Defending Press Freedom: The Ministers’ Legal Threats Over Their GCB Transactions

On 19 December 2024, I received letters of demand from Dr Tan See Leng, Minister for Manpower, and Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Home Affairs and Law, through their lawyers in Davinder Singh Chambers LLC.

The letters threatened legal action against me, as the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen (TOC), if I do not remove the article titled “Bloomberg: Nearly Half of 2024 GCB Transactions Lack Public Record, Raising Transparency Concerns,” published on TOC on 12 December 2024, and issue a public apology by 24 December 2024.

The article, which references a Bloomberg report published on the same day, focuses on transparency issues in Singapore’s high-value Good Class Bungalow (GCB) market, particularly the growing use of trusts and the lack of public records for certain transactions.

As part of the article, TOC reported that:

• Dr Tan See Leng purchased a GCB in 2023 for S$27.3 million, a transaction not reflected in public records except for a report by Bloomberg.
• Mr K. Shanmugam sold a GCB in August 2023 for S$88 million through a trust known as Jasmine Villa Settlement, with the ultimate beneficiary remaining undisclosed.

These reports, based on publicly available information, raise legitimate concerns about transparency in property transactions, particularly when public figures are involved.

The Claims and My Response

The ministers have not disputed the accuracy of the facts reported in the article, including their property transactions. Instead, their claims rely on their own subjective interpretations, alleging that the article implies they exploited legal mechanisms for privacy in a non-transparent manner. These implications are not present in the article and were explicitly denied within it.

The focus of the article was on broader transparency issues in the GCB market, not on any wrongdoing by the ministers. It highlighted concerns about the use of trusts and the absence of mandatory caveats in many high-value property transactions, a trend noted by Bloomberg.

The article explicitly acknowledged that such practices are legal and not inherently unethical but raised questions about whether existing safeguards are adequate.

Why I Will Not Participate in the Lawsuit

I reject the allegations that the Article is defamatory and maintain that the contents of the Article are true and entirely justified.

I will not participate in these lawsuits in a Singapore court because the legal framework in Singapore leaves little room for journalists to defend themselves, even when reporting verified facts in the public interest.

The claims made by the ministers focus not on factual inaccuracies but on how the truth might be perceived—a subjective and troubling basis for a defamation claim. Contesting such a case would not address the broader systemic issues with the existing defamation law in Singapore.

My decision should not be mistaken as an unwillingness to stand up for accountability and truth. In my previous defamation case with Lee Hsien Loong, I contested allegations concerning his role in the late Lee Kuan Yew’s belief that 38 Oxley Road had been gazetted.

That case was rooted in uncovering the truth and addressing a meaningful legal question. The current potential lawsuits, however, are fundamentally different—they do not challenge the facts reported but instead focus on subjective interpretations, making them undeserving of serious consideration.

I fully understand that this decision may result in a default judgment against me, leading to potential bankruptcy, which would allow the court to rule in favour of the ministers without my participation. However, I am prepared to accept the consequences as a matter of principle. This case represents a systemic challenge faced by independent media in Singapore and raises broader concerns about the protection of press freedom in an increasingly restrictive environment.

In jurisdictions with more robust protections for press freedom, such as Taiwan or the UK, such a lawsuit would likely be dismissed outright. Defamation laws in these jurisdictions require plaintiffs—especially public officials—to prove actual harm caused by false and malicious statements. Neither of these conditions are present in this case.

I do not intend to lend credence or respectability to these two ministers’ fallacious and meritless claims by participating in any Singapore legal proceedings regarding them.

My Demand for Proper Legal Service

As I have not entered Singapore for the past two years, I have made it clear to the ministers’ lawyers that I will only accept legal service at the registered address of TOC’s holding company in Taiwan, where an authorized representative is available to accept service on my behalf.

I will not accept any other form of service, including email or attempts to serve documents at my family’s residence in Singapore. Any such attempts will be regarded as harassment.

A Call for Accountability and Press Freedom

These potential lawsuits are not just a personal attack—they are part of a broader effort to stifle independent media and discourage public accountability. Journalists should not have to fear legal threats when reporting verified facts in the public interest.

While I have chosen not to contest these lawsuits in a Singapore court, the case raises critical questions about the chilling effect such legal actions have on press freedom in Singapore. The use of defamation claims to target how facts are framed or perceived discourages journalists from addressing important issues which are in the public interest and narrows the space for independent voices in an already challenging media environment.

I urge the public and the international community to take note of this case and its potential consequences. This is not just about me—it is about protecting the integrity of independent journalism and ensuring that those in power remain accountable to the people.

Commitment to Transparency

In the spirit of transparency, I will publish the legal correspondence sent by the ministers’ lawyers so the public can evaluate the claims for themselves. I believe that openness and accountability are the best defence against intimidation.

I remain steadfast in my commitment to independent journalism, truth, and public accountability.

Xu Yuanchen (Terry Xu)
Chief Editor, The Online Citizen

Members of the press seeking additional quotes or clarification may contact me directly at [email protected].

Support My Work and Commitment to Independent Journalism

If you’ve read this far, thank you for taking the time to understand the challenges I face and the importance of the work I do. Your support makes a real difference in ensuring I can continue producing in-depth journalism and reporting on critical issues that matter to the public through platforms and channels that are not subject to DOL restrictions.

How to Support:

Make a Donation:

• Patreon: Citizen Media Fund
• PayNow: Transfer to 91781031
• PayPal: Send contributions to [email protected]
• Crypto Donations: Contribute via theonlinecitizen.cb.id

Direct Bank Transfer:

• Entity Name: Miaoyi Infotech Ltd
• Account Number: 2061-01-0001283-1
• SWIFT Code: TSIBTWTP061

Your contribution, no matter how small, empowers me to keep shining a light on important stories and advocating for transparency and accountability.

Thank you for your support, belief, and commitment to independent journalism.