Ministers K Shanmugam, Tan See Leng awarded S$230,000 each for defamation by Bloomberg, reporter

[Charlie99]

Are they claiming the charitable donation on their personal income tax return?
What is the estimated income tax benefit of a $230,000 charitable donation?

 

[jsctan]

Justice Audrey Lim was thinking of her own career when she ruled that Bloomberg real estate reporter Low De Wei guilty of defamation.

Hope she sleeps well at night pawning sinkie and does not get pawn one day.

Are they claiming the charitable donation on their personal income tax return?
What is the estimated income tax benefit of a $230,000 charitable donation?

ie they really did donate not part but all but who knows or can verify? They are clever people but good heart? no one really knows.

 

[True Believer]

 

[True Believer]

Hope she sleeps well at night pawning sinkie and does not get pawn one day.

Justice Audrey Lim is fully aware that the PAP ministers have "home ground" advantage and no judge in SG will dare to rule against them. Judge Lim knows what happened to Michael Khoo who was a senior district judge in JB Jeyaretnam's 1986 trial. He found JBJ clear of all charges except one. The PAP was angry enough to immediately force the AGC to have a retrial and JBJ was sentenced to jail. Michael Khoo was transferred to the AGC immediately after this trial. So much for an "honest" govt!

 

[tobelightlight]

these 2 ministers will make sinkies look bad cos they vote them in. or in defense, they are being cheated to vote them in.

 

[True Believer]

I wonder how many sacks were brought to Shanmugam's house to pay for his GCB?

 

[Dongyi]

@shiokalingam can post the written judgment here?

 

[shiokalingam]

@shiokalingam can post the written judgment here?

...

you are welcome ,

Lingam

@ scroll to the bottom of article for the pdf link

Total 71 pages - Enjoy


https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/He...er-maliciously-defamed-shanmugam-tan-see-leng

 

[shiokalingam]

...

Bloomberg defamation suit: Court finds news provider maliciously defamed Shanmugam, Tan See Leng​

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 15 Jul 2026
Author: Selina Lum & Samuel Devaraj
Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng were each awarded $230,000 in damages by the High Court on July 14.
The High Court on July 14 awarded Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Tan See Leng each $230,000 in damages after ruling that they had been maliciously defamed by financial news provider Bloomberg and its journalist.

Justice Audrey Lim found that real estate reporter Low De Wei, who wrote the article headlined “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy”, knew certain information used was false, or had published without caring whether it was true.

The judge said Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall for the article also demonstrated malice, adding that it was done to make the article accessible to the broader public.

Shanmugam, who is Coordinating Minister for National Security, said in a statement posted on Facebook that the article and its falsehoods have spun off further lies from others.

They include falsehoods such as that the proceeds of his sale were paid directly to him entirely in cash to circumvent money laundering checks or that he had received more monies because the buyer used a trust.

“These are completely untrue. The fact that there would be such other assertions, based on the article and the trial, was entirely predictable,” added Shanmugam.

Tan, who is Manpower Minister, said the judgment affirmed that the allegations conveyed by the article were defamatory and vindicated his position.

He added: “From the outset, this case has been about protecting my integrity and reputation, and the standing of the office I hold. Political office holders must discharge our duties with integrity and be open to scrutiny and legitimate criticism.

“Equally, media reporting should be fair and accurate, particularly where it concerns allegations that can seriously damage an individual’s reputation.”

Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, and Tan had sued Bloomberg for defamation over the article on transactions involving good class bungalows (GCBs) in Singapore.

The article, published on Dec 12, 2024, mentioned the ministers’ property deals in 2023 – the sale of Shanmugam’s former home in the Queen Astrid Park area to UBS Trustees for $88 million and Tan’s non-caveated purchase of a bungalow in Brizay Park for nearly $27.3 million.

It stated that the ultra-rich in Singapore are increasingly cloaking their purchases of mansions in secrecy, such as by using trusts to keep their identities private.

It also stated that deals made without the filing of caveats are “harder to track” because they do not show up in a database maintained by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

A caveat is a legal document that a person can lodge with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to prevent others from buying a property.

In a written judgment, Justice Lim found that readers’ understanding of the article would be that the ministers had taken advantage of the absence of checks and balances or disclosure requirements to conduct their property transactions in a non-transparent manner.

