A Singapore court has ordered Bloomberg to pay $356,000 to ministers in a defamation case concerning an article that mentioned their luxury property deals. The ministers had argued that the article unfairly associated their dealings with broader concerns about transparency and money laundering.
High Court judge Audrey Lim ruled that the article's "natural and ordinary meaning" suggested the ministers "took advantage" of existing regulations to deal their properties in a "non-transparent manner" and "to avoid scrutiny that might extend to the possibility of money laundering." Lim stated that these were "grave assertions that directly impugn the claimants' personal integrity, character, and professional reputation," which factored into the damages awarded.
Bloomberg and its reporter, as well as Liam, had argued that the story did not imply wrongdoing but rather listed the ministers as "newsworthy examples" of bungalow deals. Lawyers for Bloomberg contended that the ministers' legal team had given the piece a more defamatory reading than an ordinary reader would. They also asserted that the article underwent extensive research and verification, and the reporter had sought comment from the ministers multiple times.
Separately, Singaporean authorities issued a "correction notice" to Bloomberg under the country's Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). Introduced in 2019, the law mandates correction notices for online content deemed false by authorities, though critics argue it is sometimes used to target government criticism.
Bloomberg complied with the POFMA order but added a note stating it was required to publish the government's notice "under threat of sanction" and that it stood by its reporting. POFMA correction notices were also issued to other news outlets that had shared the Bloomberg story or published commentary on it.
This ruling follows a pattern of Singaporean leaders successfully suing critics and foreign news outlets for defamation. While leaders maintain these actions are to protect their reputations, critics suggest they stifle political dissent. In 2009, the Far Eastern Economic Review was ordered to pay over S$400,000 after an article defamed then-prime minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Lee Kuan Yew. Other foreign outlets, including The Economist and The New York Times, have also been ordered to pay damages in similar defamation suits.