Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 Singapore and Malaysia (LexisNexis, 2016) (“Doris Chia”) at [15.10] and [15.11]. 46 On the facts, it is uncontested that 45 persons responded to the Post containing the link to the Article in the manner outlined at [45(a)] above. It is similarly common ground that, at the material time, the defendant had about 5,000 Facebook friends, and 149 “followers”. Moreover, the privacy settings of the Post had been set to “public”. Given this evidence, I consider it exceedingly unlikely that it could seriously be the case that not a single person accessed the Article through the link in the Post. To my mind, insisting on direct evidence of such access is unrealistic, and does not reflect the simple truth of how hyperlinks are used on the internet. In any event, the circumstantial evidence outlined here does not need to give rise to an irresistible inference given the defendant’s submission of no case to answer. All that is required is that the desired inference is one of the possible inferences: Lena Leowardi at [24], Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd [2012] 2 SLR 549 at [37]. I am satisfied that, on the facts outlined above, it is at least a possible inference that a third party had accessed the Article through the link on the Post, and that there had thus been publication of the Article. 47 In sum, there appears to me to be ample basis to find that both the Post and the Article have been published. The question of whether there has been substantial publication is considered more fully below from [92] to [106], where I conclude that there has been publication to a sufficient number of persons in Singapore to warrant substantial damages. 25