ANALYZING INSTITUTIONAL AND

COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO SEXUAL

HARM USING THE POLICY CYCLE:

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RESPONSES

TO THE MONICA BAEY CASE OF 2019 AND
THE DR JEREMY FERNANDO CASE OF 2020

CARISSA CHEOW

AN HONOURS THESIS IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

BACHELOR OF SOCIAL SCIENCE (HONOURS) DEGREE

PRESENTED TO

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
ACADEMIC YEAR 21/22
Content warnings for:
mentions of sexual violence, trauma, and names of specific perpetrators

I dedicate this thesis to all my communities who have sustained me till this
point, and the lessons I have learned from them that show me that, yes,
solidarity is possible, and is something I deserve too, and is something we all
deserve too. It is, perhaps, fitting that I complete this thesis on TDOV.

"What I'm making a case for is that disposability is a concept that might be the
most villainous for our species: to think that there's some way we can get rid of
people who commit harm, and that will remove the harmful behavior and the
harmful belief systems from our communities.

And when it doesn’t—it hasn’t—at a certain point we have to ask ourselves,

what are we doing?"

– Adrienne Maree Brown 9 March 2021

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very grateful to my supervisor, Dr Saroja Dorairajoo, for her incredible support and guidance
throughout the entire process of writing this thesis and conducting the research, for always prioritizing my
well-being in so many ways, and for all the care she has provided which ought to serve as an exemplary
role model for all staff and administrators in all universities – a key theme in my thesis. I am also very
grateful to all my 30 participants for taking the time to help me with this and for trusting me to your
experiences. I can only hope I do them justice.

(If the people credited in these sections happen to overlap, that’s just how it is.)

Special thanks to Shivaane for helping me to pay for otter.ai so that I can complete all my data analysis and
transcription without completely destroying myself in the process. The work you do as a student organizer
in your own right has given me inspiration to see through all the data, in hopes that it will finally amount to
change some day. In solidarity.

Another special thanks to Qian Xi and the rest of cell for making this possible and for showing me what
care can look like and reminding me that I, too, deserve good things, to Adilah for introducing me to the
concepts of kejam, dahsyat, ganas, kasar, bengis, zalim as different forms of violence, and to Kumarr for
offering your own thesis as reference and for your guidance too.

Yet another special thanks to Ad and Jolene, without whom I would not have a place to stay. To Ad for
somehow or another giving me your own insights as a researcher yourself, and to Jolene for lifting one
major burden off my shoulders in time for me to commence this thesis.

I am very thankful to the group of impossibly-supportive sapphics otherwise known as “DISASTER

LESBIANS V2” and recently renamed to “i am not a lesbian. i am an alternative”. Each of you have held
space for me and nourished me (literally and figuratively) at so many points in this journey. I am citing us
by group name because one of you said it would be super funny. (You know who you are.) I also want to
thank the wonderful folks at /s@ber who have been one of my greatest pillars of support in so many ways I
no longer have the words for.

I also really have to thank to my co-founders of Students for a Safer NUS and all the members of the 1 st
Committee, without whom I would not have decided to write this paper at all in my desperation to find a
thesis topic. I also want to thank all the members of the 2nd Committee for stepping up to bring this great
movement forward. You gave me one less thing to worry about as I juggled this thesis with handing over
the organization to you. The same goes for QueerNUS and transNUS, both of which (unfortunately) cannot
be decoupled from any work relating to gender-based violence. I learned organizing first-hand from you.

I also want to also thank Keng Yung for accompanying me through this process while both of us were
working on our respective thesis papers. I don’t think I had the chance to show you a copy of this at all
prior to submission simply because it took me so long to complete it, but I’m hoping it will prove to be
worth it. Thank you Jun Hong, Cheng Ze, and the rest of you for somehow or another encouraging me
through this process.

Likewise, thanks to the folks at 35th GSS Executive Committee, especially Gokul and Ishwari, and the
MPP Class of 2022, and countless other people for being so understanding throughout these three months.