She said the article conveyed to the reader that there are GCB deals being kept hidden from even the Government, and that there is a regulatory gap which buyers can exploit.

They would also understand the article to mean that the ministers had done so to hide their transactions and avoid scrutiny – acts that might extend to the possibility of money laundering.

The judge noted that the article mentioned money laundering and cited the high-profile $3 billion money laundering scandal which saw 10 offenders convicted and jailed.

“The reader is therefore left to understand that the scrutiny the buyers wish to avoid is scrutiny for the very activity of money laundering,” she said.

The judge added: “An allegation that a person has deliberately structured his property dealings to escape examination for possible money laundering plainly tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.”

She found the article was defamatory of both claimants, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that it was concerned with trends in the purchase of GCBs in Singapore and not defamatory.

In assessing the amount of damages to be awarded to Shanmugam and Tan, the judge considered the defendants’ conduct.

“I find there was malice on the defendants’ part,” she said, adding that malice in defamation means “any ill-will, spite or some wrong or improper motive”.

She said Low knew it was untrue that non-caveated transactions were hidden from the Government, and he knew that such deals are recorded in a separate database operated by SLA.

The judge said the article conveyed a false impression that there was a regulatory gap which buyers can exploit, as non-caveated transactions and identities of ultimate beneficiaries in a transaction involving a trust can be kept hidden from the Government and public.

The article also conveyed the falsehood that buyers pay “premiums” for non-caveated transactions.

She pointed out that Low was explicitly told by a real estate agency, before the article was published, that there was no difference between non-caveated and caveated transactions in terms of pricing.

Bloomberg’s internal correspondence had also revealed that the defendants’ dominant motive in publishing the article was to target the claimants, particularly Shanmugam.

“The genesis of the article lay not in a story about trends in the GCB market, as the defendants claim, but in an interest in the claimants,” the judge said.

During the trial, it emerged that Joyce Koh, who is Bloomberg’s finance team leader for Asia excluding China, had sent Low an e-mail on March 12, 2024, to say that she heard “from a source that our favourite minister Shan recently sold his GCB at Queen Astrid, probably for an eye-watering sum”.

Low replied that he had seen the property record, and pointed out that the sale was done a year ago.

He then added that Tan had also purchased a GCB that year, in Bukit Timah, adding that he was providing the information “in the spirit of minister GCB transactions”.

Low suggested a possible way to “get into it is to wrap it in a broader story on how rich (people) are using trusts to buy property in Singapore”.

The judge said the language suggested that the broader narrative about GCB market trends was merely a “vehicle” to present a politically sensitive story.

She said Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall for the article on Dec 25, 2024, making it accessible to the broader public, also showed malice.

The judge rejected the defendants’ claim that this was done to comply with a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act issued on Dec 23.

She also rejected the defendants’ attempt to rely on the defence of responsible journalism, noting that this was not part of Singapore law.

Bloomberg and Low had argued that they were exercising their duty to communicate important information on a matter of public interest.

She said that constitutional free speech applied only to Singapore citizens, making it a “non-starter” for Bloomberg to rely on this defence.

The judge added that the defendants would not have passed the “responsible journalism” test even if the defence was part of Singapore law.

She said there was no urgency to publish the article because the transactions were not new, citing internal e-mails to show that Low was aware that the property deals were old news.

The judge said that the ministers were not given an adequate opportunity to comment on the actual context and severe money-laundering imputations made in the published article.

She also highlighted that the article was published in December 2024, in the period before the general election was held in May 2025.

During the trial, Low had conceded that there was an editorial decision to characterise Shanmugam’s transaction as “political fodder” in the article.

In a statement responding to the verdict, Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait said: “We are very disappointed by this ruling, but we will of course respect it.”

Micklethwait added: “We argued at trial that our reporting was accurate and served an important public interest, and we continue to believe that the ministers have imposed an extremely strained meaning on what was a solid story.

“Our newsroom – and our reporter – conducted themselves with integrity, and met all our editorial standards in preparing the story at the centre of this trial. We continue to stand by them.”

Shanmugam said Bloomberg and the reporter had directly impugned his and Tan’s personal integrity, character and professional reputation.

