Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 claimant in such a context would never have a right to vindicate his reputation were that to be the case. Of course, it would be otherwise if the allegedly defamatory statement were, in and of itself, to be taken as humour, for instance, but the point I underscore is that reference must be had to the statement itself, rather than the countervailing or refuting statements made by other sources. 64 I note also that an ironic or perverse situation, akin to that referred to in Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1997] 3 SLR(R) 46, would arise on the instant facts if the aggrieved party were held to in fact improve the position of the defaming party simply because the aggrieved party tried to refute defamatory allegations. It cannot be the case in the context of defamation that simply speaking up for oneself to try and clear one’s own name improves the position of the defamer, nor was any authority to that effect cited to me. Has there been an Abuse of Process and if so, what is its Effect 65 The defendant alleges that the instant proceedings are an abuse of process on two bases: (a) First, the defendant points to the rule in Jameel (Yousef) v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] QB 946 (“Jameel”) that the plaintiff’s claim is an abuse of process because it does not disclose a real and substantial tort; (b) Second, the defendant argues that the plaintiff has brought the present action in an attempt to circumvent the rule in Derbyshire v Times Newspapers Limited [1993] AC 534 (“Derbyshire”) that a government cannot bring an action in libel. I am unable to accept that either of these bases is made out. 33