Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 himself appears to have accepted that Parliament has struck the balance it deemed fit between freedom of expression and the private right to reputation following the passage of POFMA.25 57 I am therefore unable to accept that Art 14 of the Constitution necessitates that I constrain the law of defamation in the defendant’s favour. I note for completeness that the defendant has not sought to rely on Reynolds privilege, as set out in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127, in its submissions. Whether the Defendant has Caused the Plaintiff Loss 58 The plaintiff argues that by virtue of the defendant’s substantial publication and/or republication of the defamatory words, the plaintiff has been gravely injured in his character and reputation, and has been brought into public scandal, odium, and contempt.26 The plaintiff’s case is that it therefore follows that loss was caused. 59 The defendant argues in response that (a) the Post and Article do not bear the meaning contended by the plaintiff, (b) the Post and Article are not defamatory, and (c) any damage to the plaintiff’s reputation has already been vindicated and/or rebutted by a series of statements and articles from government agencies and ministers refuting the allegedly defamatory meaning.27 25 DCS at [112]. 26 PCS at [219]. 27 DCS at, inter alia¸ [37] and [102]. 30