Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian 60 [2021] SGHC 66 Having considered parties’ arguments, I find that loss was indeed caused. Arguments (a) and (b) by the defendant have already been addressed above when the meaning of the offending words was considered from [29] to [31]. The only argument by the defendant relating primarily to the existence of loss, argument (c), is the sole one which remains at this point. On that argument, I find that the plaintiff’s reputation was harmed irrespective of the actions or statements of the government agencies and ministers. I now turn to consider this in greater detail. The effect of the actions of the government agencies and ministers 61 The defendant relied on the actions taken by various government agencies and ministers to counter the allegations in the Article. These actions include, but are not limited to:28 (a) On 8 November 2018, the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Malaysia indicated that the defamatory words were “fake news and clearly libellous”; (b) On or around 9 November 2018, Mr K Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Home Affairs, stated that the defamatory words were “absurd”, “false”, and that “the police will take action against all involved”; and (c) On or around the same day, the Monetary Authority of Singapore stated that the defamatory words were “false and malicious” and that a police report had been filed, while the IMDA released a statement that the defamatory words were “baseless and defamatory”. 28 DCS at [102]. 31