Bloomberg Journalist Under Intense Cross-Examination Over Secret Luxury Property Allegations

Bloomberg reporter grilled in court over claims that Singapore bungalow deals are secret as defamation trial from two ministers continues.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 14, 2026, 6:18 AM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from The Straits Times

A Confrontation Over Journalistic Intent and Good Faith

The defamation trial involving Bloomberg and its reporter, Low De Wei, reached a pivotal stage as the journalist took the stand to defend his December 2024 reporting. Facing a lawsuit from Coordinating Minister for National Security K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng, Low asserted that his work was motivated by a genuine public interest in market transparency. The article at the heart of the dispute alleged that mansion deals in Singapore were increasingly cloaked in secrecy, specifically citing property transactions involving the two ministers as examples of a broader trend toward non-caveated purchases.

Dissecting the Mechanics of Property Database Transparency

A central point of contention during the fifth day of trial was the accessibility of information within government property portals. Senior Counsel Davinder Singh, representing the ministers, challenged Low’s assertion that deals without caveats are hidden from the public. Singh demonstrated that while such transactions do not appear in the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s REALIS database, the essential details, including the identities of the buyer and seller and the final purchase price, remain accessible through the Singapore Land Authority’s INLIS portal once a deal is completed.

The Financial Barrier Argument as a Proxy for Secrecy

During the rigorous cross-examination, Low argued that despite the theoretical availability of data, the cost of conducting individual searches on specific addresses constituted a practical form of secrecy. He contended that the significant expense required to track non-caveated deals on INLIS effectively kept the information from the general public. However, Singh countered this by noting that a search for ownership information costs only $5.25, suggesting that a nominal fee does not equate to a lack of transparency or the existence of a secret.