Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 government bringing the action under the “unconvincing guise of a personal suit”.29 The defendant points to three pieces of evidence which he asserts illustrates the true nature of the present proceedings as being de facto government actions: (a) First, the plaintiff had stated while under cross-examination that “he was bringing the claim because ‘the defendant has been a thorn in our side’”.30 The defendant asserts that the use of the “majestic plural” as opposed to the phrase “my side” illustrates that the true plaintiff is the government. (b) Second, the plaintiff acknowledged that the defamatory words had been found and brought to his attention as a result of governmental scanning, rather than by the plaintiff as an individual.31 (c) Third, once aware of the defamatory words, the plaintiff was said to have “set the full machinery of the State into action”, having various ministers and government entities like the Monetary Authority of Singapore issue refutations of the said words.32 78 I am unable to accept the defendant’s three arguments. The defendant’s citation of the plaintiff’s statement is out of context, and elides the fact that the plaintiff later went on to state that the consideration he faced was how to clear his name. In any event, the defendant’s position places undue emphasis on the mere use of the word “our” – the plaintiff had distinguished, in his response 29 DCS at [104]. 30 DCS at [100]. 31 DCS at [101]. 32 DCS at [102]. 43