Of course, this would also not be possible without my family, whose support I have no words to describe.
Finally, I know I never expected to live past twenty, but here I am today, and… I guess this thesis counts
as me surviving to tell the tale? I literally survived sexual violence myself, and hopefully this thesis will
contribute to my hopes that one day, nobody will ever have to go through what I went through at 14.

At long last! Alhamdulilah, and may we continue to organize for a better world inshaAllah

3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements 3
Table of Contents 4
Abstract 5
Introduction 6

Chapter One Theorizing Sexual Harm in Institutional Settings 10

What is Violence? – Looking beyond just the act itself 10
What is Justice? – Necessary and sufficient conditions 17

Chapter Two Research Design for Identifying Policy Responses 24

Premises: A Four-Party Relational Model of Sexual Harm 24
Framework: Locating Responses within Policy Cycle Stages 26
Methodology: Grounded Theory from In-Depth Interviews 28
Dramatis Personae: Students, the Institution, and the Public 29

Chapter Three Responses to Sexual Harm throughout Policy Cycle 31

Agenda Setting: Who gets to be listened to, and by whom? 31
Problem Definition: Misconduct, violence, or something else? 33
Policy Formulation: Identifying three key policy coalitions 34
Policy Adoption: How underlying beliefs inform policy choice 35
Policy Implementation: Political will and institutional capacity 37
Policy Evaluation: What have we learned, if anything at all? 38

Chapter Four Discussion on Findings from Interviews 40

Identifying narratives and themes surrounding the two cases 41
Identifying beliefs regarding what violence and justice mean 49
Identifying actions taken by each coalition towards their wants 55
Moving forward: How can and should we reframe all this? 59

Conclusion 64
Bibliography 67
Appendices – Selected Excerpts from Interviews 68

4
 ABSTRACT

This thesis aims to conceptualize the National University of Singapore (NUS)’s approach in

responding to sexual harm within the institutional context of the Singaporean public

university. The study will compare how two specific cases, namely the 2019 case surfaced by

Monica Baey, and the 2020 case resulting in the dismissal of Dr Jeremy Fernando, were

framed by the University’s student community, the University as an institution, and the

general public. The 2019 case motivated the founding of Singapore’s first fully-student-led

community organization addressing sexual harm, Students for a Safer NUS.

The objective of the study is to identify how much the framing of the problem in community

responses from students and institutional responses from University administrators has

shifted away from characterizing such cases as sexual misconduct to characterizing them as

sexual violence in between the two cases, so as to distill their implications in facilitating

constructive reframing of the problem and its solutions. To do this, the thesis will employ a

Policy Cycle Framework used in policy analysis to examine how sexual harm is framed in

agenda-setting, problem definition, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and

evaluation. In line with the grounded theory approach, thirty in-depth interviews were carried

out with students enrolled in the University during one or both of the two cases, half of which

were committee members of Students for a Safer NUS. The findings point to a visible

divergence in underlying policy beliefs and wants rooted in contrasting conceptions of what

constitutes justice and violence, and this in turn explains the differences in actions taken by

each player to achieve their respective wants as informed by their beliefs.

(Word count for thesis: 12,000)

5
 Introduction

Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) serve as crucial vehicles for intergenerational mobility,

especially for students from communities on the margins who face systemic inequities to

accessing broader opportunities and necessities across society and from official institutions.

Sexual harm in all its forms remains an unacceptably-prevalent problem throughout our

campuses, workplaces, and communities. What happens, then, when more people begin to

observe first-hand a longstanding pattern of recurring cases of sexual harm in a Singaporean

public university such as, but not limited to, NUS? What actions are taken, or are not taken,

in response to these cases? Who takes these actions, and who doesn’t? How long does it take,

and why these actions and not other actions? Who is at the centre of these decisions, and who

remain on the margins? How do we change this?

