Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 another appeal [2010] 1 SLR 52 (“Review Publishing”) at [27] to [31], and [81]. The intention of the defendant is irrelevant in determining the meaning of the impugned words: Slim and others v Daily Telegraph Ltd and others [1968] 2 QB 157 at 172, as applied in Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia [2014] 1 SLR 639 at [36]. 26 In both Review Publishing at [81], and Lee Hsien Loong v Roy Ngerng Yi Ling [2014] SGHC 230 at [32], the Court observed that the ordinary reasonable person is assumed to possess general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs. This general knowledge extends to matters of current affairs which have entered the public consciousness. The various matters canvassed by the Plaintiff do point to a general knowledge that there was wrongdoing in the affairs of 1MDB. In particular, several news reports indicated that (a) funds had been corruptly defalcated, (b) efforts were underway in various countries to try to recover them, and (c) Mr Najib was involved, along with a number of persons based in Singapore, Malaysia, and abroad.14 This general knowledge concerning the misuse of 1MDB funds may be said to have arisen from, inter alia, the following sources: (a) On 2 July 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that Malaysian investigators investigating 1MDB had traced nearly US$ 700 m of deposits into what they believed were the personal bank accounts of Mr Najib; (b) On 5 July 2015, the Straits Times reported that Malaysian authorities had raided several Malaysian firms in connection with the funds that Mr Najib was alleged to have received from 1MDB; 14 Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions (“PCS”) at [13]. 12