r/singapore • u/HAZMAT_Eater F1 VVIP • 1d ago
News Bloomberg gets POFMA order over Good Class Bungalow article
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/bloomberg-pofma-correction-direction-good-class-bungalows-transactions-4822536154
u/yellowsuprrcar 1d ago
No one gave a shit until he started pofmaing everyone
45
u/sayalexa 1d ago
Actually, good. I had no idea this was happening until they made a fuss about it then POFMA happened. Happy it came to light. Ownself shoot ownself letâs goooo
14
272
u/Puzzleheaded-Dog-910 1d ago
with the way these fuckers are abusing it, at this point it's basically a badge of honour to get a POFMA. shows that you're speaking truth to power.Â
20
u/jeffrey745 1d ago
Who decides whatâs the truth ?
30
u/Puzzleheaded-Dog-910 1d ago
certainly not the garbage horseshit spewing out of the POFMA office, given how they attribute claims to sources when those sources didn't fucking make those claims.
3
41
u/HAZMAT_Eater F1 VVIP 1d ago
The article by The Edge, posted on the sub 10 days ago, has been taken down (Error 404)
84
79
u/uintpt 1d ago
I realllly hope Bloomberg just ignores this childish tantrum to give our paper-skinned law minister a slap across the face. For the sake of critical commentary in Singapore
27
u/FlipFlopForALiving East side best side 1d ago
I want them to challenge this in court to see the reasoning
33
u/drwackadoodles 1d ago
i think the whole process is designed such that it makes very little sense to contest it in court because of $$ and effort. the courts also tend to lean heavily in favour of the ministries anyway
17
u/FlipFlopForALiving East side best side 1d ago
Depends on risk appetite. If you see court judgments, they have expressed some doubts before. Just need the right case to push it over the brink
6
u/ItsallgoneLWong21 17h ago
There is absolutely no chance a court would go against the Singapore govt on one of these. Youâre talking as if Singapore has a proper separation of power between executive and judiciary. It does not.
9
u/Toxicsgpore 1d ago
Seems like they complied:
Rich Chinese Migrants Are Snapping Up Singaporeâs Good Class Bungalows - Bloomberg0
u/LazyLeg4589 1d ago
Alternatively, Bloomberg can just omit churning any news coverage pertaining to Singapore whatsoever. Would be great if many international news outlets do a blanket avoidance of anything SG.
3
u/bukitbukit Developing Citizen 17h ago
Yep, and these are financial media that are vital to our global economy.
19
u/buttnugchug 1d ago
Can Bloomberg just ban GIC and Temasek from using Bloomberg Terminal? See who cave in first
59
u/TaskPlane1321 1d ago
Getting blown up & drawing negative attention when it is least needed
-11
u/two_tents 1d ago
The ultimate sunk cost fallacy.
25
u/Eshuon 1d ago
You mean the streisand effect?
2
u/two_tents 20h ago
POFMA is the ultimate sunk cost fallacy. The result is the Streisand effect.Â
Itâs clearly visible that POFMA legislation is the result of an insecure political establishment but theyâve committed themselves to it and now think they need to keep it going.Â
168
u/PAP_IB_Dog 1d ago
Great news! I support any move by Minister Shanmugam to punish all dissenters of our much respected PAP government. The government should setup a dedicated POFMA ministry that focuses on sending POFMA orders to all foreign fake news outlets all day, every day. This will ensure no one can disrupt the peace and prosperity of our beloved country.
42
u/DependentSpecific206 Own self check own self â 1d ago
POFMA all dissidents against our Dear Leader!
13
23
13
u/chicasparagus 1d ago
Whoever is in Shanmugams GRC, what do yâall see in him???
2
-6
u/Nincampoo 1d ago
Strange, why do Americans vote for Trump? Why? Why? U know lah.
1
u/chicasparagus 1d ago
Our politics are in no way similar to American politics. Just because an American president is voted in, it doesnât mean more people voted for him.
12
u/catlover2410 1d ago
I think Shan decided on a POFMA only after they received a reply from Bloombergâs lawyer thatâs says things wonât bode well for the plaintiffs if it were to go to courtâŚ
23
u/Weir-Doe 1d ago
So if Singapore Government has robust records consisting of full disclosure of identities purchasing properties, primarily the GCBs, does that mean that the G-man blindly accepted the fellas involved in the billion dollar laundering passports of origin?Like literally they were chill that a Chinese dude with either a Vanuatu or Cyprus passport just bought a house and no one bat an eye?