Political science has long been asking these questions, particularly in relation to national

governments and their officials, and to a lesser extent, with societies at large and the

institutions that perform its respective functions of power. Following two cases of on-campus

sexual harm becoming widely known, amongst many other cases, these questions have since

shifted into the public sphere to apply to the university, and more students, staff,

administrators, and members of the public have begun asking these questions too. The

Singaporean public university, as with all universities, has to be understood as both agent and

structure at once, operating within the context of prevailing structures of power that constrain

its function, and at the same time producing and reproducing these same structures within the

campus setting. Making sense of decisions made within and by the university, therefore,

begins with uncovering where the university has come to be located and, in turn, where it

independently locates itself in its relations to other agents and structures.

6
In this thesis, the two aforementioned cases serve as a starting point for uncovering these

relations. The first case involved Monica Baey, a survivor of voyeuristic filming who

reported her case to the university and found the response lacking, and was made known

when Baey documented her experiences on Instagram in April 2019. The second case

involved Dr Jeremy Fernando, a lecturer in a residential college who made unwanted sexual

advances on some of his students, and has since been dismissed by NUS in October 2020

after two of his survivors had filed complaints about his actions to the university.

In Chapter One, I explore how distinct frames of understandings surrounding what constitutes

violence and justice, two key concepts in political thought, are central in constructing

descriptive and interpretive explanatory accounts of how sexual harm is enacted within

institutional settings. Violence here operates at three layers: relational violence from the

perpetrator(s), structural violence from relations of power reproduced by social structures,

and administrative violence from both independent and dependent actions by institutions.

Conceptions of justice, as responses to these layers of violences, may likewise range from

more behavioural understandings such as retributive justice and rehabilitative justice on one

end to more relational and structural understandings such as restorative justice and

transformative justice on the other. I will also consider how a conduct and misconduct lens is

sometimes used in place of conceptions of violence when defining acts of sexual harm.

In Chapter Two, I open by introducing a relational model of sexual harm focusing on

relational patterns between four players, namely the survivor(s), the perpetrator(s), the

survivors’ communities, and the institution performing its administrative function. I posit that

these relations take the form they do because of underlying beliefs that influence the goals

7
they want to attain from the interaction. I employ a six-stage Policy Cycle framework to

locate the policy decisions and their respective discursive justifications as actions that trace

back to these beliefs and goals. My research aims to uncover these relationships as

experienced and observed by students. This goal informs my choice of in-depth interviews

aimed at generating hypotheses from accounts provided by different interviewees so as to

construct a grounded theory of how students experience the relationships embedded within

the university’s approach in responding to sexual harm. Towards this end, I draw upon

experiential recollection and observation as methods for generating primary source materials

which reveal how these beliefs, goals, and actions may align or differ between the student

community, the institution, and the general public.

In Chapter Three, I examine how responses to sexual harm look like at each of the six stages

of the Policy Cycle by bringing in theoretical lenses that inform their workings and processes.

At the agenda-setting stage, I consider how Mohan Dutta’s theory of communicative

inequalities and Deborah Stone’s theory of causal stories determine the manner in which the

two selected cases serve as focusing events that shift sexual harm from the informal agenda

to the formal agenda. At the problem-definition stage, I discuss how the differences in how

meanings of violence, conduct, and justice are constructed serve to inform the policy beliefs

of each actor. This informs the policy-formulation stage, where I employ Paul Sabatier’s and

Hank Jenkins-Smith’s Advocacy Coalition Framework to link these beliefs to specific goals

and their corresponding actions. With these preferences determining the choice of policy

instruments in each coalition at the policy-adoption stage, I examine how implementation of

chosen policies is conditioned by the ability and willingness of institutional players to act,

understood as institutional capacity and political will respectively. Coming back full circle, I

propose implications for policy learning at the policy-evaluation stage.

