I have two bigger news stories this week, and am splitting them up across sections because I get into the weeds a bit.
(1)
K Shanmugam and Tan See Leng have won their case against Bloomberg. On 12 December 2024, Bloomberg published 'Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy', written by its reporter Low De Wei. This past week, the High Court ruled in Shanmugam and Tan's favour. Justice Audrey Lim wrote:
I find the natural and ordinary meaning of the Article is that the claimants took advantage of the absence of checks and balances or disclosure requirements to conduct their property transactions in a non-transparent manner, and that they did so in order to hide their transactions and avoid scrutiny that might extend to the possibility of money laundering.
She ordered Bloomberg and Low to pay the two ministers $230,000 each ($170,000 in general damages and $60,000 in aggravated damages).
(1.2)
Notably, the written judgment also engages with the "Reynolds privilege", also known as the "Reynolds defence". The Reynolds defence is so named because it came out of the defamation suit brought by Albert Reynolds, the taoiseach of Ireland, against The Times in the 1990s. Basically, a journalist or media outlet can, in a defamation case, raise the defence that they had acted responsibly and in good faith, and published the statements—even if they turned out to be incorrect or defamatory—because it was in the public interest to do so. The court will then have to scrutinise the disputed content and the conduct of the journalist/media outlet to figure out if this holds up. The Reynolds defence was abolished in the UK in 2013, replaced by Section 4 of the Defamation Act, which states:
It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that—
(a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.
This is significant for journalism because there might be scenarios where the situation is still in flux and information is only coming out in drips and drabs, where things might be developing or changing as time passes, or where there are many barriers and challenges to being able to definitively prove that a statement is true. It can be a tricky maze to navigate, and it doesn't always turn out perfectly or even well, but that doesn't mean that the reporter deliberately set out to wreck a reputation. Even if they got something wrong and ended up publishing something defamatory, the Reynolds defence allows the journalist/media to argue that they had not acted out of malice and had tried their best to behave responsibly at the time, and that it was in the public interest for them to have gone ahead with the story.
The Reynolds defence was rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2009 in relation to defamation suits that Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong had brought against the Far Eastern Economic Review. Justice Lim reiterates this position in her judgment: the Reynolds privilege was a common law defence in England and was never part of Singapore's common law. (In any case, even if it were to become part of Singaporean law, it would have to be on the basis of the constitutional right to free speech, and that would do Bloomberg no good in this case because "constitutional free speech in Singapore is limited to Singapore citizens only" [🫣] and Bloomberg, the media outlet, ain't no pink IC holder.)
This isn't a surprising position, because Singapore has never accepted the notion of the press acting as a "fourth estate" scrutinising the elite, demanding accountability, and essentially keeping power in check. Instead, in Singapore, the media is essentially seen as part of a nation-building toolkit, with the job of communicating and educating the public on the positions and policies of the government of the day (which has always been the People's Action Party). So why provide any special safeguards, protections, or defences to journalists or the media if they aren't seen as defenders of the public interest against power in the first place?
(1.3)
Reactions to the judgment have come in fast. Despite everything, Bloomberg is sticking to their story. Here's John Micklethwait, the editor-in-chief:
We argued at trial that our reporting was accurate and served an important public interest, and we continue to believe that the ministers have imposed an extremely strained meaning on what was a solid story. Our newsroom—and our reporter—conducted themselves with integrity, and met all our editorial standards in preparing the story at the center of this trial. We continue to stand by them.
Reporters Without Borders characterised the defamation lawsuit as an example of a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) in Singapore. Their Asia-Pacific director, Cedric Alviani, said:
By finding Bloomberg and journalist Low De Wei liable for defamation and ordering them to pay substantial damages, Singapore’s judiciary has once again legitimised the use of legal proceedings to punish reporting on issues of public interest. This ruling sends a worrying signal to journalists investigating matters involving public officials and risks encouraging further abusive lawsuits aimed at silencing reporting on political leaders. The Singaporean authorities must end the weaponisation of legal proceedings against journalists and media.
