- Joined
- May 31, 2024
- Messages
- 674
- Points
- 43
SLA decided not to tell Bloomberg reporter about INLIS database when asked about property transparency
https://theonlinecitizen.com/2026/0...tabase-when-asked-about-property-transparency
-
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.
TOC-Bloomberg GCB - SLA decided not to tell Bloomberg reporter about INLIS database when asked about property transparency
- Thread starter joemartini
- Start date
https://theonlinecitizen.com/2026/0...tabase-when-asked-about-property-transparency
- Joined
- May 31, 2024
- Messages
- 674
- Points
- 43
On the final day of the Bloomberg GCB defamation trial, a government document admitted into evidence showed that the Singapore Land Authority decided not to tell reporter Low De Wei about a publicly accessible property database when he asked directly about transaction data availability — even as ministers' counsel spent three days arguing that Low's omission of the platform demonstrated deliberate falsification.
The Online Citizen16 Apr 2026
The seven-day oral phase of the defamation trial brought by Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng against United States financial news agency Bloomberg LP and its reporter Low De Wei concluded on 15 April 2026 at the Singapore High Court.
The final day produced a government document that placed on the open court record a decision by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) not to inform Low of a publicly accessible property database — the Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS) — when he submitted written questions about transparency in large property transactions as part of his article preparation in October 2024.
That document was introduced during re-examination of Low by Bloomberg's counsel Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan. It emerged on the same day that ministers' counsel Senior Counsel Davinder Singh completed three days of cross-examination in which Low's failure to specifically reference INLIS in his article was central to the submission that Low had deliberately constructed a false picture of opacity in Singapore's property market.
Both defendants formally closed their cases at approximately 3.34pm. A chambers hearing, not open to the public, was scheduled for 16 April 2026. Dates for closing submissions will be determined at a later stage.
Low's article referenced a database maintained by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and included a hyperlink to a URA page. INLIS and Realis were not named by name in the article. Low confirmed during re-examination that the hyperlink went to a URA page and that neither platform was referenced by name.
In cross-examination, Singh argued that Low had been using INLIS since at least January 2024, was aware of its contents, and nonetheless framed his article as though no transparency mechanism existed in Singapore's property market.
"Despite all the assistance that SLA gave you and despite your own knowledge of INLIS, you presented a false article full of fiction," Singh put to Low. Low disagreed.
The email was addressed to the Second Minister and copied to Shanmugam, among other senior government officials. When Sreenivasan began reading the CC list aloud, Singh interrupted and gave notice that the manner in which the Defence was presenting the document would be raised as a matter going to aggravated damages.
The document set out SLA's proposed approach to Low's written questions submitted in October 2024. Among those questions, Low had asked what the reasons were for not requiring the ultimate buyer and transaction value of large properties, in particular big-ticket items such as GCBs, to be published in a public database.
SLA's documented internal position on that question was that it would not respond to it when engaging the reporter. The document then recorded that while buyer identity and transaction value were in fact available on INLIS, SLA was not inclined to mention the portal to Low. The stated reason was that SLA does not proactively share the platform with media outlets, to minimise the risk of the public accessing it to extract IC numbers and ownership details of individuals, which SLA considered potentially subject to abuse.
Low told the court in re-examination that SLA had not drawn his attention to INLIS proactively during their engagement.
Singh's case on Low's closing paragraphs — the article's "kicker" — rested substantially on Low's knowledge. The argument was that Low, knowing INLIS existed and was accessible, nonetheless ended his article with language suggesting an absence of checks, balances and mandatory disclosure rules, and that this was knowing and therefore malicious.
The article's kicker quoted Alan Cheong, executive director of research at real estate consultancy Savills Singapore, on the risk of things going out of control if there were no checks and disclosures, and the view that it would be better if all private property deals were subject to mandatory disclosure rules.
Low said the kicker was added following an internal email from Bloomberg colleague Lulu Chen two days before publication, in which she suggested adding a quote on what the risks or repercussions would be if the trend continued. Low accepted that a kicker was meant to grab the reader's attention but denied the closing paragraphs were knowingly false.
Singh put to Low: "Despite knowing and understanding that there were all these checks and balances and disclosure rules, in your article at the end, in what you described as the kicker, you said there are no checks and balances and no mandatory disclosure rules." Low disagreed.
The SLA document, however, showed that when Low asked SLA directly in October 2024 what the reasons were for not requiring ultimate buyer and transaction value to be in a public database, SLA's documented internal response was to decline to answer that question and to not draw his attention to INLIS.