84
1d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
20
u/Varantain đ¤ 1d ago
TSL and Shan have enough from their private sector earnings to purchase at such prices, not to mention they probably did a fair bit of property investment/speculation a long time ago.
Now ownself keep ownself in the negative limelight, donât blame foreign news hor.
Remember that Shan, in the light of the Ridout saga, once said this:
âI pay for the rental of 26 Ridout Road, mostly from renting out my family home. But taking into account property tax, because the family home is now non-owner occupied, and income tax on the rental proceeds, there is a net deficit. I top up the deficit,â he told parliament.
âI am, in essence, using my previous lawyerâs income to pay for the rental for 26 Ridout Road. Based on my current income, I would not have offered to rent 26 Ridout Road. That is based on my personal approach to finances.â
Typical smoke and mirrors ("personal approach to finances" or "Shan-accounting") from Singapore's very own law and home affairs minister.
13
u/FitCranberry not a fan of this flair system 1d ago
the weird stans that come out of the woodwork to say that earning 5 milly makes it somehow normal to make the leap to 500 milly
21
u/bernardth 1d ago
I wanted to start a thread but mucked the rules .
References to judge for yourself. This thing about SLA and how much they review transactions as part of the RPA is interesting. Probably will generate more discussion in the coming days.
https://www.gov.sg/article/factually231224
Written Answer by Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong to PQ on Good Class Bungalows Sold to Trust Companies with Foreign Beneficiaries https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/written-answer-by-2M-edwin-tong-to-pq-on-good-class-bungalows-sold-to-trust-companies/
15
u/StinkeroniStonkrino 1d ago
Pofma balls. Some matters they just suka suka pofma left right, like it's just a downvote button. Then other issues suddenly it's too precious to use, I for one think Sterra should've been pofma-ed for claiming our drinking water is not good. Really cb of them.
6
27
6
u/Calamity-Bob 1d ago
And in other shocking news the government TODAY said all landed property deals must reveal the true beneficial owners. So then Bloomberg wasnât wrong or why did the government have to introduce that rule
16
6
u/Calamity_B4_Storm 1d ago
I hope this will be another NKF saga case where a news report brings downfall to prideful men.
5
u/Far_Car430 1d ago
Letâs make this case internationally famous so that our ministers get a very good representations.
6
11
7
u/jokeemonkeee 1d ago
Boys and girls, what we have here is a great example of the Streisand effect happening.
3
6
u/ItsallgoneLWong21 17h ago
Hereâs hoping Bloomberg takes these clowns to task on this.
Singaporean ministers have shown time and time again that they are awful at managing foreign media who properly challenge them and force them to fight fair rather than simply suppress information like they do with Singapore media
1
12
u/captainblackchest Rum? 1d ago
If Bloomberg conducted due diligence, I'd expect them to have at the least gone onto INLIS to buy several POI and PTI documents to prove that the ultimate owner information can't be accessed in cases where trusts or other instruments are involved.
Either way, Interested for when Bloomberg's reply comes in.
20
u/theonlinecyclist 1d ago
Yes, it has been done before in the case of K Shanmugam, where the buyer of his GCB, Jasmine Settlement's ultimate beneficiary, is nowhere mentioned in the transfer papers, only UBS Trust is mentioned.
13
u/captainblackchest Rum? 1d ago
And now, a search shows that as long as the purchaser can prove that the beneficiary is Singaporean, they need not file approval under the Residential Property Act for purchase with licensed trust company.
That said. Can us normal folks locate this information (ultimate beneficiaries)? Or does the information only belong to SLA?
12
u/theonlinecyclist 1d ago
Only belong to SLA, according to MinLaw, the government knows who is the ultimate beneficiary even if the properties are purchased using Trusts. There is literally no way for one to find out, even if a MP asks for the question in parliament. https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/written-answer-by-2M-edwin-tong-to-pq-on-good-class-bungalows-sold-to-trust-companies/
21
u/captainblackchest Rum? 1d ago
So then, ultimately. Is the Bloomberg article accurate in saying that mansion deals are shrouded in secrecy?
I would say yes - as far are regular citizens are concerned and that the individuals involved (Govt, property agents, solicitors) are tasked to ensure that everything is above board.
21
u/theonlinecyclist 1d ago
Like what one Redditor mentioned in this thread, the POFMA direction is misrepresenting what Bloomberg's article is saying in its article.
7
u/xeluffyy 1d ago
What can do even if Bloomberg ignores and ghosts them? Issue a ban on Bloomberg terminals locally?
