Tan See Leng says Bloomberg article ‘pernicious’, subtly implies he acted illegally

SINGAPORE – A box-checking exercise – that was the point of Bloomberg journalist Low De Wei’s media query seeking comment over his 2023 purchase of a $27 million bungalow in Brizay Park, Manpower Minister Tan See Leng said on April 10.

Taking the stand on the fourth day of an ongoing defamation trial against Bloomberg, Dr Tan said he had “no inkling whatsoever” that the media query was for a story that would imply, using innuendo, that he had engaged in criminal behaviour.

“I was very disturbed when the article came out. (There was) very clever, selective use of paragraphs, sequencing... it’s pernicious, it’s subtle,” said Dr Tan, who is also Minister-in-charge of Energy and Science & Technology.

The trial centred on a Dec 12, 2024, article by Mr Low on good class bungalow transactions in Singapore headlined “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy”.

During cross-examination by Bloomberg’s lawyer, Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, Dr Tan agreed that Mr Low had been upfront in his media query, where the reporter said he was going to describe the minister’s property transaction as “off the radar”.

He also agreed with the lawyer that the mention of his property transaction in the article had been factually accurate, but added that it was important to look at the article in its entirety, rather than as a standalone statement.

Using a medical analogy, Dr Tan, a former family physician, said: “If I want to remove a skin cancer, I don’t just look at that skin cancer. I have to understand the entire holistic approach to that patient.”

He added: “I don’t think that people would just look at a one-liner and completely ignore what the entire article was trying to talk about or insinuate.”

Dr Tan also charged that Mr Low had himself suggested a quote that would be attributed to a property expert, and that it was “disappointing” that a journalist working for a reputable agency could write in such a manner.

Mr Sreenivasan countered that there was no evidence that Mr Low had created the expert’s quote. Instead, the more logical explanation was that Mr Low and the expert had a phone conversation, and the reporter then checked back with the expert on the quote afterwards.

Dr Tan replied: “I don’t know, because obviously the journalist had very different standards when asking me (queries). It was just like checking a box.”

The Manpower Minister said he did not respond to Mr Low’s media query as the reporter already had all the information about the transaction from his own searches.

Dr Tan said if he knew the broader story would mention things like “cloaking”, “secrecy”, money laundering, and the lack of checks and balances, he would not have taken the query lightly.

“I would have sought legal advice immediately.”

Bloomberg editor questioned on e-mails initially not disclosed

Bloomberg News senior executive editor Madeleine Lim then took the stand in the late morning, where she was questioned by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who was representing Coordinating Minister for National Security and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam and Dr Tan.

Mr Singh focused his questions on internal e-mails between Bloomberg staff prior to the article’s publication. The e-mails were initially not disclosed by Bloomberg, but were later handed over after the two ministers made an application that the court granted.

The lawyer said Bloomberg and Mr Low had tried to withhold these e-mails even though they were relevant to the case, as disclosing them would be damaging to their defence.

Ms Lim disagreed with Mr Singh’s suggestion, and questioned the relevance of some of the documents to the final article that was published.

Mr Singh referred to e-mails in which a Bloomberg reporter referred to Mr Shanmugam as “Singapore’s most powerful minister” and “someone who should lead by example”. The reporter appeared to not have accepted that Mr Shanmugam did not know who the buyer for his property was, the lawyer noted.

Ms Lim said these e-mails were not initially disclosed as a section of them could implicate a source. Mr Singh countered that the relevant parts could have been redacted, and that source confidentiality was a “trumped-up” reason to justify withholding the e-mails.

Mr Singh also referred to an e-mail where a Bloomberg editor asked if the team was “okay with the tone” of the article.

“Are we looking like we have a bias against rich Chinese, for example?” the e-mail asked. “Wonder if we should run by the lawyers to check if we are okay naming and shaming the rich people in the story, if their purchases were not previously known.”

When asked if this document was relevant to the defamation suit, Ms Lim replied that this was Bloomberg’s “rigorous enforcing of our editing standards”.

Pressed on the issue, Ms Lim said she could not judge whether the e-mail was material to the case or not.

Ms Lim was also questioned on Bloomberg’s decision to lift the paywall for the article, after the media organisation was issued correction directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA).

Ms Lim, who had instructed that the paywall be removed, said this was done to get around technical issues, as the paywall affected the visibility of the correction notice and a link to the Government’s fact-checking website Factually.

Mr Singh pointed to an e-mail where Ms Lim told other Bloomberg staff she had asked for the story to be made publicly accessible as “we would like people to be able to read it and judge for themselves”.

The lawyer suggested that Ms Lim had lifted the paywall so that more people could read the article, together with Bloomberg’s statement that it did not agree with the Government’s position, and reserved the right to challenge it.

Bloomberg also wanted to be seen to be standing up to the Government of Singapore, he added. “I put it to you that... in doing that, Bloomberg aggravated the libel,” said Mr Singh.

Ms Lim disagreed with both statements, and said her main consideration was to comply with the POFMA direction.

The trial continues on April 13.