When Sreenivasan asked Low during re-examination whether SLA had answered his questions specifically, Low said it had not done so specifically.
A separate question from Low asked what the reasons were for not requiring the ultimate buyer and transaction value of properties, in particular big-ticket items such as GCBs, to be published in a public database.
Singh put to Low in cross-examination that this question had been asked in circumstances where Low already knew about INLIS and knew that a search on the platform for a completed transfer would show the name of the ultimate buyer and the transaction value, regardless of whether the property was a GCB or otherwise.
"You asked a question which you knew was false," Singh put to Low. Low disagreed. "That is precisely why I asked the question," Low said, adding that the information was not straightforwardly accessible.
Singh put to Low that despite receiving SLA's written responses directing him to parliamentary material and the AML report, and despite his own knowledge of INLIS, Low had chosen not to publish most of those answers because they would have been inconvenient to the line he was pursuing in the article. Low disagreed.
Singh also drew the court's attention to an email exchange between Low and a representative of List Sotheby's International Realty, a real estate agency Low had consulted as a source for the article.
In that exchange, Low had asked whether there was a difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing. The source replied there was no difference, and that the price of a bungalow depended on several factors including location, frontage, terrain, shape of the land plot, architectural design and quality of finishes.
Singh put to Low that his own source had told him pricing did not differ between caveated and non-caveated transactions and depended on multiple variables, none of which were accounted for in the chart.
"You completely disregarded all of that and presented a false picture," Singh put. Low disagreed. Singh put that Low had not checked the valuation or asking price of any individual property in the chart to determine whether a premium had in fact been paid.
Low said the chart spoke for itself.
The chart displayed a scatter plot of GCB transactions, categorised as caveated or non-caveated, with bubble sizes representing plot area and axes representing overall transaction value and price per square foot.
Justice Audrey Lim asked Low whether he had written that buyers typically pay premiums for off-radar transactions. Low confirmed he had. The judge then asked what Low meant by the phrase "pay a premium" and whether he agreed it was the buyer, not the seller, who determines whether to lodge a caveat on a property.
Low agreed that the buyer decides. He said the article meant buyers would pay more in non-caveated deals than in caveated ones, and not that they paid more to keep the deal off-radar.
Singh put to Low that Low had been told by his source at List Sotheby's International Realty that there was no difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing, and that price depended on factors including location, size and shape of land plot, frontage, terrain, age, architectural design and quality of finishes.
"Here was your source telling you that there is no difference between caveated and uncaveated deals when it comes to pricing. You completely disregarded all of that and presented a false picture. You created a notion, a fiction of there being premiums paid for off-radar transactions," Singh put to Low. Low disagreed.
Singh also noted that Low had not checked the valuation or asking price of any individual property in the chart to determine whether a premium had in fact been paid.
"If you don't know what the asking prices were when you prepared this chart, how do you know whether a premium was paid?" Singh asked. Low did not directly answer the question.
The judge asked whether Low had considered factors such as precise location, terrain, age and architectural design when preparing the chart. Low said those factors had not been considered in the chart. The judge observed that plot size, which appeared in the chart as bubble size, was accordingly incidental rather than analytical.
Singh put to Low: "Your suggestion is that a premium was being paid so that the buyer would also have the benefit of the seller keeping mum and keeping this transaction off-radar." Low said that was not right. Singh replied that no other explanation made sense.
"That chart, those sentences, the headline, and the references to the claimants in this article were all designed to stick the knife into Shanmugam and Tan See Leng," Singh put. Low disagreed.
Singh put to Low that the subject heading of that email chain was not about wealthy buyers but specifically about Shanmugam's sale of the GCB. Low confirmed the email chain and the subject heading.
Low had replied in that exchange suggesting the story could be wrapped in a broader piece about how wealthy individuals use trusts to buy property in Singapore. Singh put to Low that this was precisely what had occurred — Shanmugam's sale and Tan See Leng's purchase had been wrapped in a broader story on trust-based property buying.
Low denied having a personal motive against Shanmugam. "I don't go to bed every night thinking about him or how to bring him down," Low said.
Singh then put to Low that even before TOC published its article on Shanmugam's GCB sale on 12 September 2024, Low had already pitched the article idea to his manager in August 2024. Low confirmed this.
