Lawyers for Singapore Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Tan See Leng will present oral submissions in the High Court on May 22, following a trial that centered on whether Bloomberg fabricated a “fiction” of premiums for secretive property deals. The court fixed the date for closing arguments following a hearing in chambers on April 16.
The legal battle stems from a December 12, 2024, article titled “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy.”
The report highlighted the 2023 sale of a Queen Astrid Park bungalow, previously owned by Mr. Shanmugam, to UBS Trustees for $88 million (approximately $65 million). It also cited Dr. Tan’s non-caveated purchase of a Brizay Park bungalow for nearly $27.3 million (approximately $20 million) that same year.
The ministers argue the piece falsely suggested they exploited a lack of transparency or disclosure requirements to conduct their property dealings. They are pursuing general damages for these claims.
The High Court scheduled oral submissions for May 22
The upcoming submissions follow seven days of trial that began on April 7. Four witnesses testified, including the two plaintiffs and Bloomberg witnesses Madeleine Lim, a senior executive editor, and journalist Low De Wei.
Closing submissions will summarize the evidence presented and provide the final arguments for the court to rule in favor of either party.
How the ministers’ team challenged Bloomberg’s data
Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing the ministers, accused Low De Wei of intentionally omitting information to paint a false picture of the Good Class Bungalow (GCB) market. Singh pointed to an email from a real estate analyst who told the reporter there was no pricing difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions.
The analyst explained that GCB pricing depends on variables such as plot size, terrain, and finish quality. Singh argued that Low disregarded this evidence to create a narrative that buyers paid premiums for “off-the-radar” deals.
Singh described the reporting as being written with a “pen dipped in gall,” alleging the article was designed to embarrass and damage the ministers.
The dispute over non-caveated property premiums
A central point of contention was an interactive infographic in the Bloomberg article. The chart used a scatter plot to suggest that non-caveated purchases typically commanded higher prices.
Singh argued the chart lacked a proper basis for comparison because it ignored property location, design, and actual valuations. Low admitted in court that he had not checked the asking prices or valuations for the properties featured in the data.
Justice Audrey Lim questioned Low on the meaning of “pay a premium,” noting that the buyer, not the seller, determines whether to lodge a caveat. Low clarified that the article meant buyers paid more for non-caveated deals, rather than paying more specifically to keep the deal off-radar.
Singh rejected this explanation, likening the comparison to “apples and oranges.” He suggested the wording and the chart were “designed to stick the knife” into the two ministers.
Why the plaintiffs are seeking aggravated damages
The ministers are seeking aggravated damages on the grounds that Bloomberg refused to take the article down. Singh further alleged that the news organization intentionally kept the piece available without a paywall to maximize the damage to the plaintiffs’ reputations.
The defense maintains the article was a result of Low’s reporting on broader real estate market trends. In their joint opening statement, the defendants denied any intention to target the ministers or their specific transactions.
What is the primary legal claim made by the ministers?
The ministers claim the Bloomberg article falsely suggested they took advantage of a lack of checks and balances or disclosure requirements to conduct their property dealings in a non-transparent manner.
What evidence did the ministers’ lawyer use to challenge the reporter?
Davinder Singh produced an email from a real estate analyst stating there was no price difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions, arguing that the reporter ignored this to create a “fiction” of premiums for secretive deals.
Why did the court scrutinize the article’s infographic?
The court examined whether the scatter plot had a proper basis for comparison, as the reporter admitted he had not checked actual property valuations or asking prices before claiming that “off-radar” transactions typically cost more.
