Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian 14 [2021] SGHC 66 At trial, two witnesses were called for the plaintiff – himself, and Dr Phan Tuan Quang (“Dr Phan”). At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant made a submission of no case to answer. The effect of such a submission is set out in greater detail below, but it suffices to note at this point that the defendant acknowledged that his affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) would therefore not be admitted into evidence, and elected not to give any evidence in these proceedings. I subsequently directed that parties make written submissions before further oral arguments were heard before me on 30 November 2020. The Issues 15 The issues which the parties have identified and joined issue over are as follows:13 (a) Whether the Offending Words in the Post, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff was complicit in criminal activity relating to 1MDB; (b) Whether the Offending Words in the Article, in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff corruptly used his position as Prime Minister to help Mr Najib Razak launder 1MDB’s funds; (c) Whether there was substantial publication in Singapore of the Offending Words in the Post and/or the Offending Words in the Article; (d) Whether there was republication in Singapore of the Offending Words in the Post and/or the Offending Words in the Article; 13 Plaintiff’s Opening Statement at [1]. 6