a defamation trial brought by Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan against Bloomberg and Mr Low.
What the trial is about
Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan sued Bloomberg and reporter Low De Wei for an allegedly defamatory article in December 2024 about Good Class Bungalows (GCBs).
The article mentioned Mr Shanmugam selling his GCB in Astrid Hill for S$88 million to UBS Trustees when he had bought it for S$7.95 million in 2003. It also referenced Dr Tan buying a GCB in Brizay Park for nearly S$27.3 million.
The ministers alleged that the article had defamed them by suggesting that they had taken advantage of the lack of checks and balances and disclosure requirements in carrying out property transactions in a "non-transparent manner".
So far, Mr Shanmugam has testified that he formed the view from a series of internal Bloomberg emails that he was being targeted. The emails show the news reporters wanted to write about his sale early on but needed more information to "wrap around" it.
He claimed the story was presented as an article about a broader trend in GCB transactions but was really meant to justify writing about his property transaction.
Bloomberg's defence lawyer has argued that the minister had been told early on that his transaction would be mentioned in the article, and early "drafts" or iterations of the article did not even mention his name.
The Bloomberg article said that more people are buying mansions using trusts to keep their identities private, and that buyers pay a premium for transactions "under the radar".
Mr Shanmugam said this was "utter nonsense" and that a caveat being filed or not does not affect the price agreed on between the buyer and seller.
The article had also stated that non-caveated deals are "harder to track" because they do not show up in an Urban Redevelopment Authority database. But Mr Shanmugam contended that while a non-caveated deal does not appear in the URA database, it can be found in an SLA database after the deal is completed.
Because transaction records have to be filed with government agencies, not filing a caveat and using a trust for the transaction does not make the transaction a secret one.
Dr Tan testified that he did not understand why his property transaction was described as "off the radar" since it would appear in public records eventually.
The difference between a caveated and a non-caveated deal was that it took some weeks before it showed up in public records, he said.
The defendants produced the senior executive editor of Bloomberg News Madeleine Lim, as well as Mr Low as witnesses.
Under questioning, Mr Low admitted that it was possible for the public to search for property information relating to buyers, sellers and purchase prices through a government-run database, albeit with effort and expense.
Mr Singh also accused the journalist of an editorial "agenda" to link two ministers' property deals to money laundering, but Mr Low maintained his article was not about money laundering.
Collapse Expand
CHARTS UNDER SCRUTINY
A key focus of the hearing was an interactive infographic in the published article under the header "The price of quiet mansion deals: Buyers typically pay premiums for off-radar transactions in Singapore".
The chart showed a scatter plot of various GCB deals of various sizes and per square foot prices, categorised either as caveated or non-caveated purchases.
Mr Singh argued that the chart lacked a proper basis for comparison and said it did not account for variables such as property location, design, frontage, nor did it consider actual property valuations.
Mr Low accepted that he had not checked valuations or asking prices for the properties.
The court also heard that the chart was based on data from realtor List Sotheby's International Realty records.
Mr Singh pointed the court to an exchange between Mr Low and a source from List Sotheby, who had said that there was no difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing, which also depended on various factors.
He said Mr Low disregarded the answer and presented a false picture.
"You created a notion, a fiction of there being premiums paid for off-radar transactions," Mr Singh said. Mr Low disagreed.
The court also asked Mr Low who initiated such off-the-radar transactions, with Mr Singh noting that the article claims buyers are willing to "pay a premium" to keep these deals off radar.
Justice Audrey Lim asked what Mr Low meant by "pay a premium", and whether he agreed that it was the buyer, not the seller, who determines whether to put a caveat on the property or not.
Caveats are typically lodged by buyers to protect their interest in a property and prevent it from being sold to someone else, often in transactions where financing such as mortgages or bank loans is involved.
Mr Low agreed that the buyer decides, then stated that the article simply meant that buyers would pay more for non-caveated deals than caveated ones, and not that they would pay more to keep the deal off-radar.
Mr Singh rejected this explanation, arguing that there was "no basis for comparison" between the prices of caveated and non-caveated deals and likening the comparison to "apples and oranges".
Mr Singh then asked Mr Low: "What you were conveying was that a premium was being paid so that the buyer would also have the benefit of the seller keeping mum, and keeping this transaction off radar. Isn't that right?"
Mr Low replied that was "not right", but Mr Singh countered that "no other explanation makes sense".
Noting that he had given Mr Low "countless opportunities" to explain his position, Mr Singh suggested the chart, other paragraphs, and the headline were all "designed to stick the knife" into Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan.
Mr Singh also scrutinised a spreadsheet compiled by Mr Low as part of his research into GCB transactions.
The court heard that Mr Low had extracted property ownership data into this spreadsheet, which Mr Singh said only had a few entries.
Mr Singh suggested this showed a focus on a “small minority” of persons — including the claimants — whose names were identified.
Mr Low disagreed, saying the spreadsheet was a work in progress.
Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan arriving at the High Court on Apr 15, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Lim Li Ting)
ENDING PARAGRAPHS
Reiterating a line of questioning from the previous day's hearing, Mr Singh challenged the article’s concluding paragraph, also known as a “kicker”.
The article had quoted Mr Alan Cheong, executive director of research at real estate consultancy Savills Singapore, on how "things may go out of control if there are no checks and disclosures", and that it would be "better if all private property deals are subject to mandatory disclosure rules".
Mr Singh noted that Mr Low had been provided with official material by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), including parliamentary statements and speeches outlining Singapore’s anti-money laundering (AML) regime.
This included a statement from then-Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo on AML regulations.
Despite this, the article did not set out those safeguards, instead ending with language suggesting the absence of “checks and balances” and mandatory disclosure rules, Mr Singh said.
Under questioning, Mr Low said he did not consider himself under an obligation to set out the AML system in Singapore in the article, maintaining that his article was not focused on money laundering.
Mr Singh said: "Despite knowing and understanding that there were all these checks and balances and disclosure rules, in your article at the end ... you said there are no checks and balances and no mandatory disclosure rules."
Mr Low disagreed.
Mr Singh then described the ending paragraphs as "knowingly false" which Mr Low had added to "grab" the reader's attention.
Mr Low denied the paragraphs were knowingly false but agreed that a kicker was meant to grab the reader's attention.
Senior Counsel Davinder Singh (centre) arriving at the High Court on Apr 15, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Lim Li Ting)
"POLITICAL FODDER"
Both sides also sparred on the use of the phrase “political fodder” in relation to Mr Shanmugam’s property sale.
Asked what he meant by the words, Mr Low said "a political talking point", prompting Mr Singh to ask Mr Low if he was serious.
"Do you not agree with me that political fodder refers to material that can be the subject of a scandal in political context?" Mr Singh asked.
Mr Low agreed but added this depended on the context.
Mr Singh then asked if any source or other person had suggested that Mr Shanmugam's sale had become political fodder. Mr Low initially replied yes, referring to
But asked to identify the source of the specific phrase, Mr Low accepted there was none.
He agreed that the words were inserted in the article, either by himself or by his editor, but added that they referred
Mr Singh appeared to react in disbelief upon hearing this, before moving on.
STORY IDEA PITCH
Mr Singh then turned to internal emails and the development of the story, pointing out that Mr Low had pitched the idea as early as August 2024 — before a September 2024 article by The Online Citizen (TOC) that focused on Mr Shanmugam's GCB sale.
He argued that Mr Low had been looking for a “peg” to report on Mr Shanmugam’s sale and Dr Tan’s purchase.
Emails exchanged between Mr Low and his Bloomberg
At the time, Mr Low replied that a possible way to write the story was to "wrap" it in a broader story about how the rich were using trusts to buy property in Singapore.
Grilling Mr Low on this, Mr Singh accused him of coming up with this idea of "wrapping up a story about Mr Shanmugam's sale".
Mr Low disagreed with the characterisation, arguing that his interest was primarily on the buyer of the property.
He claimed that Mr Singh was conflating two different things, pointing out that he only came up with the story later in 2024 based on trends he saw.
He also dismissed any suggestion of personal motive, saying that he had no incentive.
Mr Low told the court that he didn't "go to bed every night thinking" about Mr Shanmugam or how to "bring him down".
Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei (centre) leaving the High Court on Apr 15, 2026. (Photo: CNA/Lim Li Ting)
NEW EVIDENCE RELATED TO SLA EMAILS
After Mr Singh wrapped up his questioning, Mr Sreenivasan sought to have new evidence admitted. This included an email chain showing how the SLA handled Mr Low's questions.
These questions included whether the government tracks data on transactions, whether naturalised citizens had bought GCBs in recent years, and whether the government had access to the identities and flow of funds of people who use trusts or corporate structures to buy GCBs.
While Mr Singh initially objected, he relented after Justice Lim indicated that he would be given an opportunity to cross-examine Mr Low on the same issue.
Exchanges read out in court by Mr Sreenivasan showed that SLA had set out how it would respond to each of Mr Low's questions, including by directing him to the Hansard, providing links to parliamentary responses, or engaging him through a phone call.
Mr Singh objected to the remaining portions relating to the SLA’s Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS) database being read out on the basis that they were irrelevant, but Mr Sreenivasan maintained that they were pertinent.
The judge allowed the portion to be read out.
It showed that SLA was not inclined to mention INLIS to Mr Low, as it typically does not proactively share the platform with media outlets for fear that individuals’ personal details could be abused.
In his cross-examination, Mr Singh countered that despite SLA’s assistance, and despite Mr Low’s own knowledge of the INLIS property database, Mr Low had still produced a "false article full of fiction".
Mr Low disagreed. He said that SLA had emphasised to him
He added that he had sought to reflect that position in his reporting.
Mr Low was released as a witness at the end of the hearing and the trial was
Continue reading...