Shanmugam says Bloomberg has not challenged court’s findings of malice, falsehoods & wrongful conduct
More than a month after news outlet Bloomberg lost a defamation suit filed by Senior Minister K. Shanmugam and Minister for Trade and Industry (Energy and Industry) Tan See Leng, it has not appealed the ruling.
Mr Shanmugam said in a Facebook post on Saturday (29 Aug) that this shows that it knew the article was “full of falsehoods”.
Source: Cyber Security Agency on Facebook
Deadline for Bloomberg to appeal ruling has passed: Shanmugam
Mr Shanmugam, who is also Coordinating Minister for National Security and Home Affairs Minister, noted that the deadline for Bloomberg to appeal had passed two days ago.
He said the High Court judgement dated 14 July ruled that Bloomberg had maliciously and falsely defamed the two ministers in its article by making false allegations and publishing several falsehoods.
It had also failed to meet the standards of responsible journalism, he added.
But in response to the judgement, Bloomberg insisted that its reporting was accurate, the article was a “solid story” and it stood by its journalists.
Bloomberg’s decision not to appeal reveals ‘true assessment’ of legal merits: Shanmugam
Now that it has not appealed, the decision “reveals its true assessment of the legal merits”, Mr Shanmugam maintained, adding:
It has chosen to leave the Court’s findings of malice, falsehoods and wrongful conduct unchallenged, on the record.
He noted that Bloomberg had been served a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) order over the same article in December 2024, but chose not to apply to set aside the order, though it had the right to do so.
“Again, this shows that Bloomberg knew that the article was full of falsehoods,” he pointed out.
Source: James Cook University (Singapore Campus) on Facebook
Court finds Bloomberg deliberately targeted ministers
Some of the falsehoods carried in the December 2024 article, written by Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei, included an assertion that non-caveated transactions such as the ministers’ property transactions were kept secret from the public and that there was no public record of such transactions.
It also falsely asserted that the Government did not know about the transaction.
The court also found that the article deliberately targeted the ministers, especially Mr Shanmugam, and then came up with a “cover” to publish the story.
Source: Bloomberg
Bloomberg had failed standards of responsible journalism by, among other things, not giving the ministers adequate opportunity to comment — going against the principle of “simple fairness”, according to the judgement.
After the POFMA order was issued, Bloomberg lifted its paywall — conduct that “demonstrates malice” as it was done to give the article a broader reach, Justice Audrey Lim wrote.
Mr Shanmugam concluded:
Some media organisations adopt a superior attitude, believing themselves entitled to maliciously malign public leaders in non-Western societies and purvey falsehoods with impunity. They use their money and size to get away with this.
“They can’t do that in Singapore,” he added.
Matter has come to a close: Tan
In a Facebook post of his own, Dr Tan said the matter has now “come to a close” since the appeal period has passed.
Source: Tan See Leng on Facebook
He was “glad” that his and Mr Shanmugam’s positions have been cleared, and the standing and integrity of their public offices have been upheld, he maintained, adding:
Our focus remains where it has always been — on our commitment and work for Singapore and Singaporeans.
Have news you must share? Get in touch with us via email at news@mustsharenews.com.
Featured image adapted from Cyber Security Agency on Facebook and James Cook University (Singapore Campus) on Facebook.