8
Finally, in Chapter Four, I discuss and analyze the findings from the thirty in-depth

interviews conducted and offer some understandings of what a grounded theoretical

construction of responses to sexual harm could look like by drawing on key insights offered

by interviewees. From these, I offer recommendations for institutional decision-makers to

consider reframing how the agenda on sexual harm is defined. I conclude by looking at

possible implications of these findings and their applicability in some contexts, and suggest

some possible directions for future research building upon this thesis.

9
 Chapter One:

Theorizing Sexual Harm in Institutional Settings

In this thesis, I use the term “sexual harm” to refer to acts of a sexual nature understood to

have harmful effects. I intentionally opt for a broader sense of “harmful” to encompass both

the conceptions of “sexual violence”, which understands harm in terms of the violation of a

person’s sense of trust and well-being caused by such acts, and “sexual misconduct”, which

assigns the harmfulness of the act to its contravention of an established rule or norm of

rightful conduct, and hence as causing harm to the orderly functioning of society.

What is Violence? – Looking beyond just the act itself

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines violence as:

1) the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

2) injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation

The first definition encompasses acts of sexual assault, and the second encompasses acts of

sexual harassment. Taken together, it follows that “sexual violence” does indeed cover the

full range of acts of a sexual nature that could cause harm to those on the receiving end,

whichever of the above forms it may take. These two definitions are worded to be

categorically different in that they are both violence of comparable damage that take different

forms, without necessarily requiring them to be ranked in magnitude such that one is “more”

violent and the other “less” violent. Why, then, do people frequently downplay the violent-

ness of the second definition seemingly in comparison to the first?

10
To answer this, my thesis draws upon how Hannah Arendt conceptualizes the essential

quality of violence:

Indeed, one of the most obvious distinctions between power and violence is that power

always stands in need of numbers, whereas violence up to a point can manage without

them because it relies on implements. The extreme form of power is All against One,

the extreme form of violence is One against All. And this latter is never possible

without instruments.

– Hannah Arendt, “On Violence” (1969)1

Arendt posits that this reliance on implements – specifically to compensate for the lack of

numbers needed to possess and exercise power – is a necessary condition for violence. In

order for an act to cause either kind of injury, the act has to rely on implements. That is what

qualifies it as violence. Use of physical force, or even use of other non-physical means of

coercion, are both contingent qualities of violence. Such acts become violent because they

rely on an instrumental means – either physical or non-physical – to achieve the ends of

coercion. Why does this become essential in the production of violence?

Power corresponds to human capacity, not simply to act, but to act in concert. Power

is never owned by an individual; belongs to a group and continues to exist as long as

the group remains united. When we say of someone in power we really mean that he

has a power of a certain number of people to act on his behalf.

1Hannah Arendt, Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, Civil Disobedience, on Violence, Thoughts on Politics, and
Revolution (San Diego, California: Harvest, 1972).

11
 Violence, we must remember, does not depend on numbers or opinions, but on

implements, and the implements of violence, like all other tools, increase and multiply

human strength. Violence can always destroy power; out of the barrel of a gun grows

the most effective command, resulting in the most instant and perfect obedience. What

never can grow out of it is power.

– Hannah Arendt, “On Violence” (1969)2

For Arendt, power is not associated with violent coercion, nor does it need to rely on it.

Indeed, if violence is “to compel to do”, then power is simply “to do”, in concert. Violence

requires implements to compel someone to do because without it, it lacks the power to simply

do it in concert. Using the above as a starting point, this thesis builds upon Arendt’s

understanding of violence by drawing attention to how violence operates at multiple layers,

particularly within the context of sexual harm in institutional settings.

In thinking about sexual violence, we are often familiar with how perpetrators assume the

role of the violator through their commission of acts of violence that violates their survivors.

