Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 Zainal bin Hashim v Government of Malaysia [1980] AC 734 at 742C. I see no basis to foist a retrospective application of the POFMA on the instant facts. Article 14 of the Constitution 54 Turning then to freedom of speech, while Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech, it is expressly subject to such restrictions as may be imposed by law by Parliament, including those which protect against defamation: Art 14(2)(a). Thus, the right of free speech under Art 14(1)(a) may be circumscribed by laws enacted to deal with defamation. 55 Several cases illustrate this point. In Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 at [5], the Court of Appeal expressly observed that “the constitutional right of freedom of speech and expression is unarguably restricted by the laws of defamation”. Observations to similar effect have been made in Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [1992] 1 SLR(R) 791 at [61], and Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642 at [102]. 56 I add for completeness that, given my finding that the POFMA does not infringe on the law of defamation, I do not see how the POFMA changes the balance struck between the constraints imposed by the law of defamation on the one hand, and the right to free speech and expression on the other. In any event, the balance to be struck between the right to free speech and the constraints which exist upon that right as a broad question is one for Parliament to address: Review Publishing from [269] to [271]. In passing the POFMA, while at the same time also making clear that the POFMA does not infringe on the law of defamation, Parliament must be taken to have at least tacitly endorsed the balance struck in the post-POFMA landscape. In any event, the defendant 29