Beh Lih Yi, the Asia-Pacific director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said that the court's ruling will "chill public interest reporting". The International Federation of Journalists said:
The Singapore High Court’s ruling against Bloomberg is an unacceptable blow to investigative journalism. Weaponising defamation laws against media outlets for reporting in the public interest creates a dangerous environment of self-censorship designed to insulate public officials from legitimate scrutiny. The IFJ calls for the ruling to be overturned and the end to the harassment of independent and critical media in Singapore.
It's unlikely these comments are keeping K Shanmugam, home affairs minister and coordinating minister for national security, up at night. In a statement published on social media, he said:
Some commentators, particularly in the Western media, say that defamation suits have a "chilling effect". But Singapore’s experience does not bear this out. Singapore supports robust journalism and vigorous public debate. But freedom of expression carries responsibilities. It does not extend to publishing false and defamatory allegations without basis. That is the principle reaffirmed by the Court in this case.
(1.4)
My take? I'll be honest: I procrastinated writing this newsletter a little bit because I wasn't sure if I should even express an opinion on this, if I can safely navigate what feels like an even more precarious minefield. Shanmugam can say what he wants but I think it's ludicrous to claim that "Singapore supports robust journalism and vigorous public debate". I can't even say it's an open secret that Singaporeans and Singaporean journalists self-censor; for that statement to be accurate, it would first have to at least attempt to be a secret. We all know the reality. It's there every time someone brings up "OB markers", every time a friend or a family member warns us to watch what we say, every time people get antsy if things "get political", every time we joke about PAP bigwigs suing people's pants off.
I agree with Micklethwait saying that the ministers "imposed an extremely strained meaning" on the article. Witnessing this fallout to a piece like that makes it even scarier to write about things relating to powerful people. There likely will—probably already is—a chilling effect as people fret about what can be said, what should be said, and how one can safely say the things that can and should be said. This was a win for Shanmugam and Tan, but I don't think it was a win for Singapore at all.
(2)
The Auditor-General's annual report doesn't usually get much attention—I get it, the combination of the words "audit" and "report" sound boring AF—but it probably should. The report of 2025/26 flags some notable findings. I recommendation at least skimming the whole thing, but here are some findings:
- According to Government Instruction Manual on Staff, agencies are supposed to get approval from the relevant authorities before they can make an offer of appointment. When the Auditor-General's Office picked a bunch of appointments of Ministry of Education officers to review, MOE "informed us of possible falsified approval emails". The ministry has reported the matter to the police, and is "working towards automating the appointment process to reduce manual work and enhancing its internal controls and monitoring by the end of 2027".
- When the AGO looked into 68 sets of procurement documents—with a total value of $10.57 million—from the Ministry of Defence, they found "possible irregularities within 20 sets relating to payments totalling $4.41 million". In its report, the AGO said that "these possible irregularities cast doubt on the authenticity of quotations provided, and whether reasonable market rates had been paid for the works performed". MINDEF has lodged a police report and promises to strengthen its processes.
- From January 2026, the Ministry of Manpower had charged foreign worker levies for work permit holders in the marine shipyard sector at a rate higher than what was stated in the law. In the first two months of this year, they charged a total of $4.82 million more than what's stated in legislation. MOM said that the rates had been updated and implemented as of the beginning of the year, but the relevant subsidiary legislation had not been updated to reflect these new rates at the time of the AGO's audit. They've since done that, with the amended subsidiary legislation taking effect on 1 June. MOM will refund the firms affected.
- An analysis of records from the Ministry of Social and Family Development and the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Singapore found that people who shouldn't be at casinos—because they're supposed to be excluded, or are special employees at casinos who aren't allowed to gamble—have gained entry or engaged in gambling when they shouldn't have been. For example, between 1 April 2023 and 1 March 2025, 120 excluded persons got into the two local casinos even though they were supposed to be prohibited from doing so.
The report continues on in this vein, going through ministries and statutory boards, pointing out irregularities, weaknesses, lapses, and areas in need of improvement. Not the sexiest of reading, but important for governance and oversight!
Thank you for reading! As always, feel free to forward this weekly wrap to anyone you think might be interested, share the web link on social media, or spread the word about this newsletter!
Music for the weekend! This is possibly my favourite journalism-related song ever. Not set in Singapore, obviously.
Give life's little guys some ink, and when it dries, just watch what happens
Those kids will live and breathe right on the page
And once they're centre stage, you watch what happens