- Joined
- Aug 20, 2022
- Messages
- 29,417
- Points
- 113
The Bloomberg GCB trial is officially an absolute circus. Here are the 5 jaw-dropping moments our $500M-funded mainstream media "forgot" to report.
FunnyTwo ministers took a global financial paper to court to legally prove Singapore’s property market is perfectly transparent. Instead, the trial accidentally revealed that state agencies actively hide public databases from journalists, state-funded media ignored an $88 million windfall for over two years, and a sitting Law Minister cashed out his mansion for $88 million without actually knowing the identity of his buyer.
If you haven’t been following the Shanmugam & Tan See Leng vs. Bloomberg defamation trial that just wrapped up its oral hearings, you are missing out on peak Singaporean wayang.
The context: The ministers sued Bloomberg for a 2024 article claiming the local Good Class Bungalow (GCB) market is "shrouded in secrecy." But in their attempt to legally prove how flawlessly transparent our system is, the trial has accidentally exposed an elite ivory tower so disconnected from reality, you couldn't write a better script.
Here is the highlight reel from the High Court that the mainstream media is conveniently burying:
1. SLA played a literal game of "Hide and Seek" with the press
This was the ultimate courtroom Uno Reverse card.
Davinder Singh (the legendary lawyer for the ministers) spent three grueling days absolutely grilling the Bloomberg reporter. His core accusation? That the reporter maliciously painted a false picture of secrecy because he deliberately failed to mention that the public can search for property details on the SLA's INLIS database.
The Plot Twist: On the final day, the defense dropped an internal government email chain. It revealed that when the Bloomberg reporter literally wrote to the SLA asking about property transparency, the SLA deliberately decided internally NOT to tell him about the INLIS portal.
Let that sink in. The state actively withheld the database from the journalist, and then the state's lawyers spent three days attacking the journalist for not writing about the database. You literally cannot make this up.
2. The S$88 Million Blind Spot
Singapore's state-funded media gets roughly S$560 million a year of taxpayer money to "keep citizens informed." Yet, somehow, every single highly-paid editor across every local news desk completely missed the fact that Minister Shanmugam sold his Astrid Hill GCB for a staggering S$88,000,000 (an $80 million profit from his 2003 purchase).
This wasn't a state secret. It was sitting on public SLA records. Anyone with a Singpass app and S$7.90 could find it. But for 28 straight months, our media ecosystem completely ignored a sitting minister making an 11x ROI real estate flip.
When did CNA finally report the $88M figure? Only when Shanmugam’s own lawyers put it in a court affidavit to sue someone else. World-class journalism, folks.
3. Selling a house for S$88M... and not knowing the buyer
Under cross-examination, Minister Shanmugam admitted on the stand that he does not know who the Ultimate Beneficial Owner (UBO) of his former $88 million GCB is. The property was sold to a trust.
Just take a step back and imagine that reality. A sitting Minister for Home Affairs and Law receives S$88,000,000 in pure cash from a trust for a house, and openly testifies in the High Court that he has absolutely no idea who the actual human being funding the purchase is.
But remember guys, the ministers are suing to prove that the GCB market is definitely not shrouded in secrecy! Nothing to see here!
4. Dr. Tan See Leng... the "BTO Battler"
Dr. Tan bought a S$27.3 million GCB in Brizay Park without lodging a caveat (a legal mechanism that makes the sale harder to track on public databases).
During cross-examination, the Bloomberg lawyer asked him a simple question: Is it a "sensitive issue" for locals that wealthy migrants are dropping massive cash on private properties?
Instead of just saying yes, the former CEO of a multi-billion dollar healthcare empire tried to relate to us peasants. He told the court that for the "first half" of his life, he didn't care about the ultra-wealthy buying GCBs because his main priority was—wait for it—"getting the next BTO flat."
Yes, the ultra-wealthy minister defending his $27 million off-the-radar mansion wants you to know that he, too, understands the struggle of the BTO lottery. (Never mind the fact that he was already in his late 30s when the BTO scheme was even invented).
5. Davinder Singh's Logic Gymnastics
In a truly bizarre exchange, the prosecution tried to pin the reporter down on his use of the word "secret."
The reporter pointed out that the INLIS database is incredibly difficult to use, requires you to already know the exact address of the property, and charges you per search—making it functionally "secret" to the general public.
Davinder Singh's response? He argued that because anyone could technically find the information (even though the SLA hid the existence of INLIS from the reporter), there is absolutely zero secrecy. By that logic, if information is buried behind paywalls, obscure portals, and expensive search fees, it's completely transparent! Problem solved!
Also: The "Reputational Damage" that accidentally got a Minister promoted
To win a defamation suit, you generally have to prove the article actually ruined your standing. But Bloomberg’s lawyer brought out the receipts, and the irony is staggering.
Since this "defamatory" article dropped in December 2024, Minister Shanmugam hasn't exactly suffered. In fact, he cruised into the May 2025 General Election and completely crushed it, scoring a massive 73.81% landslide—a nearly 12% swing in his favor that blew past the national average. His reward? The Prime Minister promoted him to Coordinating Minister for National Security.
The man bagged one of the most powerful portfolios in the country and a historic mandate, yet he is sitting in the High Court with a straight face arguing that Bloomberg caused him severe reputational damage. If this is what "serious harm" looks like, please ruin my reputation next.
And then there’s this: Bloomberg’s "Malicious Compliance" and the Paranoid Snake
When the government hit Bloomberg with a POFMA order, they demanded a correction notice. Bloomberg complied, but because their site is paywalled, non-subscribers couldn't easily read it.
Bloomberg’s response? They nuked the paywall for that specific article, making it 100% free for the entire planet to read. Davinder Singh was so triggered he gave three separate "aggravated damages" warnings in a single afternoon, accusing Bloomberg of trying to "stand up to the government."
But the absolute highlight? The Bloomberg reporter actually hit back with a Chinese idiom. He used “杯弓蛇影” (Bēi gōng shé yǐng)—which describes someone so paranoid they mistake the reflection of a bow in a cup for a snake. He basically told the most powerful legal team in Singapore, to their faces, that they are imagining threats where none exist. Absolute cinema.
Bonus Courtroom Quote to end your day:
At one point, Davinder Singh asked the reporter if he was obsessed with "bringing down" the Minister. The reporter’s deadpan reply under oath?
"I don't go to bed every night thinking about him."
Final Thoughts:
If a UK or US politician tried to sue a financial paper over a factually accurate trend piece because the layout of the paragraphs hurt their feelings, the case would be laughed out of court by lunchtime. In Taiwan, they'd just yell about it on a trashy prime-time talk show.
But here? We get a multi-day High Court extravaganza where the government sues the media to prove we aren't secretive, while accidentally laying bare exactly how the elite machinery operates.
Task failed successfully. Ownself check ownself remains undefeated.
What are your thoughts on this circus?
