- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 20,590
- Points
- 113
So Pritam was right in saying that the court of public opinion prevails over every other legal courts.
-
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.
Serious Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case: Bloomberg winning!
- Thread starter superpower
- Start date
So Pritam was right in saying that the court of public opinion prevails over every other legal courts.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2011
- Messages
- 6,954
- Points
- 113
If it's clean money used, why all the secrecy!!! Wasting Courts time!!
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,693
- Points
- 113
For elected politicians, yes. JBJ has been sued left, right, centre till he was bankrupt but has its affected his standing? The PAP always win, but they always come off as bullies in the eyes of the electorate.
By voting more in, it deprives the long ruling party to take all the ministries as some will go to the other parties MPs instead and the CS will know it has to be neutral and not 1 sided or politically influenced. The appointment of those CS will be by screening of all MPs and not just 1 party. . Then there will be no more collaboration between the CS & Politicians that is not in the interest of the people. Definitely balance in place.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 25,119
- Points
- 113
Your concept of check and balance is wrong. Go and educate yourself about it.
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
- Messages
- 669
- Points
- 43
Eric and Amy & Silk Palace's post
16Apr2026
Three Bombshells” Revealed in the Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case
The Buyer’s Identity Unknown
1，The buyer purchased the property under a trust company’s name, but Shanmugam admitted he did not know who the real buyer was and confirmed in person that he had no duty to verify the buyer’s identity.
(Note: Shanmugam is the highest-ranking official in Singapore’s Anti-Money Laundering division under the Ministry of Home Affairs.)
2，The buyer named in the contract was UBS Trustees (Singapore), with the transaction completed through the Jasmine Villa Settlement trust structure.
The true buyer’s identity remains unknown.
All-Cash Payment Hidden Behind a Trust
1，The buyer paid Shanmugam S$88 million in full cash.
2，Shanmugam is unsure whether the buyer had paid S$57.2 million in taxes. In total, the buyer paid S$145.2 million
3. “3.22 Times ”More Expensive Than Comparable GCBs
4，Shanmugam sold his GCB for 3.22 times the price of a comparable GCB bought by Tan See Leng, located in the same prime area and sold in the same period, which cost S$27.3 million.
(Tan See Leng’s S$27.3 million GCB transaction was completed via a non-caveated method, with no public filing.)
5，That means the mystery buyer could have bought three identical GCBs for the same S$88 million, yet chose to buy only Shanmugam’s property.
So what’s so special about Shanmugam’s GCB? Why could it fetch such a high price?
1，The most special thing is that Shanmugam is Singapore’s Minister for Home Affairs (and former Law Minister), in charge of the Singapore Police Force, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, and a host of other powerful departments, including as the top anti-money laundering official.
2，So, did Shanmugam “take the money and play dumb”? “I don’t know who the buyer is… my phone messages are auto-deleted…” Shanmugam’s excuses are endless.
3，So, do you think there’s something fishy going on?
Below is a comparison of the two GCBs:
1. Both GCBs were transacted in 2023
2. Location: Both in District 10, Singapore
Tan See Leng’s GCB: Brizay Park
Shanmugam’s GCB: Astrid Hill
3. Tan See Leng’s GCB has a larger area – approx. 28,000–30,000 sq ft (approx. 2,601–2,787 sq m) – purchased for S$27.3 million.
4. Shanmugam’s GCB is slightly smaller – approx. 27,600–28,000 sq ft (approx. 2,564–2,601 sq m) – purchased by a mystery buyer for S$88 million in full cash.
A quick fact: What is the average residential space per person in Singapore?
According to the latest authoritative market data (2023–2025):
· National average residential space per person (resident population): approx. 27–28 m² per person (approx. 290.63–301.39 sq ft per person).
· HDB (housing over 80% of the population): approx. 27 m² per person (approx. 290.63 sq ft per person).
· Private condominiums: approx. 30–35 m² per person (approx. 322.92–376.74 sq ft per person), and shrinking in recent years.
These figures refer to usable internal space (including bedrooms, living rooms, etc.), excluding public/common areas.
based on the above facts, Bloomberg raised questions about transaction transparency and money laundering risks.
