Li Shengwu, son of Lee Hsien Yang, exhibits conduct that suggests a sense that he is above the law, said the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) on Jan. 23.

The AGC said if Li had nothing to hide, he should make himself available for cross-examination and answer the questions posed to him on oath.

This was in response to Li's public Facebook post on Jan. 22, where he announced that he will no longer be participating in the legal proceedings brought against him by the AGC.

AGC strikes back against Li's complaints

In his most recent Facebook post, Li shared certain updates about the proceedings, including some allegedly "unusual conduct" by the AGC.

He complained that parts of his defence affidavit were struck out by the court, and he claimed that the AGC wants these portions sealed in the court record so that "the public cannot know what the removed parts contain".

However, the AGC said that portions of Li's affidavit were struck out because they contained matters that were "scandalous and irrelevant to the issues in the case".

The AGC also said that contrary to Li's allegations, the act of striking out applications complies with the Rules of Court, and are regularly made.

The AGC also brought up the fact that on Nov. 22, 2019, the High Court struck out several parts of Li's affidavit, and Li was directed to refile it to comply with the Court's order.

Li complied with the Court's order, said the AGC, and did not appeal.

AGC said Li's actions show that he demands to be treated differently

Li also claimed that the AGC argued for a new piece of legislation to be retroactively applied against him, and said that the court saw it as "unfair”.

However, the AGC said that while the Court of Appeal did not accept all of the AGC's arguments, the court did confirm that in April 2019, Li had been validly served.

The AGC claimed that Li rehashed the same complaint because he felt that he should not have been served with the cause papers at all, which is "in reality a demand that he be treated differently from all others".

AGC gave Li a chance to withdraw his statement or apologise

According to the AGC, Li should have known that his post would receive wide publicity, given his status as Lee Kuan Yew's grandson, and a combination of his inflammatory statement and the timing of his post.

When the AGC came to know of the post, the AGC asked Li if he would apologise and withdraw his statement, making it clear that if he did so, no proceedings would be brought against him.

However, Li refused to do so.

"Mr Li's conduct suggests a sense that he is above the law. That is apparent from his consistent complaint that these proceedings should not have been brought against him at all," said the AGC.

According to the AGC, Li's decision not to defend his statement is a "clear acknowledgement that his defence has no merits".

Li is currently facing serious questions in the hearing, said the AGC, and it is "obvious" that he knows that his conduct will not stand up to scrutiny.

The AGC also accused Li of making up excuses for running away from the proceedings.

If Li has nothing to hide, he should return to Singapore

The AGC said that Li had already stated his intention not to return to Singapore for the proceedings, as early as August 2017.

Li never intended to come back to Singapore to defend himself, the AGC said, but was using legal representation in the proceedings as a platform to launch "baseless allegations" against the AGC and others.

The timing of Li's decision not to participate in the proceedings was also significant, as it was clearly made to avoid the possibility that he will have to answer questions on oath, claimed the AGC.

The AGC has applied to cross-examine Li on his defence affidavit, and for Li to answer questions on oath about his post.

According to the AGC, these questions would reveal the truth behind what happened, including Li's intentions in making the post.

Such questions included how many Facebook friends Li had at the time of his post, and whether they included members of the media.

The AGC said that these questions were relevant to whether Li would reasonably have foreseen his post to be published by the media.

"Mr Li refused to answer these questions. The clear inference is that his answers would have been damaging to his case," said the AGC.

The AGC said that if Li had nothing to hide, and believes that his statement was not in contempt of the Singapore judiciary, he should make himself available for cross-examination and defend the proceedings.

According to the AGC, the fact that Li has chosen not to, and has contrived excuses to explain his decision, shows "what he really thinks".

Related Story

Top image from Li Shengwu's Facebook and AGC.