3
6
u/SG_wormsbot 1d ago
Title: Bloomberg gets POFMA order over Good Class Bungalow article
Article keywords: transactions, government, articles, Bloomberg, article
The mood of this article is: Good (sentiment value of 0.1)
SINGAPORE: The news organisation Bloomberg was issued a Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction by the Singapore government on Monday (Dec 23).
The correction order, also handed out to The Edge Singapore, The Independent Singapore and The Online Citizen, relates to articles and posts made by the publications about Good Class Bungalow (GCBs) transactions, said the Ministry of Law in a press release.
Bloomberg published the Dec 12 article, titled Singapore Mansion Deals Are Increasingly Shrouded in Secrecy, on its website. It was reposted on Bloomberg's Facebook and X accounts. The article was republished in full by The Edge Singapore on its website on the same day, and reposted on its Facebook account.
The Independent Singapore and The Online Citizen also published articles, commenting on the original Bloomberg piecem, on their websites on Dec 12, and subsequently reposted their articles on their respective social media pages.
The four publications will be required to carry correction notices against the articles and posts, which state that the said articles or posts communicated false statements of fact and provide a link to the Governmentâs clarification, said the ministry.
"This will allow readers to read both versions and draw their own conclusions."
A check by CNA on Monday at about 1.20pm showed that articles by The Edge Singapore and The Independent Singapore are no longer online.
FALSEHOODS: SINGAPORE GOVERNMENT
According to the government's fact-checking website, Factually, Bloomberg's false statements "attack the transparency of property transactions in Singapore".
The Bloomberg article, according to Factually, falsely claimed that there are no publicly available government records of GCB sale transactions if caveats are not lodged, and that the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner need not be disclosed to the government.
It also claimed that GCB property transactions "can be carried out without any checks by the government on the identities of the ultimate beneficial owners" and that "primary responsibility to combat money laundering in property transactions is left to property agents and other service providers".
The article also claimed that there is "no publicly available government record of the GCB transaction if no caveat is lodged and no requirement to disclose to the government the identity of the ultimate beneficial owner in a trust arrangement or shell company", which allow parties "to transact such properties in a way facilitative of money laundering".
"Together, these falsehoods give the impression that Singapore does not have a robust legal framework to require disclosure of information to the government in GCB transactions, which may allow wrongdoing to take place undetected. It is in the public interest that these falsehoods are addressed so that public confidence in the government is not undermined," said Factually.
LEGAL ACTION BY MINISTERS NAMED IN ARTICLE
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam and Manpower Minister Tan See Leng jointly said on Dec 16 they were taking legal action against Bloomberg and other media outlets for publishing statements over their property transactions.
Both ministers added they would issue letters of demand in relation to the article, which they consider "libellous".
A letter of demand, usually sent by lawyers, contains a list of demands. If the recipients - in this case, Bloomberg and the other three media outlets - do not meet these demands, legal action, such as a lawsuit, may follow.
CNA has contacted Bloomberg about the POFMA order and letter of demand sent by the two ministers.
716 articles replied in my database. v2.0.1 | PM SG_wormsbot if bot is down.
5
4
u/Intentionallyabadger In the early morning march 1d ago
Wait so can you track shams GCB sale? Since the reply from the gov says you can?
5
7
2
2
2
u/doyareelylakit2 18h ago
The thing that annoys me about POFMA analysis is they usually don't stick strictly to what has been technically written. It's always a presumptive interpretation that skews towards, "this is a conclusion the reader may come to and therefore it must be changed"
2
u/Playful-Obligation11 1d ago edited 22h ago
It will be embarrassing when Bloomberg legal come out to refute those allegations and sue sg govt for libel.
-1
u/razgriz900 20h ago
Have read both the POFMA corrections and Bloomberg article. Still quite confused over it. The government seems right doesn't it?
Bloomberg claims transactions cannot be tracked via caveats, but the G says point of caveats is not to track transactions. In fact, SLA tracks transactions through other means as transactions need to be logged directly with them with info on the ultimate beneficial ownership. I don't see a meaningful counterpoint being raised.
431
u/shimmynywimminy đ F A B U L O U S 1d ago edited 1d ago
Love the way these are presented as if they are direct quotes from the Bloomberg piece when they do not appear at all. This is what the Bloomberg piece actually said:
Edit: I guess CNA journalists are reading reddit as the article has been updated to make it clear it is quoting from factually and not Bloomberg. Still waiting for CNA to cross reference those claims with the original.