Does that count as defamation? You be the judge!
16Apr2026
Three Bombshells” Revealed in the Shanmugam v. Bloomberg Defamation Case
The Buyer’s Identity Unknown
1，The buyer purchased the property under a trust company’s name, but Shanmugam admitted he did not know who the real buyer was and confirmed in person that he had no duty to verify the buyer’s identity.
(Note: Shanmugam is the highest-ranking official in Singapore’s Anti-Money Laundering division under the Ministry of Home Affairs.)
2，The buyer named in the contract was UBS Trustees (Singapore), with the transaction completed through the Jasmine Villa Settlement trust structure.
The true buyer’s identity remains unknown.
All-Cash Payment Hidden Behind a Trust
1，The buyer paid Shanmugam S$88 million in full cash.
2，Shanmugam is unsure whether the buyer had paid S$57.2 million in taxes. In total, the buyer paid S$145.2 million
3. “3.22 Times ”More Expensive Than Comparable GCBs
4，Shanmugam sold his GCB for 3.22 times the price of a comparable GCB bought by Tan See Leng, located in the same prime area and sold in the same period, which cost S$27.3 million.
(Tan See Leng’s S$27.3 million GCB transaction was completed via a non-caveated method, with no public filing.)
5，That means the mystery buyer could have bought three identical GCBs for the same S$88 million, yet chose to buy only Shanmugam’s property.
So what’s so special about Shanmugam’s GCB? Why could it fetch such a high price?
1，The most special thing is that Shanmugam is Singapore’s Minister for Home Affairs (and former Law Minister), in charge of the Singapore Police Force, the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, and a host of other powerful departments, including as the top anti-money laundering official.
2，So, did Shanmugam “take the money and play dumb”? “I don’t know who the buyer is… my phone messages are auto-deleted…” Shanmugam’s excuses are endless.
3，So, do you think there’s something fishy going on?
Below is a comparison of the two GCBs:
1. Both GCBs were transacted in 2023
2. Location: Both in District 10, Singapore
Tan See Leng’s GCB: Brizay Park
Shanmugam’s GCB: Astrid Hill
3. Tan See Leng’s GCB has a larger area – approx. 28,000–30,000 sq ft (approx. 2,601–2,787 sq m) – purchased for S$27.3 million.
4. Shanmugam’s GCB is slightly smaller – approx. 27,600–28,000 sq ft (approx. 2,564–2,601 sq m) – purchased by a mystery buyer for S$88 million in full cash.
A quick fact: What is the average residential space per person in Singapore?
According to the latest authoritative market data (2023–2025):
· National average residential space per person (resident population): approx. 27–28 m² per person (approx. 290.63–301.39 sq ft per person).
· HDB (housing over 80% of the population): approx. 27 m² per person (approx. 290.63 sq ft per person).
· Private condominiums: approx. 30–35 m² per person (approx. 322.92–376.74 sq ft per person), and shrinking in recent years.
These figures refer to usable internal space (including bedrooms, living rooms, etc.), excluding public/common areas.
based on the above facts, Bloomberg raised questions about transaction transparency and money laundering risks.
Does that count as defamation? You be the judge!
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
- Messages
- 669
- Points
- 43
if clean, normal money, why so much drama, probing, cover up-attempts, etc?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 64,700
- Points
- 113
can forget about “optics” in sg. this case may only interest 6.9% of the population from oppos to foreign (pro-ccp) operatives with an ax to grind against the pap. ask anybody in western embassies and none cares about this case. their eyes are on iran and the hormuz straits. ask anyone in the streets and hawker centers, and they go “huh? wtf? kong simi lanjiao? i have to chope table, queue up, buy food, and makan. prease mai ka jiao ok.” i’m now sitting at a cafe with lots of sinkies happily chirping and squealing away like birds and pigs, and the only forum where shan is mentioned is sbf. optics? what optics?