The phrase "political fodder" in the article — used to describe the sale of Shanmugam's property — was addressed at length. Singh asked Low whether any source had told him that Shanmugam's sale had become political fodder. Low initially said there were online forums discussing what Singapore Democratic Party Secretary General, Dr Chee Soon Juan had said, but when pressed to identify a source for the specific phrase, accepted there was none. Low said the phrase was inserted in the article either by himself or by his editor.
Singh asked if Low was serious that "political fodder" meant a political talking point. Low agreed that political fodder referred to material that could be the subject of a scandal in a political context, but said this depended on context. Singh put to Low: "To turn the knife in, Bloomberg decided to inform its readers that Shanmugam's sale would be political fodder for the general election in 2025." Low disagreed.
An internal Bloomberg email from colleague Stephanie Phang, shown to Low, raised a question about whether the story should be reviewed by lawyers "to make sure we are okay naming and shaming rich people in the story if their purchases were not previously known." Low said he did not think Phang was making a finding about the article but was being "ultra-cautious."
Singh put to Low that the Bloomberg addendum — published in response to the direction — had been prepared without anyone at Bloomberg formally asking Low to go through each of the five alleged false statements and provide his specific responses to each of them.
Low confirmed that while he had spoken generally to his editor Serena about the matter, he had not been asked to prepare a point-by-point response to each alleged false statement before the addendum was issued.
Singh put: "It would appear that Bloomberg considered that prudence dictated they had better not get into this issue." Low said he was not sure about that.
Singh put to Low that his own responses in his affidavit addressed each alleged false statement by pointing to one paragraph in the article without addressing the broader context the government had relied upon. Justice Lim confirmed to Low that Singh's point was that each response pointed to one particular paragraph. Low did not directly contest this characterisation.
That was the first of three notices Singh gave on Day 7 of a position on aggravated damages related to the Defence's conduct in presenting evidence.
The second arose when Sreenivasan sought to read aloud a passage in Annex B of the SLA internal email — the paragraph stating that SLA was not inclined to mention INLIS to the reporter. Singh said this was being done for a "collateral purpose" and gave notice on aggravated damages again. The judge allowed the paragraph to be read and stated that claimants could make submissions on the conduct of the Defence.
The third came at the close of witness testimony. Singh stated on the record that if Sreenivasan made points in closing submissions in relation to documents for which it did not adduce evidence or call the necessary witnesses, he would take the necessary consequences of that. Sreenivasan responded that it was the third time that afternoon Singh had done so, adding words to the effect that he had been placed under threat. Singh replied that he just being fair to give notice.
Singh's closing submission was addressed to Low directly. "Far from this being an exercise in responsible journalism, this article was the work of a pen dipped in gall," Singh put.
"This article was written maliciously to embarrass and damage the claimants. Bloomberg decided to inflict maximum damage on the claimants by keeping the article up for everyone and more people to read."
Low disagreed with each of these suggestions. "I disagree. The only agenda we had was to report the facts," Low said.
When Sreenivasan asked Low in re-examination why he had not included the content of ministerial statements about Singapore's AML framework in the article, Low said it was not the focus of the article. Low also denied he had tried to mislead the ministers when seeking their comment.
Low told the court he did not know how to put it in English, then cited the Chinese idiom 杯弓蛇影 — used to describe someone who imagines a threat where none exists, as in the classical image of a person mistaking the reflection of a bow in a cup for a snake. Low applied the phrase to Singh's accusation of deliberate misleading, saying there was no hidden agenda to see. "I had no intention to mislead and did not do what you are alleging," Low said.
A chambers hearing not open to the public was scheduled for 16 April 2026. Dates for closing submissions will be set thereafter. Justice Audrey Lim will deliver her judgment following closing submissions.
The trial has proceeded over seven hearing days beginning 7 April 2026.
The Online Citizen16 Apr 2026
The seven-day oral phase of the defamation trial brought by Coordinating Minister for National Security K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng against United States financial news agency Bloomberg LP and its reporter Low De Wei concluded on 15 April 2026 at the Singapore High Court.
The final day produced a government document that placed on the open court record a decision by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) not to inform Low of a publicly accessible property database — the Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS) — when he submitted written questions about transparency in large property transactions as part of his article preparation in October 2024.
That document was introduced during re-examination of Low by Bloomberg's counsel Senior Counsel Sreenivasan Narayanan. It emerged on the same day that ministers' counsel Senior Counsel Davinder Singh completed three days of cross-examination in which Low's failure to specifically reference INLIS in his article was central to the submission that Low had deliberately constructed a false picture of opacity in Singapore's property market.
