SINGAPORE, April 20 — Internal emails exchanged by journalists and officials have taken centre stage in a high-stakes defamation trial involving two Singapore Cabinet ministers and Bloomberg, with proceedings in the High Court wrapping up after seven days on April 15.
According to The Straits Times, the correspondence — spanning months before publication of a December 2024 article on luxury property transactions — was scrutinised by both sides as they sought to bolster their arguments in the case brought by Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng.
The ministers are suing over an article that suggested high-end “good class bungalow” (GCB) deals were becoming increasingly opaque. The report referenced the sale of Shanmugam’s former property for S$88 million (RM273.6 million) and Tan’s purchase of a bungalow for nearly S$27.3 million.
At trial, attention focused on internal Bloomberg discussions about how to frame the story. Under cross-examination, Shanmugam pointed to email exchanges as evidence of what he believed was an underlying agenda in pursuing the report.
He read aloud messages in which journalists discussed positioning the transactions within a broader narrative about wealthy buyers using trusts, noting that such an angle could be “quite a politically sensitive story” amid an approaching general election.
Shanmugam also described a request for comment from Bloomberg as a “trap”, arguing that the story might not have been published without his response.
Further exchanges between reporters and editors based outside Singapore were also examined in court, including queries over whether authorities could identify buyers using trusts and how anti-money laundering safeguards applied.
The ministers’ legal team suggested the emails showed gaps in how information was conveyed internally, while also questioning whether the article overstated concerns about regulatory oversight.
Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei, who authored the article, was challenged on whether his reporting focused on secrecy or implied broader risks linked to money laundering. He maintained his position when questioned.
The court also heard about internal correspondence within the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), detailing how officials deliberated over responding to media queries. The agency opted to direct the journalist to publicly available material rather than issue a formal reply, citing privacy concerns and the nature of its data systems.
Lawyers for the ministers argued that some information was not used because it did not fit the narrative of the article — a claim disputed by the defence.
The case has highlighted Singapore’s legal process of “production of documents”, under which parties must disclose materials they rely on, as well as those that may undermine their own case.
Following the close of evidence, the court is scheduled to hear oral submissions on May 22.