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,434
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,893
- Points
- 113
It is clear that Bloomberg’s lawyers have no intention of suggesting that the Minister is aware of the beneficial owner under the trust (UBO). On the contrary, Bloomberg’s lawyers appear content to have obtained an admission from the Minister that he is not aware of the UBO, as such an admission would support Bloomberg’s defense that the transaction, like several others, is “shrouded in secrecy,” in the sense that even the seller and his lawyer do not know the identity of the UBO, while at the same time precluding any inference that the Minister’s awareness would imply that he played an active role in concealing the identity of the UBO from public scrutiny.
Oppies with a pre-existing animus toward the Minister may seek to extend the inference beyond what the circumstantial evidence can properly support, so as to suggest involvement in money laundering. This is where I feel Bloomberg’s lawyers have adopted an especially cautious approach, ensuring that a defence to a defamation claim does not, in effect, become a quasi-prosecutorial exercise in relation to alleged money laundering. In the absence of solid evidence of the Minister’s involvement in money laundering, it would be inconsistent and legally perilous for Bloomberg’s lawyers to advance such an inference, as it would undermine their case that the article conveys no such meaning.
I highlighted the phrase “like several others” because I am surprised that this point does not appear to have been addressed by Bloomberg’s lawyers. The Minister stated in Court that the article was written to “target” him, using a broader narrative about bungalow transactions as a vehicle to publicize the sale of his property. However, he did not acknowledge that he and the Manpower Minister were not the only individuals mentioned in the article. The same article also referred to several other individuals, including a naturalized Singaporean originally from China whose name appeared in a trust used for the purchase of a GCB/bungalow, although the beneficial owner was not disclosed; two prominent Indonesian businessmen involved in non-caveated transactions; and a China-born Singaporean who purchased a property from a former Minister.
If the article were indeed defamatory of the two Ministers, then, by parity of reasoning, it could be said to be defamatory of the other individuals mentioned. The question therefore arises as to why those individuals did not similarly commence defamation proceedings against Bloomberg. It is also noteworthy that Bloomberg did not call those other individuals to give evidence. Even if that was not practicable, its lawyers could at least have put the point to the Minister as to whether he considered the article to be defamatory of those individuals as well. If the Minister were to answer “yes”, it would raise the question of why those individuals did not commence proceedings, whether they had failed to seek legal advice or had been advised against pursuing claims, presumably on the basis that the article was not considered defamatory. Conversely, if he were to answer “no”, that response could materially undermine his position or effectively bring the issue to a close.
I read that on the last day of the trial, Bloomberg’s Low De Wei used the Chinese idiom 杯弓蛇影 to describe the two Ministers. It might have been more persuasive had he also drawn in the “several others” whose names were mentioned alongside the two Ministers in the article, in order to substantiate his point. Obviously, if his CL2 was as impressive as @Insouciant he might have used 对号入座 instead.
Oppies with a pre-existing animus toward the Minister may seek to extend the inference beyond what the circumstantial evidence can properly support, so as to suggest involvement in money laundering. This is where I feel Bloomberg’s lawyers have adopted an especially cautious approach, ensuring that a defence to a defamation claim does not, in effect, become a quasi-prosecutorial exercise in relation to alleged money laundering. In the absence of solid evidence of the Minister’s involvement in money laundering, it would be inconsistent and legally perilous for Bloomberg’s lawyers to advance such an inference, as it would undermine their case that the article conveys no such meaning.
I highlighted the phrase “like several others” because I am surprised that this point does not appear to have been addressed by Bloomberg’s lawyers. The Minister stated in Court that the article was written to “target” him, using a broader narrative about bungalow transactions as a vehicle to publicize the sale of his property. However, he did not acknowledge that he and the Manpower Minister were not the only individuals mentioned in the article. The same article also referred to several other individuals, including a naturalized Singaporean originally from China whose name appeared in a trust used for the purchase of a GCB/bungalow, although the beneficial owner was not disclosed; two prominent Indonesian businessmen involved in non-caveated transactions; and a China-born Singaporean who purchased a property from a former Minister.
