SINGAPORE – The father of a 31-year-old debater who took his own life after allegations of sexual misconduct against him were made public has sued the Debate Association (Singapore), claiming that its “wrongful” actions caused the death of his son.
Mr Lucas Li, a prominent member of the debate community, fell to his death on Aug 8, 2018, a day after the association announced in a statement that he was “permanently banned” from its events on the basis of inappropriate behaviour.
His father, Mr Lawrence Li, 67, is now seeking unspecified damages for the mental distress suffered by his son, as well as bereavement and the loss of dependency for himself and his wife.
The couple were financially supported by Mr Lucas Li, a government scholar who was working at Enterprise Singapore at the time.
A seven-day trial opened in the High Court on Tuesday to hear Mr Lawrence Li’s claims that the association had acted negligently and that its actions constituted a breach of contract.
The association said it should not be held liable for the suicide, and that its actions were justified, given the severity of the allegations.
In his suit, Mr Lawrence Li contended that his son succumbed to depression after the association’s executive committee, or Exco, posted a statement on its website and on Facebook on Aug 7, 2018.
The statement said an independent audit had been conducted of a training programme for young debaters, the Debate Development Initiative (DDI), because allegations had been made “by members of the debate community about inappropriate behaviour by a former DDI director”.
The statement did not name Mr Lucas Li, who was the founder of the programme and served as director from 2012 to 2014.
According to the audit report, Mr Lucas Li moderated a WhatsApp chat group named “DDI Darkness”, where participants of the programme engaged in discussions that were sexual in nature.
The report also stated that a member of the chat group complained that Mr Lucas Li had shared explicit photos of himself in a private chat with him and that there was a “physical sexual encounter” between Mr Lucas Li and him in 2014.
Taking the stand on Tuesday, Mr Lawrence Li said his son intended the chat group to be a safe space for trainees to discuss personal issues, but “the discussion got out of hand and Lucas could not contain it”.
He also said: “It doesn’t matter whether (the allegations were) false or true, the point here is that he was not given a chance to speak.”
His lawyer, Mr Paul Ong of Paul Ong Chambers, said in his opening statement: “Lucas was completely blindsided by the Exco statement.”
Mr Ong said Mr Lucas Li was not informed by the association that he was being investigated and that allegations were made against him, and he was not given the opportunity to respond to the allegations before the Exco decided to ban him and to make the matter public.
The association also filed a police report and notified Enterprise Singapore, as well as the World Universities Debate Championship Council, of the allegations without giving him the opportunity to explain himself, said Mr Ong.
“This is a tragedy which could have been avoided if Lucas had been treated fairly by the defendant and accorded the full due process that he was entitled to as a matter of law,” said Mr Ong.
Mr Ong contended that the association acted unreasonably and with the intention of causing distress to Mr Lucas Li and destroying his life through the “machinations” of its then president Cherylyn Wee and other members of the Exco in 2018.
He said Mr Lucas Li had a history of mental health issues and the association was aware that he was mentally vulnerable.
The association, represented by Invictus Law Corporation, said it was justified in its decision to ban him and to post the statement, given the severity of the allegations of sexual impropriety towards members of the chat group, including a minor.
Auditors were appointed to ascertain the truth of the allegations, and the findings of their report were further confirmed with members of the programme, said lawyers Darren Tan, Joshua Tan and Silas Siew in their opening statement.
The association will show that Mr Lucas Li had behaved inappropriately towards its members, which included minors, said the lawyers. They contended that Ms Wee did not pressure the other Exco members to take action concerning the allegations and that the association had no knowledge of Mr Lucas Li’s mental condition at the time.
“The plaintiff’s claims against the defendant appear to be motivated by certain bitterness and resentment against certain Exco members of the defendant at the material time, and perhaps even by grief,” they said.
Mr Lawrence Li is calling six witnesses: himself, his wife, two members of the DDI programme, a member of the 2018 Exco, and the psychiatrist who treated Mr Lucas Li.
The association has four witnesses lined up – two members of the 2018 Exco including Ms Wee, the member who said he had a sexual encounter with Mr Lucas Li, and a psychiatrist.
