BLOOMBERG DEFAMATION TRIAL WILL BE DECIDED BY WHAT THE REASONABLE MAN THINKS OF THE ARTICLE

"The reasonable man is the man on the Clapham omnibus"

This is the iconic British legal quote by Lord Bowen (19th century) explaining in a witty way that the legal standard isn't a genius or a professor; it is just a random, ordinary commuter riding public transit. In legal context, the term "reasonable man" or "ordinary mind" is foundational to contract law, tort liability, and the standard of reasonableness. Defamation cases hinge heavily on how words are interpreted. Courts evaluate statements based on their "natural and ordinary meaning" which includes literal statements and implicit insinuations. Judges determine how a "reasonable man" would interpret the words in context. This isn't just about dictionary definitions; it includes the subtext, tone, and overall impression left on the audience. 

The "reasonable man" doesn't mean any Tan, Ahmad or Subramaniam. Common law principles describe this person as an average rational layperson, not a lawyer, not unusually gullible, not unusually suspicious, not "avid for scandal" (someone who always assumes the worst) and able to read between the lines and draw ordinary inferences. 

The Bloomberg trial is fundamentally a fight precisely over insinuation and imputation rather than explicit accusations. Would an ordinary reader see the article as:
- a broader public-interest story about GCB transparency trends, and that the ministers were just “newsworthy examples” not subjects of any allegation of wrongdoing, oR
- the article is framed on implied meaning; it linked the Ministers to secrecy, opacity, weak checks, and even money-laundering concerns.

How do I see the "Polymarket" for this case?

On liability:
Plaintiffs (Ministers) - 99%
Defence (Bloomberg/Journalist Low) - 1%

On damages:
Plaintiffs claim there was malice and demanded more than the sum of S$210,000 each that was imposed on Terry Xu.
Higher than S$210,000 each - 20%
Lower than S$210,000 each - 80%

The Anthropomorphic Illusion Of The Reasonable Man

"The spokesman of the fair and reasonable man, who represents after all no more than the anthropomorphic conception of justice, is and must be the court itself."
Lord Radcliffe in Davis Contractors Ltd v Fareham (1956).

This is a blunt, critical reminder that the "ordinary mind" doesn't actually exist in the public; it is just a mirror of whatever the judge personally thinks is right.

My reasonable mind thinks Judge Audrey Lim will consider these issues :

The framing of the article
Bloomberg framed GCB transactions with words like "secrecy", "off the radar", "opacity"etc and then talked about the two ministers' transactions, a clear indication of intent to tie them to the claims made. It is not just a word for word interpretation, but the general framing of the article, the innuendoes and insinuations of the article in totality. Judge will focus on how an ordinary reader view the totality of the article.

S$88m cash payment
In the course of the proceedings, plaintiff Mr Shanmugam told the court the purchaser made a cash payment. This caused a firestorm in social media as even intelligent Singaporeans chose to believe several truckloads of Singapore dollar notes were delivered to the minister's house in the dead of night.

Legally, this is a non-issue as in big ticket item transactions like a property or vehicle deal, "cash purchase" simply means "without financing/loan", not literal suitcases of money. This is so elementary that the defence made no attempt to pursue the matter with the minister. Ordinarily, neither would the judge pay attention. However, given recent incidents of money laundering cases and that this "$88m cash" became part of the surrounding public controversy, the judge may briefly clarify its ordinary commercial meaning. 

Personally, I hope the judge will weigh in on this. Someone on Facebook, who is taking on several self-litigating defamation cases himself, had a long argument with me over court's interpretation on words. He insisted the court will stick to literal meaning of words and I that trade terms and usage matters. In fact, in defamation cases, innuendos and insinuation matter even more. Whilst I like to give deference to that chap because after all, I have no experience whatsoever whereas he can boast of having won a pro se case and awarded $1 in damages. I hope the judge will give some clarity.

Defence "rewrite" their story in court
The plaintiffs argued the defence "rewrite" the article in the courts. Meaning the defence was saying "we didn't mean this; what we meant was this..." Whatever the defence says won't impress the judge. She will fall back again on the article that was printed and what would the readers infer from it. What's "revised" in court is post fact and has no impact on the readers first take on the article.

Lack of GCB transactions
Defence claimed they write a public interest story about GCB transactions which are very high end and rare. The 2 ministers' transactions were used as examples because they were recent and there aren't many deals.