If the article were indeed defamatory of the two Ministers, then, by parity of reasoning, it could be said to be defamatory of the other individuals mentioned. The question therefore arises as to why those individuals did not similarly commence defamation proceedings against Bloomberg. It is also noteworthy that Bloomberg did not call those other individuals to give evidence. Even if that was not practicable, its lawyers could at least have put the point to the Minister as to whether he considered the article to be defamatory of those individuals as well. If the Minister were to answer “yes”, it would raise the question of why those individuals did not commence proceedings, whether they had failed to seek legal advice or had been advised against pursuing claims, presumably on the basis that the article was not considered defamatory. Conversely, if he were to answer “no”, that response could materially undermine his position or effectively bring the issue to a close.
I read that on the last day of the trial, Bloomberg’s Low De Wei used the Chinese idiom 杯弓蛇影 to describe the two Ministers. It might have been more persuasive had he also drawn in the “several others” whose names were mentioned alongside the two Ministers in the article, in order to substantiate his point. Obviously, if his CL2 was as impressive as @Insouciant he might have used 对号入座 instead.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 31,598
- Points
- 113
Uh the main point is...his GCB was sold at 88 million.....wat over priced...From FB:
When did Singapore's Indian-Minister K. Shanmugam receive S$88 million in cash? Between July 3, 2023, and August 15, 2023.
Part 1: Before Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out, Shanmugam had already received an astronomical S$88 million in cash.
1. Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out on August 15, 2023. One week later, on August 24, 2023, Indian-origin Minister K. Shanmugam transferred his property to a shell company set up by a mysterious buyer: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd.
2. Please note: Singapore's SLA (Singapore Land Authority) records only show that on August 24, 2023, Shanmugam's property was registered as transferred to the buyer's trust company.
3. The SLA does not show when Shanmugam received the purchase payment. This point is crucial. The SLA only registers the transfer of property title; it does not record the source of funds, method of payment, or date of receipt.
4. Because, according to facts Shanmugam himself admitted in court on April 7, 2026, while suing Bloomberg, the buyer paid entirely in cash, and cash leaves no transfer trail. Therefore, the buyer's payment time has no traceable or recorded history in banks.
5. Hence, we can boldly infer that the time Shanmugam received the S$88 million must have been before the "S$3 billion money laundering case" broke out on August 15, 2023.
6. The exposure of Singapore's largest money laundering case came from international pressure, which was entirely beyond Shanmugam's control. He couldn't suppress it! He never wanted the money laundering case to be exposed, because its exposure would inevitably implicate his S$88 million.
7. Furthermore, according to Shanmugam's ministerial statement on "automatic deletion of SMS" regarding the rental of Ridout Road black-and-white bungalows in the Singapore Parliament on July 3, 2023, when explaining his rental motives and asset arrangements, he voluntarily mentioned that when he rented the black-and-white bungalow in 2018, his own house had been continuously rented out to collect rental income.
8. This means that as of July 3, 2023, Shanmugam's own house had not been listed for sale.
9. Therefore, we can infer that Shanmugam only "announced" the sale of his house after the parliamentary incident on July 3, 2023.
10. And the time he received the S$88 million cash was completed within the one month and 21 days between the July 3, 2023 parliamentary incident and the transfer on August 24, 2023.
11. On August 15, 2023, Singapore's largest money laundering case broke out. Thus, we deduce that Shanmugam received the S$88 million cash before the outbreak of the money laundering case.
12. Because he received the S$88 million before the largest money laundering case broke out, he had no choice but to grit his teeth and complete the transfer on August 24, 2023. Since the money launderers had been arrested, Shanmugam could not cancel the property sale transaction. This fact is something he cannot delete, and Shanmugam has continued down this dark path ever since.
13. Afterwards, Shanmugam hastily repatriated the money launderers, trying to cover up the truth. But what he didn't expect was that Singapore then saw an even larger money laundering case after the Fujian money laundering case — the case of their leader, Chen Zhi's money laundering. Chen Zhi's extradition back to China was something Shanmugam could not have anticipated.
Summary: Shanmugam started selling his house after the parliamentary incident on July 3, 2023. He received S$88 million in cash from the buyer between July 3, 2023, and August 15, 2023. Afterwards, on August 15, 2023, Singapore's largest S$3 billion money laundering case broke out. One week later, Shanmugam completed the transfer on August 24, 2023.