This forms the first layer of violence that survivors experience, known as relational violence

or interpersonal violence. By operating through social relationships, relational violence

employs the social relationship between violator and violated not just as a medium, but as its

implement – a “tool to increase and multiply human strength” of the violator. The violator

can employ the relationship with the violated as implement regardless of whether this

relationship is defined by closeness and familiarity or by distance and unfamiliarity. This is

why perpetrators may be total strangers, distant acquaintances, close friends, or intimate

2 ibid

12
partners alike – each of these relationships can be utilized as an instrumental means to

produce the violator’s desired ends: to coerce the violated to act as the violator wills them to.

Some cases of sexual harm involve multiple perpetrators acting in concert to directly violate a

single survivor – I speak wryly from experience here – exhibiting both power (from numbers)

and violence (from implements). By contrast, both cases selected for this thesis involve a

single perpetrator carrying out initial acts of harm, but other adjacent players share their own

responsibility for causing additional harm through these layers of violence.

This brings our attention to the second layer of violence, which Johan Galtung calls

structural violence and Slavoj Žižek calls systemic violence. This layer operates in tandem

with the first layer through the functioning of social structures which replicate acts of direct

relational violence across all of society. Galtung makes clear distinction between “personal

violence”, exercised directly, and “structural violence”, exercised indirectly:

Violence with a clear subject-object relation is manifest because it is visible as action.

It corresponds to our ideas of what drama is, and it is personal because there are

persons committing the violence. Violence without this relation is structural, built into

structure. Thus, when one husband beats his wife there is a clear case of personal

violence, but when one million husbands keep one million wives in ignorance there is

structural violence.

– Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research” (1969)3

3Johan Galtung, “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research,” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): pp. 167-191,
https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.

13
Galtung extends Arendt’s understanding of violence relying on means and tools to the

structural layer and argues that social structures organize actors into ranks which define how

they interact with one another. These structures function as not just the location or medium

for the violence, but as its tool or implement of violence itself.

In Galtung’s extended conception of peace, justice is not merely a response to violence, but

requires by definition the absence of its corresponding form of violence. He terms the

absence of personal violence as “negative peace”, and the absence of structural violence as

“positive peace”. According to this conception, “social justice” emerges from a state of

positive peace, whereas the presence of structural violence constitutes as “social injustice”.

4 ibid

14
Žižek builds upon Galtung to distinguish between personalized “subjective violence” and

impersonalized “objective violence”, which operates through the “symbolic violence” of

language and the “systemic violence” of political-economic systems respectively:

Subjective violence is experienced as such against the background of a non-violent

zero level. It is seen as a perturbation of the “normal,” peaceful state of things.

However, objective violence is precisely the violence inherent to this “normal” state

of things. Objective violence is invisible since it sustains the very zero-level standard

against which we perceive something as subjectively violent.

– Slavoj Žižek, “Violence” (2008)5

In doing so, Žižek presents a timely critique of the “misconduct”’ framing that our

institutional actors in the Singaporean public university have consistently preferred. This

framing attributes violence solely to the character of the “sex offender”, who functions as

Žižek’s “concrete individuals and their ‘evil’ intentions” so as to obscure the violence that

cannot be attributed to specific wrongdoers, but to a system that is consistently wronging its

members across the board simply by functioning as intended:

We’re talking here of the violence inherent in a system: not only direct physical

violence, but also the more subtle forms of coercion that sustain relations of

domination and exploitation, including the threat of violence. This violence is no

5 Žižek Slavoj, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections (New York: Picador, 2008).

15
 longer attributable to concrete individuals and their “evil” intentions, but is purely

“objective,” systemic, anonymous.

Is there not something suspicious, indeed symptomatic, about this focus on subjective

violence – that violence which is enacted by social agents, evil individuals, disciplined

repressive apparatuses, fanatical crowds? Doesn’t it desperately try to distract our

attention from the true locus of trouble, by obliterating from view other forms of

violence and thus actively participating in them?

