'The work of a pen dipped in gall': Davinder Singh slams Bloomberg article on Day 7 of trial

Bloomberg reporter Low De Wei's article on property transactions was "the work of a pen dipped in gall", said Senior Counsel Davinder Singh on Apr. 15, the final day of the week-long Bloomberg trial.

The lawyer of Home Affairs and Manpower Ministers K Shanmugam and Tan See Leng respectively also reiterated his earlier accusation that Low was "perpetuating falsehoods" with his Dec. 12, 2024 article, which is at the centre of the ministers' defamation suit.

"Far from this being an exercise of responsible journalism, this article was the work of a pen dipped in gall, correct?" said Singh, to which Low said he disagreed.

Last day of court

The nearly six hour-long sitting on Apr. 15 centred on Singh's allegation that Low's article was a false narrative, suggesting Shanmugam and Tan had made secretive property transactions, citing the use of phrases like "off-radar transactions".

Singh also addressed Low's discussion of caveated and non-caveated purchases, allegations of a lack of checks and balances, and an alleged absence of mandatory disclosure rules.

He accused Low of disregarding sources proving there was no difference between a caveated and non-caveated transaction in terms of pricing, by suggesting that premiums were paid for off-radar transactions.

"Putting all these together, it was clear you intended to convey or did convey that these types of transactions involve both sides of the field getting together, helping to keep the transaction secret to avoid the use of undue scrutiny," he said.

"That was done to perpetuate the falsehoods with your article," Singh said, referring to it as "crafty drafting".

Low responded there was no "crafty drafting" on his part, and his article was not about money laundering.

Targeted attack

Later, Singh raised a number of email exchanges between Low and a member of his editorial team, who raised concerns that the article "would be quite a politically sensitive story" especially with the 2025 General Election around the corner.

"You were told it would be a politically sensitive story, but you framed it against a broader story of how rich people in Singapore use trusts to buy property," said Singh.

Low disagreed with the characterisation, insisting that his article was framed against the wealth of a property's buyer, not a seller like Shanmugam.

"I don’t spend every night thinking of him," he added.

"The idea you came up with, the broader angle you went with, was about money laundering. Correct?" said Singh, who suggested that Low was determined to find a loophole against Shanmugam.

Low, as per previous days of trials, responded that money laundering was never the focus of the article.

Accusation of deliberate misleading

Singh further pointed out that Low had already pitched his article to his editor even before the news of Shanmugam's sale was first made public on the site The Online Citizen, upon which he "pounced" on it to add into his narrative.

Low said he disagreed with Singh's use of the word "pounced."

"I suggest to you you deliberately misled the claimants so you could check the box to say you mentioned the claimants without stating what you mentioned them for," Singh pressed further, referring to queries Low made to both ministers in the process of drafting the article.

Low disagreed and said: "There was no misleading because there was no need to mislead."

Singh cited evidence that another member of the Bloomberg editorial team had raised possible legal concerns about the article, and said that Low was aware others were concerned.

Low replied that he did not think she was concerned, and she was just being a "devil's advocate".

Only reported the facts, no agenda: Low

Singh also made the accusation that Bloomberg had an agenda.

"I disagree. The only agenda we had was to report the facts," Low responded

In his closing statements, Singh posited: "This article was written maliciously to embarrass and damage the claimants."

"Far from this being an exercise of responsible journalism, this article was the work of a pen dipped in gall.

Bloomberg decided to inflict maximum damage on the claimants by keeping the article up for everyone and more people to read."

Low disagreed with these suggestions.

The courtroom trial ended on its seventh day at about 3:35pm on Apr. 15.

Both sides are expected to return for closing submissions at a later date.

Top images via Mothership