Both defendants formally closed their cases at approximately 3.34pm. A chambers hearing, not open to the public, was scheduled for 16 April 2026. Dates for closing submissions will be determined at a later stage.
The article and the data question
The article at the centre of the suit, headlined "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy" and published on 12 December 2024, reported that non-caveated Good Class Bungalow (GCB) transactions do not appear on Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA)'s Realis database and that buyer identities in trust-based purchases are difficult to establish from public records.Low's article referenced a database maintained by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and included a hyperlink to a URA page. INLIS and Realis were not named by name in the article. Low confirmed during re-examination that the hyperlink went to a URA page and that neither platform was referenced by name.
In cross-examination, Singh argued that Low had been using INLIS since at least January 2024, was aware of its contents, and nonetheless framed his article as though no transparency mechanism existed in Singapore's property market.
"Despite all the assistance that SLA gave you and despite your own knowledge of INLIS, you presented a false article full of fiction," Singh put to Low. Low disagreed.
What the SLA document shows
The internal SLA document, admitted as part of the agreed bundle, was an email chain produced at the Defence's request on the final day of witness testimony. Singh stated upon its production that it was the first time the Defence had sought the document and that the Claimants considered it entirely irrelevant. The Claimants provided it unredacted.The email was addressed to the Second Minister and copied to Shanmugam, among other senior government officials. When Sreenivasan began reading the CC list aloud, Singh interrupted and gave notice that the manner in which the Defence was presenting the document would be raised as a matter going to aggravated damages.
The document set out SLA's proposed approach to Low's written questions submitted in October 2024. Among those questions, Low had asked what the reasons were for not requiring the ultimate buyer and transaction value of large properties, in particular big-ticket items such as GCBs, to be published in a public database.
SLA's documented internal position on that question was that it would not respond to it when engaging the reporter. The document then recorded that while buyer identity and transaction value were in fact available on INLIS, SLA was not inclined to mention the portal to Low. The stated reason was that SLA does not proactively share the platform with media outlets, to minimise the risk of the public accessing it to extract IC numbers and ownership details of individuals, which SLA considered potentially subject to abuse.
Low told the court in re-examination that SLA had not drawn his attention to INLIS proactively during their engagement.
The questioning and the document
The juxtaposition of Singh's three days of questioning — in which Low's failure to name INLIS was central to the case that he had deliberately constructed a false picture of opacity — and SLA's own documented decision not to mention the platform to Low produced a tension that neither party directly addressed in open court.Singh's case on Low's closing paragraphs — the article's "kicker" — rested substantially on Low's knowledge. The argument was that Low, knowing INLIS existed and was accessible, nonetheless ended his article with language suggesting an absence of checks, balances and mandatory disclosure rules, and that this was knowing and therefore malicious.
The article's kicker quoted Alan Cheong, executive director of research at real estate consultancy Savills Singapore, on the risk of things going out of control if there were no checks and disclosures, and the view that it would be better if all private property deals were subject to mandatory disclosure rules.
Low said the kicker was added following an internal email from Bloomberg colleague Lulu Chen two days before publication, in which she suggested adding a quote on what the risks or repercussions would be if the trend continued. Low accepted that a kicker was meant to grab the reader's attention but denied the closing paragraphs were knowingly false.
Singh put to Low: "Despite knowing and understanding that there were all these checks and balances and disclosure rules, in your article at the end, in what you described as the kicker, you said there are no checks and balances and no mandatory disclosure rules." Low disagreed.
The SLA document, however, showed that when Low asked SLA directly in October 2024 what the reasons were for not requiring ultimate buyer and transaction value to be in a public database, SLA's documented internal response was to decline to answer that question and to not draw his attention to INLIS.
When Sreenivasan asked Low during re-examination whether SLA had answered his questions specifically, Low said it had not done so specifically.
Big-ticket transactions and the questions Low asked
The SLA internal email also documented the agency's proposed responses to specific written questions Low had submitted in October 2024. One of those questions asked whether the government or any agency reviewed big-ticket transactions for money laundering risk, especially pure cash deals. SLA's internal position was to direct Low to the inter-ministerial committee report on anti-money laundering (AML) and the ministerial statement published in Hansard on 4 October 2023, covering AML safeguards in the real estate sector including customer due diligence requirements.A separate question from Low asked what the reasons were for not requiring the ultimate buyer and transaction value of properties, in particular big-ticket items such as GCBs, to be published in a public database.
