Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 which is published in the academic community”, and that these figures were “really a very conservative, a very lower bound”.47 100 The plaintiff argues that since 95% of all sample sizes fall within two standard deviations, there was a 95% probability that the number of individuals in Singapore for whom the Post would have been accessible would have been at or higher than Dr Phan’s estimates.48 The source the plaintiff relies on for this 95% probability is from the website Investopedia.49 I am, however, not persuaded that the conclusion the plaintiff invites me to draw is borne out on the evidence. On the plaintiff’s case, assuming a normal distribution of data, 95% of the data value will fall within the two standard deviations of the mean value. However, Dr Phan did not testify that the 10% and 20% figures he relied on, of about 200 to 400, were at the tail of a normal distribution. 101 Additionally, Dr Phan’s evidence only went so far as stating that the estimate he had reached was one or two standard deviations below what would be estimated in the academic community, presumably by reference to the typical reach of a published post or article. However, the role of this Court is not to consider what might be the case in abstract – it still had to be established what the actual reach of the Post was here. 102 Fundamentally, the estimate cited to me of over 2,000 individuals the Post had been published to in Singapore seemed somewhat speculative. Dr Phan testified that the posts would have appeared on newsfeeds of 6,600 users, but this referred to Facebook users generally, not users who were specifically in 47 Transcript of 7 October 2020, Page 82, Line 21 to Page 83, Line 7. 48 PCS at [161]. 49 Footnote No. 207 in PCS. 55