Bloomberg journalist omitted info from own source about GCB transactions: Ministers’ lawyer
Samuel Devaraj
The Straits Times
April 15, 2026
Bloomberg journalist Low De Wei had left out information given to him by a real estate analyst so he could paint a “false picture” that some buyers of good class bungalows (GCBs) were paying premiums for off-the-radar deals.
Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, who is representing two ministers in the defamation suit against Bloomberg and Mr Low, said the reporter did this despite being told by the analyst in an e-mail that there was no difference between the pricing of caveated and non-caveated transactions.
Mr Singh, who is acting for Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, noted that the analyst had explained that the price of a GCB depended on several factors, including the size of the plot, the terrain and the quality of the finishes.
Cross-examining Mr Low on April 15 in the ongoing defamation trial in the High Court, Mr Singh said: “Here was your source telling you that there is no difference between caveated and uncaveated (deals) when it comes to pricing. It depends on the various factors.
“You completely disregarded all of that and presented a false picture. You created a notion, a fiction of there being premiums paid for off-the-radar transactions.”
Mr Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, and Dr Tan have sued Bloomberg and Mr Low over the Dec 12, 2024, article headlined “Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy”.
The report mentioned the sale of Mr Shanmugam’s former home in the Queen Astrid Park area to UBS Trustees for $88 million in 2023, and Dr Tan’s non-caveated purchase of a bungalow in Brizay Park for nearly $27.3 million the same year.
In the article, Mr Low wrote that deals without caveats are much 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 property buyers and mortgage lenders can submit to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to prevent a property from being sold to others.
Mr Low denied Mr Singh’s charge that he had created “a fiction”.
The lawyer put it to the reporter that the article was written maliciously “to embarrass and damage” the ministers, and that Bloomberg decided to inflict maximum damage by keeping the article up without a paywall for more people to read.
“Far from an exercise of responsible journalism, this article was written by a pen dipped in gall,” Mr Singh added.
The lawyer noted that the report ends with a quote from a real estate expert who said that there is a risk of things going out of control if there are no checks and balances, and that it would be better if all private property deals are subject to mandatory disclosure rules.
Mr Singh said Mr Low included the last paragraphs despite knowing and understanding the checks and balances and disclosure rules.
He highlighted a ministerial statement by then Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo in October 2023 relating to a $3 billion money laundering case, which was provided to Mr Low by SLA when he submitted queries in preparation for his article.
The lawyer noted that in her speech, Mrs Teo had outlined Singapore’s anti-money laundering approach, including how financial institutions are important gatekeepers.
Mr Singh said despite knowing this, Mr Low included the last paragraph as a kicker “to grab the readers’ attention”.
‘Political fodder’
Mr Singh noted that Mr Low had described the sale of Mr Shanmugam’s property as “political fodder”, with the article making reference to Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan’s questioning of the bungalow’s recent valuation and the identity of the new owner.
Mr Low agreed that Mr Chee did not use the words “political fodder”.
He said that it was a phrase that he either inserted in the story or agreed to be inserted.
When asked for the definition of the term, Mr Low said it was a “political talking point”.
Mr Singh questioned him if he was serious, and asked him if he would agree that the phrase refers to material that can be the subject of a scandal in a political context.
“I agree, but it depends on context,” said Mr Low.
Mr Singh put it to Mr Low that “to turn the knife”, Bloomberg decided to inform its readers that Mr Shanmugam’s sale would be political fodder for the general election in 2025.
Mr Low disagreed.
Mr Singh noted that in an e-mail exchange between Bloomberg staff in March 2024, one of them had flagged the story as politically sensitive, especially with an upcoming general election.
Mr Low said he did not use the nine months between his pitch for the article and its publication to devise a plan to target Mr Shanmugam.
“I don’t go to bed every night thinking how to bring him (Mr Shanmugam) down,” added Mr Low.
During re-examination by Bloomberg’s lawyer, Senior Counsel N. Sreenivasan, Mr Low said he did not include what Mrs Teo had said in Parliament as the article was not about money laundering.
Mr Sreenivasan introduced a fresh piece of evidence during re-examination – an internal SLA e-mail discussing how the agency was going to respond to queries sent by Mr Low for his article.
It stated that SLA was going to engage with Mr Low by providing him with background information instead of issuing an official response.
On Mr Low’s question of whether the Government reviewed big-ticket transactions for any money laundering risk, especially pure cash deals, SLA said it would direct the reporter to a report by an inter-ministerial committee on anti-money laundering.
In the e-mail, the agency said that while information on buyers of properties and transaction values is available through SLA, it decided against mentioning the portal to the media. While the portal is open to the public, it is often used by “industry players and relevant stakeholders”.
Cross-examining Mr Low on this, Mr Singh said the e-mail showed that SLA was trying to help him by referring him to various sources, but Mr Low chose not to publish most of these answers because they would be inconvenient to the line he was going for in the article.
Mr Low disagreed.
The next date for the trial is April 16, when a hearing will be held in chambers and not open to the public.
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
Explore more on these topics