“Apart from our personal reputation, these malicious statements also attacked the standing of the Ministerial office and us as senior public leaders.

“This is why I chose to bring defamation proceedings despite having to subject myself to public scrutiny and cross-examination in Court.

He added: “If irresponsible outlets like Bloomberg get away with publishing lies and falsehoods about public officers, it will set a new norm.

“It will mean that anyone wanting to serve the public will have to face an additional obstacle – that well-funded organisations like Bloomberg will use lies to attack them, put them down and seek to destroy their reputations,” he said, adding that this happens in many countries, and as a result, many good people do not come forward to serve the public.

He said public interest as a whole suffers in these countries.

“Organisations like Bloomberg should not be allowed to get away with such irresponsible conduct in Singapore,” added Shanmugam.

Both he and Tan said they will donate the damages awarded to charity.

Defamation cases

In 2015, the High Court ordered blogger Roy Ngerng to pay then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong $150,000 for defamation over a blog post.

The sum comprised $100,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages.

The judge found Ngerng had defamed Senior Minister Lee by alleging that he had misappropriated the Central Provident Fund savings of Singaporeans.

In a separate case in 2021, then PM Lee was awarded the sum of $133,000 for defamation, which comprised $100,000 in general damages and $33,000 in aggravated damages.

The High Court found that blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian had defamed then PM Lee over an article by the Malaysian news site The Coverage, which he shared on his Facebook page.

The article had falsely linked then PM Lee to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad corruption scandal in Malaysia.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Bloomberg LP and another and another matter [2026] SGHC 147

 

[Dongyi]

...

Bloomberg defamation suit: Court finds news provider maliciously defamed Shanmugam, Tan See Leng​

Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 15 Jul 2026
Author: Selina Lum & Samuel Devaraj
Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng were each awarded $230,000 in damages by the High Court on July 14.
The High Court on July 14 awarded Cabinet ministers K. Shanmugam and Tan See Leng each $230,000 in damages after ruling that they had been maliciously defamed by financial news provider Bloomberg and its journalist.

Justice Audrey Lim found that real estate reporter Low De Wei, who wrote the article headlined “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy”, knew certain information used was false, or had published without caring whether it was true.

The judge said Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall for the article also demonstrated malice, adding that it was done to make the article accessible to the broader public.

Shanmugam, who is Coordinating Minister for National Security, said in a statement posted on Facebook that the article and its falsehoods have spun off further lies from others.

They include falsehoods such as that the proceeds of his sale were paid directly to him entirely in cash to circumvent money laundering checks or that he had received more monies because the buyer used a trust.

“These are completely untrue. The fact that there would be such other assertions, based on the article and the trial, was entirely predictable,” added Shanmugam.

Tan, who is Manpower Minister, said the judgment affirmed that the allegations conveyed by the article were defamatory and vindicated his position.

He added: “From the outset, this case has been about protecting my integrity and reputation, and the standing of the office I hold. Political office holders must discharge our duties with integrity and be open to scrutiny and legitimate criticism.

“Equally, media reporting should be fair and accurate, particularly where it concerns allegations that can seriously damage an individual’s reputation.”

Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, and Tan had sued Bloomberg for defamation over the article on transactions involving good class bungalows (GCBs) in Singapore.

The article, published on Dec 12, 2024, mentioned the ministers’ property deals in 2023 – the sale of Shanmugam’s former home in the Queen Astrid Park area to UBS Trustees for $88 million and Tan’s non-caveated purchase of a bungalow in Brizay Park for nearly $27.3 million.

It stated that the ultra-rich in Singapore are increasingly cloaking their purchases of mansions in secrecy, such as by using trusts to keep their identities private.

It also stated that deals made without the filing of caveats are “harder to track” because they do not show up in a database maintained by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

A caveat is a legal document that a person can lodge with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to prevent others from buying a property.

In a written judgment, Justice Lim found that readers’ understanding of the article would be that the ministers had taken advantage of the absence of checks and balances or disclosure requirements to conduct their property transactions in a non-transparent manner.

She said the article conveyed to the reader that there are GCB deals being kept hidden from even the Government, and that there is a regulatory gap which buyers can exploit.