In reality, there are about 2,700 GCBs in Singapore, and some realtors' data indicate about 300 transactions in the last 10 years, average about 30 a year (probable more because many transactions are not publicised). I thought it strange plaintiff attorney Davinder Singh chose not to challenge defence's claim of few transactions. This selective reporting betrays the intent, and especially using a sale to a trust to reinforces the claim of "secretive" deals without explaining to readers privacy nature of trusts is a common feature in countries all over the world.

The judge may not herself introduce something not raised in court. But there is a possibility. And if she does, then I think this is very damaging to the defence.

Bloomberg internal memos
These emails were mentioned in court. There seems some editorial concerns about framing the story around "rich people using trusts", describing the transactions as "hush. hush" and involving Shanmugam could "strike a nerve". Plaintiffs argue this shows Bloomberg lacked neutrality and was constructing a politically charged narrative around specific ministers. 

On the other hand, editorial brainstorming is normal and colourful shorthand emails do not prove defamatory intent. 

The judge would probably hold the view that legally, this has no impact on the reasonable man doctrine - what would the ordinary reasonable reader understand from the article itself.

But it matters on the issue of damages - whether Bloomberg acted responsibly, whether there was recklessness and whether aggravated damages should apply. If the judge concludes they were warned internally that the phrasings carried a strong insinuation than the facts justified, yet proceeded anyway, it could weigh against Bloomberg on aggravated damages. 

SLA internal memo
Bloomberg sought info from SLA for the article.  SLA internal memo instructed not to mention the INGLIS platform to Bloomberg. The defence hide behind cover of this memo that they did due diligence and SLA denied them the info that supports their claim of opacity suggested in the article.

The judge may chose to distinguish between institutional confidentiality vs defamatory implication of wrong doing. Government agencies sometimes withhold operational details routinely. Non-disclosure of internal systems does not justify insinuating suspicious conduct by the buyer. In any case, INGLIS is basically SLA's digital land registration information which still obscures ultimate beneficial ownership of a trust structure from ordinary public searches. It thus makes no difference to the defence. 

Legally the question is not "Was there secrecy in some technical sense?". There was obviously some degree of privacy and confidential structure with use of trusts in high value property transactions but it is not inherently improper. The legal question is more "Did the article cross the line from describing opacity into implying questionable or improper conduct by identifiable individuals?"

Upstream or downstream reporting bears more responsibility?

In defamation law generally, courts often treat the original publisher ("upstream") as bearing the greatest responsibility because they created the allegedly defamatory content in the first place. But "downstream" republication or sharing can still attract liability because of the long-standing common law principle that "every republication is a fresh publication".

So if someone shares or amplifies a defamatory allegation, they can also be liable -- sometimes more heavily. The reasoning is republication causes additional reputational harm and sharers are not automatically immune simply because they were not the originator. This principle existed long before we have today's social media. In Singapore, courts have generally taken a fairly strict view of republication especially where the sharer worsens the defamatory sting by endorsing the allegation, adding commentary, sensationalising it, or refusing correction or removal.

Liberal Singaporeans have been critical of POFMA (Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, but we aren't the first to legislate to tackle this social media sharing debacle. The EU has Digital Services Act, Germany has NetzDG law, UK has Online Safety Act and Australia has the Fairfax Media Publications vs Voller precedent. The jurisdictions differ greatly. Singapore prioritises social order and reputational protection, the US prioritises speech protection, EU sits somewhere in between, focusing heavily on platform accountability.

Quantum of damages : Bloomberg case vs Terry Xu case

The plaintiffs have asked for heavier damages than that awarded to the ministers in the Terry Xu case, on grounds Bloomberg was the original publisher.  

In Terry Xu's case, Justice Audrey Lim imposed high damages of $210,000 to each of the two ministers, which included $50,000 aggravated damages because the judge found there was recklessness and malice. Reasons the damages were high:
- cited Bloomberg's article in TOC online media in December 2024 "recklessly without considering or caring whether it was true".
- Xu did not merely neutrally reproduce Bloomberg's article, but added his own framing around "transparency concerns" and missing records.
- disparaging the ministers' personal AND professional reputation (thus damaging institutional integrity).
- amplified it by also publishing in TOC's other social media platforms 
- published four additional articles with links to the original offending post.
- the four additional articles were also published on other TOC social media accounts.
- when put on notice by the ministers of the falsehoods in December 2024, Xu responded the allegations were true and entirely justified.
- failed to apologise when given the opportunity.
- refused to comply with an injunction order in Aug 2025 to restrain him from publishing the defamatory allegations.
- Xu basically didn't give a damn to the proceedings. He was unrepresented, did not file a defence, thus given a default judgement against him. For the damages hearing he did not attend and wrote to the court he did not submit to the jurisdiction of Singapore courts.  

