-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
The best legal drama in 2026
- Thread starter Dongyi
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
"SINGAPORE: The defamation trial against Bloomberg and one of its reporters, brought by Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, opened in the High Court on Tuesday (Apr 7) morning.
After a brief opening by both sides, the defence counsel for Bloomberg and its reporter, Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan, launched into an intense cross-examination of Mr Shanmugam, who was the first to take the stand.
The questioning had Mr Shanmugam's lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, interjecting multiple times regarding the relevance of his questions, and the presiding judge had to step in several times to redirect proceedings."
KNN, why report one half ? What were the questions asked ?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,421
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
"Bloomberg is represented by lawyers from RCLT Law led by Mr Remy Choo, while Mr Wong Thai Yong from his eponymous firm represents Mr Low. They are joined by Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan and Senior Counsel Chelva Retnam Rajah, who are acting as instructed counsel.
Separately, the two ministers had also sued Mr Terry Xu, the chief editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen, for defamation.
They won the case and Mr Xu was ordered to pay them S$210,000 (US$163,200) each for defaming them in an article about GCBs, which had cited Bloomberg's news article as a reference."
I recall noting at the outset that Bloomberg’s legal team seemed somewhat lightweight. They’ve now added two heavyweight lawyers, which should make the contest more evenly matched.
I like Chelva Rajah, SC.
Separately, the two ministers had also sued Mr Terry Xu, the chief editor of socio-political website The Online Citizen, for defamation.
They won the case and Mr Xu was ordered to pay them S$210,000 (US$163,200) each for defaming them in an article about GCBs, which had cited Bloomberg's news article as a reference."
I recall noting at the outset that Bloomberg’s legal team seemed somewhat lightweight. They’ve now added two heavyweight lawyers, which should make the contest more evenly matched.
I like Chelva Rajah, SC.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 93,918
- Points
- 113
Take bloomberg to court is a waste of time win or lose.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,421
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
Oh yeah ! Bloomberg is AMDK company.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 93,918
- Points
- 113
Foreigners cannot do court cases in sinkie unless admitted to local bsr i think. They can merely advise.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,421
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
Straits Times captured the questions asked:
“In other words, their position appears to be that any paragraph that does not expressly mention (the claimants) must be taken to have nothing to do with them,” the ministers’ lawyers said.
That is neither the law nor how readers understand things, they added.
“The court will consider what the offending words would convey to the reader viewed in the context of the publication as a whole.”
Mr Shanmugam said he disagreed that the private transaction of his property was newsworthy.
Mr Shanmugam said that the internal e-mails show quite clearly that Bloomberg was looking for an excuse to publish the article.
In court, Bloomberg’s lawyer, Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, questioned Mr Shanmugam about a discussion between the minister and his press secretary, Ms Ng Siew Hua.
Ms Ng was updating Mr Shanmugam about a conversation she had with a Bloomberg journalist who said information about the sale of his house was part of a broader story about how the rich were trying to minimise scrutiny of property transactions.
“I told her I was sceptical about their reasons. I didn’t believe they were not targeting me. I believe that they had an agenda,” said Mr Shanmugam in court.
“They were just trying to find a way of getting the sale published.”
Mr Shanmugam said the events that transpired “confirm that they were lying”.
He added: “I cannot prevent Bloomberg from publishing it but I didn’t believe the reasons.”
Further questioned on what he meant by an agenda, Mr Shanmugam referred to internal e-mails exchanged between Bloomberg staff.
The e-mails were given to the ministers as part of a pre-trial process known as discovery where parties are obliged to exchange evidence.
One journalist said she heard from a source that “our favourite minister” recently sold his GCB at Queen Astrid Park “probably for an eye-watering sum”.
She also said a story about Mr Shanmugam selling his GCB would “strike a nerve”.
Mr Shanmugam said Bloomberg recognised the difficulty with reporting the sale, which would be “dated” because it took place the year before. He said the aim of the article was to get the sale out in public by wrapping a broader story around it.
In another e-mail, a Bloomberg journalist described Mr Shanmugam as “Singapore’s most powerful minister” who had said off the record that he did not know who the buyer of his property was.
The journalist added that the minister was “someone who should lead by example, as the police, immigration and the courts – all report to him”.
Mr Shanmugam said there was a suggestion that he was lying when he said he did not know who bought the property.
He had earlier testified that because the property was bought by a trust, neither he nor his lawyers knew who the ultimate beneficial owner was.
On the contents of the e-mail, he said that while some lay people think that as he was minister for law then, the courts reported to him, he did not expect journalists to believe that.
“It’s venomous and full of nastiness,” he added.
Mr Shanmugam said Bloomberg was hoping that he would give a comment for the story. “They were laying a trap and I refused to walk into it. I refused to answer.”
In the ministers’ written opening statement, Mr Shanmugam’s lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers said the article’s title and first sentence make it plain to the reader that it was “an expose on how and why the ultra-rich in Singapore have been increasingly transacting GCBs in a non-transparent manner”.
Noting that the article expressly names Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan, their lawyers took issue with the defendants’ contention that save for the paragraphs that expressly mention the two ministers, they deny that the ministers were referred to in the rest of the article.
Ms Ng was updating Mr Shanmugam about a conversation she had with a Bloomberg journalist who said information about the sale of his house was part of a broader story about how the rich were trying to minimise scrutiny of property transactions.
“I told her I was sceptical about their reasons. I didn’t believe they were not targeting me. I believe that they had an agenda,” said Mr Shanmugam in court.