Part 2: The buyer's trust company is implicated in the "S$3 billion largest money laundering case"
1. Related to the "Fujian money laundering gang's S$3 billion money laundering case penalties" is precisely the trust of the mysterious buyer in Shanmugam's property sale case: "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."
2. And associated with "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is the notorious "UBS AG, Singapore Branch."
3. "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" is different from "UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited." The former is implicated in the largest money laundering case; the latter is not.
1. UBS AG, Singapore Branch (penalized)
· UEN: S98FC5560C
2. UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited (not involved)
· Not involved in the money laundering case; not penalized.
· Full name: UBS Bank (Singapore) Limited
· Former name: Union Bank of Switzerland (Singapore) Limited
· UEN: 198402145R
· Entity type: Singapore local public company
4. The same group company as Shanmugam's buyer "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" — "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" — is implicated in Singapore's S$3 billion money laundering case and is notorious.
Seller: Shanmugam
Buyer's shell: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd
5. "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is a trust company within the same group as "UBS AG, Singapore Branch."
The essence of a trust is the separation of legal title and beneficial ownership.
Although banks have KYC obligations, the "Singapore S$3 billion money laundering case" has proven that even funds that pass bank checks can still be dirty money. Therefore, "purchasing a property through a UBS trust" cannot logically equate to "the buyer having a clean background."
6. "UBS AG, Singapore Branch" had lax checks, harbored a lot of dirty money, and was implicated in the August 2023 S$3 billion money laundering case, resulting in a penalty of S$3 million (according to the MAS announcement on July 4, 2025).
Part 3: There is currently no evidence that the buyer on the contract, "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd," paid the purchase price to Shanmugam.
In the defamation trial, Shanmugam admitted two core facts:
Shanmugam received cash for the property sale.
He claimed not to know the true identity of the buyer.
No evidence shows that the money Shanmugam received came directly from the bank account of "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."
Precisely because the purchase price was not transferred directly from that account to Shanmugam, but paid through other channels, Shanmugam can only admit to receiving "cash!" Since there are no bank records.
1. The "Anonymity" of Legal Records (Nominee Structure)
In the public records of the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), the party contracting with Shanmugam is not the real buyer, but the buyer's nominee: UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd.
The records only show ownership: The caveat only proves that property title was transferred from Shanmugam's name to "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd." It does not record which specific bank account the cash payment came from to Shanmugam.
And Shanmugam has emphasized it was an all-cash payment, meaning there was no bank transfer.
2. Concealed Source of Funds: "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd" is only the trustee, not the actual buyer.
According to the trust agreement, the purchase price could be paid by the real buyer directly from their account at any bank in any country into Shanmugam's law firm's escrow account, or paid in cash.
Therefore, even if Shanmugam's astronomical property transaction contract was signed with "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd," it is possible that the money did not come from an account under the name of "UBS Trustees (Singapore) Ltd."
Part 4: Summary
If Shanmugam himself does not even know who the buyer is, then legally he cannot be 100% certain that before the cash entered his law firm's escrow account, it did not pass through "underground banks" or "private settlement" stages.
The only "evidence" he can currently produce is proof that his lawyer received the full amount in cash and completed the transfer. That is all.
The tax paid is 50 million agar agar...
Shan does not know who the buyer is...
These 3 points already prove there is something wrong in all of this...n all admitted by Shan himself...not Bloomberg not coffee shop talk....not speculation... except for the identity of the buyer...(BCOS it's private property..I don't know the procedure...) The point of him selling his GCB at such an over inflated rate is the smoking gun.....who will pay 3 times the price for a comparable house in the same locale? Unless Shan can say..his toilet etc all made of gold that is valued at house n gold is 88 million.....but he never justify the the high selling price...n this time...he really bit on more than he could chew....really deserve the shit he got...
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,434
- Points
- 113
**Low De Wei** (also known as **Dexter**) is a Singapore-based journalist currently working as a property and real estate reporter for **Bloomberg News**.
He has been in the spotlight recently due to high-profile legal proceedings in Singapore. Here is a profile of his career and the current situation:
### Professional Background
* **Role:** He is part of Bloomberg’s Investing and Finance team in Singapore, primarily covering real estate, wealth, and corporate news.