They would also understand the article to mean that the ministers had done so to hide their transactions and avoid scrutiny – acts that might extend to the possibility of money laundering.

The judge noted that the article mentioned money laundering and cited the high-profile $3 billion money laundering scandal which saw 10 offenders convicted and jailed.

“The reader is therefore left to understand that the scrutiny the buyers wish to avoid is scrutiny for the very activity of money laundering,” she said.

The judge added: “An allegation that a person has deliberately structured his property dealings to escape examination for possible money laundering plainly tends to lower him in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.”

She found the article was defamatory of both claimants, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that it was concerned with trends in the purchase of GCBs in Singapore and not defamatory.

In assessing the amount of damages to be awarded to Shanmugam and Tan, the judge considered the defendants’ conduct.

“I find there was malice on the defendants’ part,” she said, adding that malice in defamation means “any ill-will, spite or some wrong or improper motive”.

She said Low knew it was untrue that non-caveated transactions were hidden from the Government, and he knew that such deals are recorded in a separate database operated by SLA.

The judge said the article conveyed a false impression that there was a regulatory gap which buyers can exploit, as non-caveated transactions and identities of ultimate beneficiaries in a transaction involving a trust can be kept hidden from the Government and public.

The article also conveyed the falsehood that buyers pay “premiums” for non-caveated transactions.

She pointed out that Low was explicitly told by a real estate agency, before the article was published, that there was no difference between non-caveated and caveated transactions in terms of pricing.

Bloomberg’s internal correspondence had also revealed that the defendants’ dominant motive in publishing the article was to target the claimants, particularly Shanmugam.

“The genesis of the article lay not in a story about trends in the GCB market, as the defendants claim, but in an interest in the claimants,” the judge said.

During the trial, it emerged that Joyce Koh, who is Bloomberg’s finance team leader for Asia excluding China, had sent Low an e-mail on March 12, 2024, to say that she heard “from a source that our favourite minister Shan recently sold his GCB at Queen Astrid, probably for an eye-watering sum”.

Low replied that he had seen the property record, and pointed out that the sale was done a year ago.

He then added that Tan had also purchased a GCB that year, in Bukit Timah, adding that he was providing the information “in the spirit of minister GCB transactions”.

Low suggested a possible way to “get into it is to wrap it in a broader story on how rich (people) are using trusts to buy property in Singapore”.

The judge said the language suggested that the broader narrative about GCB market trends was merely a “vehicle” to present a politically sensitive story.

She said Bloomberg’s conduct in removing the paywall for the article on Dec 25, 2024, making it accessible to the broader public, also showed malice.

The judge rejected the defendants’ claim that this was done to comply with a correction direction under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act issued on Dec 23.

She also rejected the defendants’ attempt to rely on the defence of responsible journalism, noting that this was not part of Singapore law.

Bloomberg and Low had argued that they were exercising their duty to communicate important information on a matter of public interest.

She said that constitutional free speech applied only to Singapore citizens, making it a “non-starter” for Bloomberg to rely on this defence.

The judge added that the defendants would not have passed the “responsible journalism” test even if the defence was part of Singapore law.

She said there was no urgency to publish the article because the transactions were not new, citing internal e-mails to show that Low was aware that the property deals were old news.

The judge said that the ministers were not given an adequate opportunity to comment on the actual context and severe money-laundering imputations made in the published article.

She also highlighted that the article was published in December 2024, in the period before the general election was held in May 2025.

During the trial, Low had conceded that there was an editorial decision to characterise Shanmugam’s transaction as “political fodder” in the article.

In a statement responding to the verdict, Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait said: “We are very disappointed by this ruling, but we will of course respect it.”

Micklethwait added: “We argued at trial that our reporting was accurate and served an important public interest, and we continue to believe that the ministers have imposed an extremely strained meaning on what was a solid story.

“Our newsroom – and our reporter – conducted themselves with integrity, and met all our editorial standards in preparing the story at the centre of this trial. We continue to stand by them.”

Shanmugam said Bloomberg and the reporter had directly impugned his and Tan’s personal integrity, character and professional reputation.

“Apart from our personal reputation, these malicious statements also attacked the standing of the Ministerial office and us as senior public leaders.