“They were just trying to find a way of getting the sale published.”
Mr Shanmugam said the events that transpired “confirm that they were lying”.
He added: “I cannot prevent Bloomberg from publishing it but I didn’t believe the reasons.”
Further questioned on what he meant by an agenda, Mr Shanmugam referred to internal e-mails exchanged between Bloomberg staff.
The e-mails were given to the ministers as part of a pre-trial process known as discovery where parties are obliged to exchange evidence.
One journalist said she heard from a source that “our favourite minister” recently sold his GCB at Queen Astrid Park “probably for an eye-watering sum”.
She also said a story about Mr Shanmugam selling his GCB would “strike a nerve”.
Mr Shanmugam said Bloomberg recognised the difficulty with reporting the sale, which would be “dated” because it took place the year before. He said the aim of the article was to get the sale out in public by wrapping a broader story around it.
In another e-mail, a Bloomberg journalist described Mr Shanmugam as “Singapore’s most powerful minister” who had said off the record that he did not know who the buyer of his property was.
The journalist added that the minister was “someone who should lead by example, as the police, immigration and the courts – all report to him”.
Mr Shanmugam said there was a suggestion that he was lying when he said he did not know who bought the property.
He had earlier testified that because the property was bought by a trust, neither he nor his lawyers knew who the ultimate beneficial owner was.
On the contents of the e-mail, he said that while some lay people think that as he was minister for law then, the courts reported to him, he did not expect journalists to believe that.
“It’s venomous and full of nastiness,” he added.
Mr Shanmugam said Bloomberg was hoping that he would give a comment for the story. “They were laying a trap and I refused to walk into it. I refused to answer.”
In the ministers’ written opening statement, Mr Shanmugam’s lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers said the article’s title and first sentence make it plain to the reader that it was “an expose on how and why the ultra-rich in Singapore have been increasingly transacting GCBs in a non-transparent manner”.
Noting that the article expressly names Mr Shanmugam and Dr Tan, their lawyers took issue with the defendants’ contention that save for the paragraphs that expressly mention the two ministers, they deny that the ministers were referred to in the rest of the article.
“In other words, their position appears to be that any paragraph that does not expressly mention (the claimants) must be taken to have nothing to do with them,” the ministers’ lawyers said.
That is neither the law nor how readers understand things, they added.
“The court will consider what the offending words would convey to the reader viewed in the context of the publication as a whole.”
In court, Mr Sreenivasan had also asked Mr Shanmugam if he would consider transactions involving GCBs to be newsworthy. This was at a time when discussion about new citizens buying such properties was in the public landscape, he said.
Mr Shanmugam said he disagreed that the private transaction of his property was newsworthy.
He said: “In my mind I draw a distinction between matters of public interest, which would relate to issues of policy which responsible newspapers would be concerned about, and matters that the public would be interested in... and the sale of my property would fall in the second (category).”
Mr Shanmugam said that the internal e-mails show quite clearly that Bloomberg was looking for an excuse to publish the article.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
He said the news organisation was trying to “cross the divide” about why it was publishing about a private transaction and, after struggling to find some angle, wrapped it around the article which was “full of holes”.
The minister’s response sparked a heated exchange between Mr Shanmugam and Mr Sreenivasan, when the lawyer referred to Mr Shanmugam’s response as a “speech”.
When the minister took issue, Mr Sreenivasan said he was not there to be cross-examined, to which Mr Shanmugam said he was not there to “be given ad hominem remarks”.
An ad hominem argument (Latin for "to the person") is a logical fallacy where a speaker attacks an opponent's character, motive, or personal traits rather than addressing the substance of their argument. It is a tactic designed to discredit a position by discrediting the person holding it.
The minister’s response sparked a heated exchange between Mr Shanmugam and Mr Sreenivasan, when the lawyer referred to Mr Shanmugam’s response as a “speech”.
When the minister took issue, Mr Sreenivasan said he was not there to be cross-examined, to which Mr Shanmugam said he was not there to “be given ad hominem remarks”.
An ad hominem argument (Latin for "to the person") is a logical fallacy where a speaker attacks an opponent's character, motive, or personal traits rather than addressing the substance of their argument. It is a tactic designed to discredit a position by discrediting the person holding it.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
Early drafts
In a joint opening statement, the defendants said the genesis of the article was Mr Low’s work as a reporter on real estate matters, observing broader market trends in Singapore’s GCB market.
The article did not originate from any intention to report on the ministers or their respective transactions, said the defendants.
The early drafts did not refer to the ministers at all, with their property transactions introduced only later as examples of the practices discussed, said the defendants.
The defendants argued that the meaning of the parts of the article that are alleged to be defamatory should be based not on the ministers’ interpretation or a subjective standard, but on an objective one.
Mr Low is represented by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah.
The trial continues on April 8.
The article did not originate from any intention to report on the ministers or their respective transactions, said the defendants.
The early drafts did not refer to the ministers at all, with their property transactions introduced only later as examples of the practices discussed, said the defendants.
The defendants argued that the meaning of the parts of the article that are alleged to be defamatory should be based not on the ministers’ interpretation or a subjective standard, but on an objective one.
Mr Low is represented by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah.
The trial continues on April 8.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
She pao kopi lah.Heard Kopi Soh is at the hearing today.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,421
- Points
- 113
Mr Low is represented by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah.
SC Rajah spoke today.
SC Rajah spoke today.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
Got full house or not ?Mr Low is represented by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah.
SC Rajah spoke today.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,787
- Points
- 113
Similar threads