* **Key Coverage Areas:** His reporting often focuses on Singapore’s "Good Class Bungalow" (GCB) market, multi-billion dollar money laundering cases, and the business activities of tycoons and family offices.
* **Notable Recent Stories:**
* Investigations into alleged scam kingpins and their global empires.
* Trends in the Singapore property market and the performance of major firms like CapitaLand and Keppel.
* The winding down of significant real estate funds.
### Recent Defamation Trial (April 2026)
Low De Wei and Bloomberg LP are currently defendants in a defamation lawsuit brought by two Singapore Cabinet ministers, **K. Shanmugam** and **Dr. Tan See Leng**.
* **The Article:** The lawsuit centers on a December 12, 2024, article titled *"Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy."
* * **The Dispute:** The ministers allege the article falsely implied wrongdoing or a lack of transparency regarding their respective property transactions.
* **The Defense:** During his testimony in April 2026, Low maintained that the article was written in good faith and was intended to highlight a broader trend in how the ultra-wealthy use trusts and non-caveated deals to maintain privacy.
* **Current Status:**
The trial has seen intense cross-examination by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh. Closing arguments for the case are scheduled for **May 22, 2026**.
### Style and Beat
Low is known for deep-dive reporting on the intersection of **wealth and regulation**.
His work frequently examines how global capital flows through Singapore and the transparency challenges associated with high-end real estate and private wealth management.
He has been in the spotlight recently due to high-profile legal proceedings in Singapore. Here is a profile of his career and the current situation:
### Professional Background
* **Role:** He is part of Bloomberg’s Investing and Finance team in Singapore, primarily covering real estate, wealth, and corporate news.
* **Key Coverage Areas:** His reporting often focuses on Singapore’s "Good Class Bungalow" (GCB) market, multi-billion dollar money laundering cases, and the business activities of tycoons and family offices.
* **Notable Recent Stories:**
* Investigations into alleged scam kingpins and their global empires.
* Trends in the Singapore property market and the performance of major firms like CapitaLand and Keppel.
* The winding down of significant real estate funds.
### Recent Defamation Trial (April 2026)
Low De Wei and Bloomberg LP are currently defendants in a defamation lawsuit brought by two Singapore Cabinet ministers, **K. Shanmugam** and **Dr. Tan See Leng**.
* **The Article:** The lawsuit centers on a December 12, 2024, article titled *"Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy."
* * **The Dispute:** The ministers allege the article falsely implied wrongdoing or a lack of transparency regarding their respective property transactions.
* **The Defense:** During his testimony in April 2026, Low maintained that the article was written in good faith and was intended to highlight a broader trend in how the ultra-wealthy use trusts and non-caveated deals to maintain privacy.
* **Current Status:**
The trial has seen intense cross-examination by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh. Closing arguments for the case are scheduled for **May 22, 2026**.
### Style and Beat
Low is known for deep-dive reporting on the intersection of **wealth and regulation**.
His work frequently examines how global capital flows through Singapore and the transparency challenges associated with high-end real estate and private wealth management.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,434
- Points
- 113
**Low De Wei** (Dexter) is an established financial journalist with a background in economics and a career focused on international business and real estate reporting.
### Education Background
* **London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE):** Low is a graduate of this prestigious institution.
During his recent defamation trial, his academic credentials from LSE were referenced by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh to underscore his proficiency in the English language and his understanding of specific terminology used in his reporting.
### Job History
Low has built a career within major international news organizations, specializing in the Singapore and Asian markets.
* **Bloomberg News (September 2021 – Present):**
* **Role:** Real Estate & Property Reporter (Investing and Finance Team).
* **Focus:** He covers Singapore’s luxury property market (Good Class Bungalows), high-stakes money laundering investigations, family offices, and major corporate movements in the real estate sector.
* **Previous Experience:**
* Prior to joining Bloomberg in 2021, Low worked as a reporter for **The South China Morning Post (SCMP)**.
* During his time at SCMP, he was based in Hong Kong and covered a variety of beats, including local politics, social issues, and business news.
### Professional Reputation
Low is recognized for his investigative approach to wealth and transparency. His reporting often bridges the gap between complex financial structures and their impact on the local property landscape.
