Lee Hsien Loong v Leong Sze Hian [2021] SGHC 66 was roughly comparable – both were socio-political commentators who did not hold any formal positions of public office, and both had some modicum of following on their websites and online pages. In addition, the Judge in Roy Ngerng appears to have adopted the view that there was significant malice and aggravation in that case, which I have not found, at least to the same extent, on the present facts. 126 While the allegation in Roy Ngerng was described by the Judge in that case as one of the “gravest” (at [29]), the defamatory statement here was in fact worse: that the plaintiff was involved in a cross-border defalcation of the funds belonging to the citizens of another country, in cooperation with the leader of that country. For that reason, I would find that despite the lower reach, an award of S$100,000 in general damages was warranted. However, as for the quantum of aggravated damages, there was a more limited basis to award such damages on the instant facts, and it would thus suffice to award roughly a third of the general damages, or about S$33,000, for a total quantum of S$133,000. Injunction 127 Turning to the second relief sought, I am doubtful that what has been shown in this case would justify the grant of an injunction. The greater threat of continued publication would arguably be from the originators of the article rather than this defendant, who had swiftly complied with the IMDA notice once it had been issued. While the defendant has not apologised, he also has not demonstrated any risk of resuming the publication of the defamatory material. Should he do so, he would, of course, run the risk of further claims being made, with potential attendant consequences in costs and damages. 67