“This is why I chose to bring defamation proceedings despite having to subject myself to public scrutiny and cross-examination in Court.

He added: “If irresponsible outlets like Bloomberg get away with publishing lies and falsehoods about public officers, it will set a new norm.

“It will mean that anyone wanting to serve the public will have to face an additional obstacle – that well-funded organisations like Bloomberg will use lies to attack them, put them down and seek to destroy their reputations,” he said, adding that this happens in many countries, and as a result, many good people do not come forward to serve the public.

He said public interest as a whole suffers in these countries.

“Organisations like Bloomberg should not be allowed to get away with such irresponsible conduct in Singapore,” added Shanmugam.

Both he and Tan said they will donate the damages awarded to charity.

Defamation cases

In 2015, the High Court ordered blogger Roy Ngerng to pay then Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong $150,000 for defamation over a blog post.

The sum comprised $100,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages.

The judge found Ngerng had defamed Senior Minister Lee by alleging that he had misappropriated the Central Provident Fund savings of Singaporeans.

In a separate case in 2021, then PM Lee was awarded the sum of $133,000 for defamation, which comprised $100,000 in general damages and $33,000 in aggravated damages.

The High Court found that blogger and financial adviser Leong Sze Hian had defamed then PM Lee over an article by the Malaysian news site The Coverage, which he shared on his Facebook page.

The article had falsely linked then PM Lee to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad corruption scandal in Malaysia.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Shanmugam Kasiviswanathan v Bloomberg LP and another and another matter [2026] SGHC 147

The article does not suggest that buyers pay a premium in exchange for transactions remaining non-caveated. Instead, it reports an observed association: non-caveated properties tend to sell at higher prices than caveated properties.

It does not imply that the higher prices are paid to maintain a non-caveated status.

If the article is properly understood, it contains no falsehood. It is improper to base allegations or charges on a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what a person has said. To do so would be to put the cart before the horse: the meaning of the words must first be correctly understood before any allegation of falsehood can properly be made.

Accordingly, the fact that the Defendant was informed by a real estate agency that there was no difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing does not support the Claimants' case if the article is properly understood. It supports their case only if one begins from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the article. Such an approach assumes the very point that must first be established: namely, the correct meaning of the article.​

 

[Dongyi]

Is the Minister for Law a member of the Government? Does the Minister know the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner of the trust entity that purchased his property? Or does the public know?

If neither the Minister nor the public knows the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner, on what basis can it be said that a false impression has been created?

@DaoMa Syntax error ! I think we need William TiongSpeare to explain ​

 

[Dongyi]

The article does not say that non-caveated transactions were hidden from the Government. The article says they are "harder to track" because they don't show up in a database maintained by the URA. And during the trial, the Defendant admitted that these "harder to track" transactions could be tracked in a separate database operated by SLA by means of "directed" searches.

That is to say, on the URA website, a search will return all caveated transactions within a specified period, enabling a user to identify the properties that were sold during that time. By contrast, the SLA database does not provide a list of all transactions within a given period. Instead, a user must first identify a particular property and then conduct a directed search to determine whether that property has been sold.

Clearly, the SLA system operates on a pay-per-address search basis. As a result, non-caveated transactions are "harder to track" because identifying them requires individual searches for specific properties, making the process significantly more costly and less practical than searching the URA database.

Instead of giving the phrase "harder to track" its proper meaning, if one equates "harder to track" with "shrouded in secrecy," and then equates "shrouded in secrecy" with "impossible to find out," it follows that once it is established that the information can be found out, regardless of the difficulty or cost involved, the phrase "harder to track" would be regarded as untrue.

However, "harder to track" was never intended to mean "impossible to find out." It refers only to the greater difficulty, effort, or cost involved in locating the information. ​

 

[jsctan]

View attachment 245315

Is the Minister for Law a member of the Government? Does the Minister know the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner of the trust entity that purchased his property? Or does the public know?

If neither the Minister nor the public knows the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner, on what basis can it be said that a false impression has been created?

@DaoMa Syntax error ! I think we need William TiongSpeare to explain ​

But isnt it true that the buyer knows there is a regulatory gap which buyers can exploit, as non caveated transactions and identities of ultimate beneficiaries in a trust can be kept hidden from the government and the public? Question is why it cannot be made known while other transaction and identities of buyers are exposed? 2 standards?

