Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 The standing of the defendant 90 The plaintiff also points to the standing of the defendant, which, it is argued, goes to the impact of the defamation and the injury caused. In Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1979–1980] SLR(R) 24 at [70], F A Chua J observed that: … The standing of the plaintiff is such as to mean that the injury done to him was grave. It was spoken by the principal opposition speaker and a prominent person whose words would carry more weight than that of a lesser individual and his hearers would be inclined to believe that there must be something in the accusation he was making … I note for completeness that F A Chua J’s decision was upheld on appeal, both before the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. 91 While the defendant describes himself as a staunch government critic, I am not persuaded that his standing went so far as argued by the plaintiff’s counsel. Unlike Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the defendant was not the “principal opposition speaker”, nor is he a Member of Parliament. He holds no public office. In Vinocur John, the defendants were the executive editor of the International Herald Tribune, the editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, and the Chief Executive and publisher of the International Herald Tribune. The International Herald Tribune is a reputable and influential daily newspaper with a wide circulation both internationally and in Singapore. It could not, to my mind, be said that the instant defendant had a comparable level of standing or prominence to the individuals I have mentioned. While he has been involved in politics, there is a qualitative difference between him and the other individuals I have identified here. 50