Singh put to Low in cross-examination that this question had been asked in circumstances where Low already knew about INLIS and knew that a search on the platform for a completed transfer would show the name of the ultimate buyer and the transaction value, regardless of whether the property was a GCB or otherwise.
"You asked a question which you knew was false," Singh put to Low. Low disagreed. "That is precisely why I asked the question," Low said, adding that the information was not straightforwardly accessible.
Singh put to Low that despite receiving SLA's written responses directing him to parliamentary material and the AML report, and despite his own knowledge of INLIS, Low had chosen not to publish most of those answers because they would have been inconvenient to the line he was pursuing in the article. Low disagreed.
Singh also drew the court's attention to an email exchange between Low and a representative of List Sotheby's International Realty, a real estate agency Low had consulted as a source for the article.
In that exchange, Low had asked whether there was a difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing. The source replied there was no difference, and that the price of a bungalow depended on several factors including location, frontage, terrain, shape of the land plot, architectural design and quality of finishes.
Singh put to Low that his own source had told him pricing did not differ between caveated and non-caveated transactions and depended on multiple variables, none of which were accounted for in the chart.
"You completely disregarded all of that and presented a false picture," Singh put. Low disagreed. Singh put that Low had not checked the valuation or asking price of any individual property in the chart to determine whether a premium had in fact been paid.
Low said the chart spoke for itself.
The chart and the premiums argument
A central dispute of the day concerned an interactive infographic in the published article under the header: "The price of quiet mansion deals: Buyers typically pay premiums for off-radar transactions in Singapore."The chart displayed a scatter plot of GCB transactions, categorised as caveated or non-caveated, with bubble sizes representing plot area and axes representing overall transaction value and price per square foot.
Justice Audrey Lim asked Low whether he had written that buyers typically pay premiums for off-radar transactions. Low confirmed he had. The judge then asked what Low meant by the phrase "pay a premium" and whether he agreed it was the buyer, not the seller, who determines whether to lodge a caveat on a property.
Low agreed that the buyer decides. He said the article meant buyers would pay more in non-caveated deals than in caveated ones, and not that they paid more to keep the deal off-radar.
Singh put to Low that Low had been told by his source at List Sotheby's International Realty that there was no difference between caveated and non-caveated transactions in terms of pricing, and that price depended on factors including location, size and shape of land plot, frontage, terrain, age, architectural design and quality of finishes.
"Here was your source telling you that there is no difference between caveated and uncaveated deals when it comes to pricing. You completely disregarded all of that and presented a false picture. You created a notion, a fiction of there being premiums paid for off-radar transactions," Singh put to Low. Low disagreed.
Singh also noted that Low had not checked the valuation or asking price of any individual property in the chart to determine whether a premium had in fact been paid.
"If you don't know what the asking prices were when you prepared this chart, how do you know whether a premium was paid?" Singh asked. Low did not directly answer the question.
The judge asked whether Low had considered factors such as precise location, terrain, age and architectural design when preparing the chart. Low said those factors had not been considered in the chart. The judge observed that plot size, which appeared in the chart as bubble size, was accordingly incidental rather than analytical.
Singh put to Low: "Your suggestion is that a premium was being paid so that the buyer would also have the benefit of the seller keeping mum and keeping this transaction off-radar." Low said that was not right. Singh replied that no other explanation made sense.
"That chart, those sentences, the headline, and the references to the claimants in this article were all designed to stick the knife into Shanmugam and Tan See Leng," Singh put. Low disagreed.
Story pitch and political fodder
Singh also revisited the development of the article from its earliest internal discussion in March 2024, when a Bloomberg colleague emailed Low noting that a source had heard that "our favourite minister" had recently sold his GCB at Queen Astrid, probably for an "eye-watering sum."Singh put to Low that the subject heading of that email chain was not about wealthy buyers but specifically about Shanmugam's sale of the GCB. Low confirmed the email chain and the subject heading.
Low had replied in that exchange suggesting the story could be wrapped in a broader piece about how wealthy individuals use trusts to buy property in Singapore. Singh put to Low that this was precisely what had occurred — Shanmugam's sale and Tan See Leng's purchase had been wrapped in a broader story on trust-based property buying.
Low denied having a personal motive against Shanmugam. "I don't go to bed every night thinking about him or how to bring him down," Low said.
Singh then put to Low that even before TOC published its article on Shanmugam's GCB sale on 12 September 2024, Low had already pitched the article idea to his manager in August 2024. Low confirmed this.