 

[DaoMa]

Need to hide means suspicious. So cannot blame others from speculating

 

[shiokalingam]

Ai Generated​

Following the July 14, 2026 judgment by High Court Justice Audrey Lim regarding the defamation suit brought by Ministers K. Shanmugam and Tan See Leng against Bloomberg L.P. and its reporter Low De Wei (referred to as Mr. Low ), the legal situation regarding an appeal stands as follows:


### Can They Appeal at All?


**Yes, they can appeal.** Under the Singapore judicial system, a judgment made by the General Division of the High Court can be appealed to the **Court of Appeal**, which is the highest court in Singapore. Because the case involves substantial legal questions regarding the interpretation of media reporting, public interest defenses, and a total damages award of S$460,000, it meets the requirements to be eligible for the appeals process.


### Are There Indications They Will Appeal?


As of right now, **Bloomberg has not explicitly stated whether they will file a formal appeal, though their initial reaction suggests they strongly disagree with the verdict.**


Following the ruling, Bloomberg News Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait issued a statement saying they were "very disappointed" by the decision.

While he noted that they "will of course respect it," he explicitly emphasized that Bloomberg stands by its reporter and continues to believe that the ministers imposed an *"extremely strained meaning"* on what was a accurate story of public interest.

This firm stance indicates that the legal grounds for an appeal are very much on their radar, even if a final decision hasn't been formally announced yet.


### Pros and Cons of Appealing the Judgement


Should Bloomberg and Mr. Low choose to take the case to the Court of Appeal, they face several strategic advantages and disadvantages:


#### **The Pros (Reasons to Appeal)**


* **Challenging the Finding of "Malice":** Justice Audrey Lim included S$60,000 in aggravated damages for each minister after finding that the defendants acted with legal "malice" (publishing claims they supposedly knew were false or disregarding the truth).

For a global news agency, a standing judicial record of "malice" is highly damaging to their journalistic reputation. Appealing is the only way to try to overturn that specific finding.


* **Testing Legal Principles on Free Speech / Public Interest:** Bloomberg's legal team attempted to argue a common-law defense for "responsible journalism" in the public interest. Justice Lim ruled that constitutional free speech protections in Singapore apply only to citizens (making it a "non-starter" for the US company).

An appeal would allow Bloomberg to push this significant legal argument to the highest court in the country to establish a new legal precedent for international media operating in Singapore.


* **Potential Reduction of Financial Damages:**


If the higher court finds that the article's phrasing was not intentionally defamatory or that the ministers interpreted it too harshly, the Court of Appeal could drastically reduce or entirely eliminate the S$460,000 payout.


#### **The Cons (Reasons Not to Appeal)**


* **Escalating Legal Costs:** Taking a defamation case through a full appeal against top-tier senior counsel (the ministers are represented by Davinder Singh's firm) is phenomenally expensive. If Bloomberg loses the appeal, they will likely be ordered to pay the substantial legal fees of the ministers on top of their own.


* **High Threshold for Overturning Facts:**

The Court of Appeal typically acts on errors of *law*, not facts. Because Justice Lim's ruling relied heavily on factual trial admissions—such as

Mr. Low conceding during cross-examination that it *was* possible for the public to find the property records via government databases despite the article claiming they were "shrouded in secrecy"—it is legally very difficult to convince an appeals court to overturn a trial judge's assessment of factual evidence.


* **Prolonged Negative Publicity:** An appeal extends the shelf-life of the controversy.



Instead of putting the matter behind them, Bloomberg would endure months of further public scrutiny regarding their internal editorial processes and communication chains.

 

[KingFook Sr]

Bloomberg should appeal.

In SG court?
Get real.

 

[Dongyi]

Need to hide means suspicious. So cannot blame others from speculating

Bloomberg should hire William TiongSpeare to draft the petition.

 

[DaoMa]

Bloomberg should hire William TiongSpeare to draft the petition.

But that Tiongkia is PAP dog leh. Cannot.

 

[Dongyi]

But that Tiongkia is PAP dog leh. Cannot.

威廉中槍