Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 The plaintiff identified the words of the Article’s title which are displayed in the Post as the “Offending Words in the Post”, while the words in the Article, including the title, were described in the plaintiff’s pleadings as the “Offending Words in the Article”. For ease of reference (and without acknowledging that the words are necessarily defamatory), I will refer to these words in both the Post and the Article collectively as the “defamatory words”. 7 By 10.16pm on 7 November 2018, the defendant’s Post had attracted 22 “reactions”, five “comments”, and 18 “shares”.6 The Post had been made on the “Public” setting, meaning that other Facebook users apart from the defendant’s “friends” on Facebook would be able to view it. 8 The defendant removed the Post from his Facebook page at about 7.30am on 10 November 2018, after he read a notice from the Infocommunications Media Development Authority (“IMDA”) that had been sent to him at around 11.00pm on 9 November 2018.7 9 Various media outlets covered the Article over 8 and 9 November 2018, quoting the Article’s title and discussing its contents. On 8 November 2018, the Straits Times reported responses by the Minister for Law and Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam,8 as well as the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Malaysia, to the Article.9 The responses reported uniformly sought to refute the Article and its contents. 6 2 AB 1169. 7 2 AB 1256 to 1261. 8 2 AB 1224 to 1227. 9 2 AB 1166 to 1167, 1224 to 1227. 4