The Singapore government issued correction orders under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) on December 23, targeting Bloomberg and three other local media outlets. The directive relates to allegations concerning Good Class Bungalow (GCB) transactions, which the government describes as inaccurately representing its transparency and legal framework for property dealings.
Bloomberg's initial article, published on December 12 under the headline, "Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy," claimed there are few publicly available records for GCB transactions if caveats are not lodged. The article also suggested the identities of ultimate beneficial owners could remain undisclosed, enabling potential money laundering issues. The Ministry of Law refuted these claims, stating they contribute to the false narrative surrounding property transactions and could weaken public trust in the government.
According to the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), the assertions made by Bloomberg attack the integrity of property transparency, leading the government to act swiftly to correct the record. Alongside Bloomberg, the correction directives were also issued to The Edge Singapore, The Independent Singapore, and The Online Citizen, each stating their articles shared falsehoods about GCB dealings.
"It is imperative to address these falsehoods to uphold public interest and maintain confidence in government transparency," stated Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong. The articles, including Bloomberg’s, have been accused of portraying Singapore as lacking stringent regulatory measures around property transactions.
The government’s response includes specific clarifications, directly countering Bloomberg’s claims with factual data. For example, contrary to Bloomberg's claim, MinLaw reported, "GCB ownership and transfer information is available through the Integrated Land Information Service (INLIS), regardless of caveat lodging." The caveats are meant for protecting the interests of parties involved, rather than serving as tools for tracking transparency.
Bloomberg’s article was particularly damaging as it hinted at high-profile transactions involving Singapore Ministers, namely Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng. Both ministers have expressed their intent to take legal action against the media outlet for what they termed as “libellous” statements concerning their property dealings.
Adding weight to the government's clarifications, MinLaw elaborated on various statutes manding disclosure, particularly concerning beneficial ownership. They stated, "Buyers, including trusts or shell companies, must disclose their identities, and not doing so contradicts established law." These measures are part of Singapore’s broad regulatory framework, which strives to combat money laundering, particularly within the midst of rising wealthy migrant interest and demands for GCBs.
The correction orders demand all involved parties to issue notices clarifying their original statements and provide links to the government’s official corrections. Bloomberg, after facing this correction order, expressed its intent to challenge the directive, arguing it stands by its report: "We respect our rights to appeal and will challenge the correction direction, as we believe our reporting was accurate."
Simultaneously, The Edge Singapore, which republished Bloomberg's article, has taken steps to comply with the law by issuing its correction notice and removing the original piece from its platforms. It has also issued apologies to both ministers involved, acknowledging the distress and embarrassment caused by its misrepresentation, which they described as baseless.
On December 24, The Edge Singapore published two articles addressing the matter, recognizing their previous statements exacerbated the narrative of non-transparency surrounding property transactions by ministers. This acknowledgment came after the lawyers for Shanmugam and Tan issued letters demanding accountability and clarification from the news outlets.
Through its corrections, the Singapore government also highlighted how beneficial ownership must be disclosed, even for GCB transactions involving trusts or shell companies. The Ministry reiterated, "There have been no approvals granted for foreign purchasers of GCBs since 2021, emphasizing stringent regulations surrounding ownership."
The overarching aim of these measures appears to be enhancing trust and safeguarding the integrity of Singapore's property market. The ministers have called these correction orders not only necessary but also urgent to maintain public confidence against perceived loopholes.
Despite the government's assertive response to misinformation, complications remain from the original article. While MinLaw disputed several assertions indicating deficient checks on property transactions, it simultaneously granted validity to some points made, such as the trend toward increased privacy measures among high-net-worth individuals, utilizing trusts and shell companies to maintain anonymity.
Bloomberg’s investigation noted significant market trends, stating 2024 would see significant GCB transactions exceeding $1.1 billion, nearly half of which reportedly lacked any caveats for public disclosure. Nonetheless, as the market adapts to demand from wealthy migrants, particularly Chinese nationals, the notion of secrecy continues to pervade discussions about the GCB market.
These developments reflect not only Singapore's response to international media but also its broader commitment to maintaining the integrity of its real estate markets. The quick reclamation of public narrative by government authorities and legal entities demonstrates how seriously Singapore undertakes issues surrounding transparency and the regulatory framework.