Bloomberg's case is more about insinuation, tone, juxtaposition and narrative structure. It contested liability fully, mounted a structured defence, cross-examined witnesses, and positions itself as defending press freedom and legitimate investigative journalism. Bloomberg conducted original reporting, it contacted authorities, the underlying facts were substantially true, the article is of legitimate publication, the alleged defamatory meaning depends on interpretation and implication, not direct accusation. 

The Judge's Dilemma : Judicial Proportionality vs Institutional Balancing

Singapore is generally regarded, both domestically and internationally, as a relatively plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in defamation law, particularly in cases involving public figures and political reputation. This perception comes from several features of our law and judicial approach. There is strong protection of personal reputation. The legal culture places high value on integrity and public trust. There is a history of substantial damage awards in some political cases. There is willingness to infer defamatory meaning from implication and innuendo. We have comparatively limited constitutional free-speech protection. 

Plaintiff-friendly does not mean the plaintiffs automatically win, or the courts ignore evidence and legal analysis. It means the legal balance tends to lean more toward protection of reputation than toward maximal speech immunity. Singapore courts have repeatedly stated that reputation is an important social and constitutional value, particularly for office holders.

The judiciary has often emphasised on clean government, trust in public institutions, and the importance of protecting officials from allegations undermining integrity without basis. Singapore's reputation as a comparatively plaintiff-friendly defamation jurisdiction did not emerge recently, but has roots going back to the 1970s and 1980s when political leaders successfully pursued defamation actions against prominent and regional publications --- Hongkong-based Far Eastern Economic Review (late 1980s), Asian Wall Street Journal (1987) Asiaweek Magazine (1987), Time Magazine (1987). These cases helped shape international perceptions of Singapore's strong emphasis on reputational protection in political discourse.

Critics may argue Singapore's legal culture creates a chilling effect on political journalism. Prominent social commenter and ex-journalist Bertha Henson said this case will be watched intensely on whether there will be new boundaries for reporting on anything involving politicians.

Whilst on the topic of journalistic boundaries, a broader scope has long been established back in 1960s/1970s with the battle against the Singapore Herald which was forced to shut down in 1971. The clashes were over editorial stance that openly challenged highly sensitive domestic issues, such as National Service, in ways the government considered subversion and misinformation;  the publication's foreign-backed "black operation" designed to erode citizens' confidence in the government and interfere in domestic politics; and it's funding from foreign owners (one time Sabah Chief Minister Tun Fuad Stephens and Hongkong's Aw Sian of the Tiger Balm family). Foreign funding is the same reason ACRA did not approve the registration of OSEA Pte Ltd by historian Dr. Thum Ping Tjin and activist Kirsten Han. OSEA was supposed to operate the online media New Narrative with funding from George Soros' Open Society.

Singapore courts do not operate in a vacuum. Judges are cognitive of a case that is internationally watched, involves a major global institution like Bloomberg, and touches on Singapore's reputation as a financial and legal hub. While the court will make sure it is not seen as protecting Singapore's business image, it is obviously conscious of how the judgement will be interpreted internationally, whether remedies appear proportionate, and whether outcome reinforces confidence in Singapore as a sophisticated rule-of-law jurisdiction.

This is what institutional balancing is about. If the court is too lenient towards insinuations involving ministers, some may argue  Singapore is failing to defend institutional integrity. This carries reputational consequences as Singapore has a well-earned image of legal predictability as a country that markets itself heavily on clean government, rule of law and incorruptibility. On the flip side, if damages are view internationally as overwhelmingly punitive against a major financial news media organisation reporting on elite wealth structures, critics may say Singapore is overly hostile to adversarial journalism, reputational law is aggressively used against scrutiny, or legal risks for international media are unusually high.

Some may see Singapore's strictness as evidence of orderly governance. Others may worry about information openness, press freedom or litigation risks. The reputational calculus before the court is not simply, "high damages = bad for investors". It is more complex than that. If Judge Audrey Lim engages institutional calibration, it could manifest as careful legal reasoning, emphasis on proportionality, and measured damages rather than maximal damages.

Bloomberg's stature cuts both ways. It's global reach increases harm if liability is found. But its institutional status also makes the case qualitatively different from anonymous online attacks, activist blogs or deliberately sensational republication. There is a clear distinction between defamatory implication arising from aggressive reporting vs overt accusations of corruption or dishonesty.

All things considered, I think the plaintiffs will win, but the damages will not be as high as what was sought.

This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.