The phrase "political fodder" in the article — used to describe the sale of Shanmugam's property — was addressed at length. Singh asked Low whether any source had told him that Shanmugam's sale had become political fodder. Low initially said there were online forums discussing what Singapore Democratic Party Secretary General, Dr Chee Soon Juan had said, but when pressed to identify a source for the specific phrase, accepted there was none. Low said the phrase was inserted in the article either by himself or by his editor.
Singh asked if Low was serious that "political fodder" meant a political talking point. Low agreed that political fodder referred to material that could be the subject of a scandal in a political context, but said this depended on context. Singh put to Low: "To turn the knife in, Bloomberg decided to inform its readers that Shanmugam's sale would be political fodder for the general election in 2025." Low disagreed.
An internal Bloomberg email from colleague Stephanie Phang, shown to Low, raised a question about whether the story should be reviewed by lawyers "to make sure we are okay naming and shaming rich people in the story if their purchases were not previously known." Low said he did not think Phang was making a finding about the article but was being "ultra-cautious."
The POFMA addendum
Singh took Low through his affidavit's table of responses to the five statements identified as false in the POFMA Correction Direction issued on 23 December 2024.Singh put to Low that the Bloomberg addendum — published in response to the direction — had been prepared without anyone at Bloomberg formally asking Low to go through each of the five alleged false statements and provide his specific responses to each of them.
Low confirmed that while he had spoken generally to his editor Serena about the matter, he had not been asked to prepare a point-by-point response to each alleged false statement before the addendum was issued.
Singh put: "It would appear that Bloomberg considered that prudence dictated they had better not get into this issue." Low said he was not sure about that.
Singh put to Low that his own responses in his affidavit addressed each alleged false statement by pointing to one paragraph in the article without addressing the broader context the government had relied upon. Justice Lim confirmed to Low that Singh's point was that each response pointed to one particular paragraph. Low did not directly contest this characterisation.
The SLA email CC and aggravated damages notices
When Sreenivasan began reading aloud the CC list of the SLA internal email — which included Shanmugam among the government officials copied on the chain — Singh interrupted and gave notice that this was being raised as a matter going to aggravated damages.That was the first of three notices Singh gave on Day 7 of a position on aggravated damages related to the Defence's conduct in presenting evidence.
The second arose when Sreenivasan sought to read aloud a passage in Annex B of the SLA internal email — the paragraph stating that SLA was not inclined to mention INLIS to the reporter. Singh said this was being done for a "collateral purpose" and gave notice on aggravated damages again. The judge allowed the paragraph to be read and stated that claimants could make submissions on the conduct of the Defence.
The third came at the close of witness testimony. Singh stated on the record that if Sreenivasan made points in closing submissions in relation to documents for which it did not adduce evidence or call the necessary witnesses, he would take the necessary consequences of that. Sreenivasan responded that it was the third time that afternoon Singh had done so, adding words to the effect that he had been placed under threat. Singh replied that he just being fair to give notice.
Singh's closing submission was addressed to Low directly. "Far from this being an exercise in responsible journalism, this article was the work of a pen dipped in gall," Singh put.
"This article was written maliciously to embarrass and damage the claimants. Bloomberg decided to inflict maximum damage on the claimants by keeping the article up for everyone and more people to read."
Low disagreed with each of these suggestions. "I disagree. The only agenda we had was to report the facts," Low said.
When Sreenivasan asked Low in re-examination why he had not included the content of ministerial statements about Singapore's AML framework in the article, Low said it was not the focus of the article. Low also denied he had tried to mislead the ministers when seeking their comment.
Low told the court he did not know how to put it in English, then cited the Chinese idiom 杯弓蛇影 — used to describe someone who imagines a threat where none exists, as in the classical image of a person mistaking the reflection of a bow in a cup for a snake. Low applied the phrase to Singh's accusation of deliberate misleading, saying there was no hidden agenda to see. "I had no intention to mislead and did not do what you are alleging," Low said.
Close of proceedings
Sreenivasan formally closed the case for Bloomberg LP at approximately 3.34pm. Chelva Retnam Rajah formally closed the case for Low De Wei. Both defendants' cases are now closed.A chambers hearing not open to the public was scheduled for 16 April 2026. Dates for closing submissions will be set thereafter. Justice Audrey Lim will deliver her judgment following closing submissions.
The trial has proceeded over seven hearing days beginning 7 April 2026.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2020
- Messages
- 16,772
- Points
- 113
Court can order to tell and show mah...correct?
Similar threads
