SINGAPORE — The Bloomberg reporter who has been sued by two ministers for defamation over an article he wrote about good class bungalow (GCB) transactions took the stand on Monday (April 13), the fifth day of an ongoing trial.
Low De Wei, who is also known as Dexter, maintained that he had acted in good faith and was "motivated by the public interest in transparency and reporting on a trend in the Singapore GCB market".
But the ministers' lawyer, Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, grilled Low on claiming that certain deals are kept "secret" from the public and accused him of conveying falsehoods.
Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng have sued Bloomberg and Low over the Dec 12, 2024, article, headlined "Singapore mansion deals are increasingly shrouded in secrecy".
The article mentioned the ministers' property deals in 2023 - the sale of Shanmugam's former home in the Queen Astrid Park area to UBS Trustees for $88 million and Dr Tan's non-caveated purchase of a bungalow in Brizay Park for nearly $27.3 million.
The article states that the ultra-rich in Singapore are increasingly cloaking their purchases of mansions in secrecy, such as by using trusts to keep their identities private.
It also states 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 register their interest in a property and prevent it from being sold to others.
Earlier in the trial, Shanmugam, who is also Home Affairs Minister, had told the court that the non-filing of a caveat did not keep a deal secret because records have to be filed with government agencies.
On April 13, Singh questioned Low on the use of words in the article such as "secret", "shrouded", "cloaking" and "opacity".
Pointing out that Low graduated from the London School of Economics, the senior counsel said the reporter would have known that the word "secret" meant information or facts which are not known.
Low agreed, but added that the article was referring to information being kept secret from the public, not from the Government.
Singh challenged Low's contention that information about non-caveated deals is kept secret from the public.
The lawyer took him through the workings of the URA's platform known as REALIS, and a separate portal run by the SLA known as INLIS.
Singh said that even if a property transaction is not caveated, once the deal has been completed, one would be able to find out information on the transferor, the transferee and the purchase price from INLIS.
Low said a search would take a number of steps, and that each search had to be carried out on a specific address, but agreed that any member of the public could do it.
Singh said that since anyone could have found the information, there was no secrecy.
Low replied that he did not think anyone in Singapore has "thousands of dollars" to make such searches.
Singh responded: "I'm asking you whether there's a secret; you're talking about the cost of doing so. Do you agree that these are two different matters?"
When Low said no, the lawyer pressed on: "You are saying because it entails a cost, the information is secret to the public?"
Low replied: "Because it entails a significant cost."
Singh noted that on INLIS, a search for information on property ownership costs $5.25, while a property title information search costs $16.
The lawyer also questioned why Dr Tan's property purchase was mentioned in the article when there was nothing secret about the transaction.
Low said the article was making the point that there is a lack of transparency because it is difficult for people to find out about non-caveated deals on INLIS.
Singh noted that searches on both platforms cannot be done simply by searching for a name, and that users have to pay for both platforms, unless they access REALIS for free at the National Library Board.
He asked: "You are suggesting that information on REALIS is not secret but information on INLIS is secret because you have to pay a lot?"
Low replied: "In practice, yes."
Singh also noted that Low contacted the SLA in October 2024 for information, including asking about money laundering risks.
This was some days after Bloomberg Singapore bureau chief Andrea Tan flagged to him that then Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai had submitted a parliamentary question relating to GCBs sold to trust companies with foreign beneficiaries.
SLA responded to Low by sending him the written answer by then Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong.
The answer stated that where a property is bought through a licensed trust company, approval is not required if the purchaser can show that the beneficiaries are Singaporean. The answer added that the SLA tracks all cases where the beneficiaries are foreign and approval is needed.
Singh said the written answer made it plain that the Government would know whether the beneficiaries are foreign or Singaporean.
The lawyer then referred to the Bloomberg article, which states that the SLA does not collect general data on landed properties acquired through trust companies if the beneficiaries are Singapore citizens.
The article goes on to say that "in essence, that means that property agents and other service providers" are "primarily responsible for verifying the identities" of Singaporean buyers.
Singh contended that these two paragraphs gave the false impression that the Government does not know the identity of the beneficiaries and that it is left to property agents and service providers to verify their identities.
"What you did was disingenuous," said the lawyer.
When Low disagreed, Singh read the next paragraph, which quoted the executive director of a real estate consultancy as saying that "the problem with opacity is the fallout from public perception is much worse than the actual problem".
Singh said this was reinforcing the point that there were no checks and balances and no mandatory disclosure rules.
Low replied that the paragraph about property agents was crafted because SLA was very keen to emphasise the responsibilities of the "gatekeepers".
But Singh said Low was falsely conveying to readers that the Government does not know the identities of the beneficiaries and leaves it to the private sector to find out.
Low disagreed.
The trial continues on April 14.
[[nid:733266]]
This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.