He is currently a central figure in the ongoing defamation suit filed by Singapore Ministers K. Shanmugam and Dr. Tan See Leng regarding his 2024 article on "secret" mansion deals.
### Education Background
* **London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE):** Low is a graduate of this prestigious institution.
During his recent defamation trial, his academic credentials from LSE were referenced by Senior Counsel Davinder Singh to underscore his proficiency in the English language and his understanding of specific terminology used in his reporting.
### Job History
Low has built a career within major international news organizations, specializing in the Singapore and Asian markets.
* **Bloomberg News (September 2021 – Present):**
* **Role:** Real Estate & Property Reporter (Investing and Finance Team).
* **Focus:** He covers Singapore’s luxury property market (Good Class Bungalows), high-stakes money laundering investigations, family offices, and major corporate movements in the real estate sector.
* **Previous Experience:**
* Prior to joining Bloomberg in 2021, Low worked as a reporter for **The South China Morning Post (SCMP)**.
* During his time at SCMP, he was based in Hong Kong and covered a variety of beats, including local politics, social issues, and business news.
### Professional Reputation
Low is recognized for his investigative approach to wealth and transparency. His reporting often bridges the gap between complex financial structures and their impact on the local property landscape.
He is currently a central figure in the ongoing defamation suit filed by Singapore Ministers K. Shanmugam and Dr. Tan See Leng regarding his 2024 article on "secret" mansion deals.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 4,434
- Points
- 113
The specific salary for Low De Wei Dexter is not a matter of public record, as private companies like Bloomberg do not typically disclose individual employee earnings.
However, we can estimate his pay based on industry standards for international news agencies in Singapore.
Based on salary data from sites like Indeed and Payscale for Bloomberg reporters in Singapore as of early 2026, here is the estimated range:
Standard Reporter Salary
Most reporters at Bloomberg in Singapore earn an average of 10,400 to 12,400 Singapore Dollars (SGD) per month. This typically totals between 125,000 and 150,000 SGD per year before bonuses.
Senior Reporter Salary
Given that Low covers a specialized and high-stakes beat (Real Estate and Investing) and has several years of experience including his time at the South China Morning Post, he likely falls into the Senior Reporter category. Senior reporters at Bloomberg can earn an average of 12,800 to 14,800 SGD per month, with high-end estimates reaching up to 20,000 SGD per month.
This puts the annual range for senior roles between 150,000 and 240,000 SGD.
Additional Compensation
It is common for journalists at top-tier firms like Bloomberg to receive an annual performance bonus. Total compensation for a reporter with his level of experience and beat complexity is generally estimated to be in the mid-to-high 100,000s (SGD).
Summary of Estimated Figures
Monthly: 11,000 to 15,000 SGD
Yearly: 130,000 to 180,000+ SGD (depending on seniority level and bonuses).
However, we can estimate his pay based on industry standards for international news agencies in Singapore.
Based on salary data from sites like Indeed and Payscale for Bloomberg reporters in Singapore as of early 2026, here is the estimated range:
Standard Reporter Salary
Most reporters at Bloomberg in Singapore earn an average of 10,400 to 12,400 Singapore Dollars (SGD) per month. This typically totals between 125,000 and 150,000 SGD per year before bonuses.
Senior Reporter Salary
Given that Low covers a specialized and high-stakes beat (Real Estate and Investing) and has several years of experience including his time at the South China Morning Post, he likely falls into the Senior Reporter category. Senior reporters at Bloomberg can earn an average of 12,800 to 14,800 SGD per month, with high-end estimates reaching up to 20,000 SGD per month.
This puts the annual range for senior roles between 150,000 and 240,000 SGD.
Additional Compensation
It is common for journalists at top-tier firms like Bloomberg to receive an annual performance bonus. Total compensation for a reporter with his level of experience and beat complexity is generally estimated to be in the mid-to-high 100,000s (SGD).
Summary of Estimated Figures
Monthly: 11,000 to 15,000 SGD
Yearly: 130,000 to 180,000+ SGD (depending on seniority level and bonuses).
Similar threads
