Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 The defendant’s conduct 110 The plaintiff sought to argue by reference to the defendant’s conduct that the defendant had aggravated the libels. In particular, he pointed to three broad categories of such acts:50 (a) First, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant repeatedly took steps to draw attention to the instant Suit and/or to the libels that are the subject of the Suit, which had the effect of keeping the libels fresh in the minds of the people in Singapore. Specifically, the plaintiff points to the following non-exhaustive examples: (i) several posts by the defendant on his Facebook page attaching, inter alia, segments of the pleadings in this Suit and the plaintiff’s letter of demand, (ii) a video interview dated 6 January 2019 given by the defendant to Amnesty International Hong Kong claiming that he was the “first person in history to be sued for just sharing information on Facebook” and that this was “really not justified”, and (iii) a paid advertisement on Facebook publicising a post on the defendant’s Facebook page containing a link to an article on The Online Citizen’s website titled “Leong Sze Hian counter-sues Prime Minister…” The alleged upshot of these examples was that the defendant had used the suit to wage a public campaign to gain sympathy and support, and had “cynically drawn attention to the Post and the Article to keep them fresh in the minds of people in Singapore”. (b) Second, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant continued to make false claims that the suit had been commenced for reasons other than to vindicate the plaintiff’s reputation. This was said to have 50 PCS from [97] et seq. 59