– Slavoj Žižek, “Violence” (2008) 6

In Žižek’s characterizations of objective violence as impersonal, we begin to see glimpses of

Dean Spade’s concept of administrative violence, the third layer of violence that this thesis

will look at within the context of sexual harm in institutional settings. Spade, like Žižek, also

problematizes the “neutrality” or “objectivity” of administrative systems as inherently

violent, and writes:

I argue for a model of thinking about power and law that expands our analysis to

examine systems that administer life chances through purportedly “neutral” criteria,

understanding that those systems are often locations where racist, sexist,

homophobic, ableist, xenophobic, and transphobic outcomes are produced. Through

this lens, we look more at impact than intent. We look more at what legal regimes do

6 ibid

16
 rather than what they say about what they do. We look at how vulnerability is

distributed across populations, not just among individuals.

– Dean Spade, “Normal Life” (2011)7

In the context of sexual harm on campus, Spade’s assessment requires us to problematize the

exact administrative processes within the university’s “official channels” positioned as

responses to sexual harm. These channels replicate their own layer of violence once again on

survivors simply by, in their own words, “following proper procedure”. Even when well-

intentioned, the manner which the institution “tries to help” the survivor report their case for

investigation, often as a precondition for support, is a key cause of distress for survivors.

With all three layers in operation, the result is that the relational violence of perpetrators

across the board now becomes backed by power due to the presence of structural violence,

which reinforces violence when power voluntarily opts to act in concert with violence by

exercising administrative violence.

What is Justice? – Necessary and sufficient conditions

This thesis also seeks to ask: what constitutes as a “just” or “unjust” state of affairs, process,

system, or outcome when a case of sexual harm has occurred? Here, we are concerned with

what justice and injustice should look like in an institutional setting according to a range of

conceptions.

7Dean Spade, Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2011).

17
To answer this, we look at two conditions. We first identify which conditions are necessary

such that things can only be considered just if and only if these conditions are met, and in all

other circumstances will automatically be considered unjust so long as they remain unmet.

Following this, we identify which conditions are sufficient such that things are automatically

considered just so long as these conditions are met.

Centering the perpetrator in justice

Out of the four conceptions of justice9 discussed in this thesis, retributive justice appears to

dominate the popular consciousness. The operative condition of retributive justice is for

“perpetrators to receive penalty proportionate to offending behaviour”, which proponents

hold to be both necessary and sufficient to ensure justice. Accordingly, in its absence, any

outcome remains unjust; in its presence, any outcome becomes just. What matters here is that

8 Original diagram (Carissa Cheow, 2020)

9Howard Zehr, “Restorative or Transformative Justice?,” Restorative Justice Blog, March 11, 2011,
https://emu.edu/now/restorative-justice/2011/03/10/restorative-or-transformative-justice/.

18
firstly, the perpetrator is penalized, and secondly, that the penalty is proportionate to how

severe their actions are assessed to be, preferably through due process.

In retributive justice terms, the legitimacy of the penalty originates from its proportionality,

and this proportionality is intended as a justification for the penalty. As such, institutional

actors within the university often place overwhelming emphasis on the investigative process

when responding to singular instances of sexual harm. This is because in their eyes, the

investigation is what it takes to establish “in objective terms” how severe the act itself is, so

as to decide how severe the corresponding penalty ought to be – no more, no less. Calls for

retributive justice generally agree with both its basic premises of penalty and proportionality

– they differ amongst themselves on what constitutes “proportionality”. This stems from what

they perceive “severity” of an act to entail. Disagreement with verdicts from within the same

retributive justice standpoint therefore centre on whether the verdict on the severity of the act

is out of proportion, and in which direction – was this severity overstated or understated?

This is the origin of reactionary backlash: either against the perpetrator if the verdict is

viewed to have understated the severity, or against the survivor if the verdict is viewed to

have overstated the severity. If the verdict is seen as proportionate, then this backlash may

instead be redirected against any attempts to critique the workings of the existing systems.

The second conception, rehabilitative justice, is often either positioned as complementary or

contradictory to retributive justice within the popular consciousness, where both retributive

and rehabilitative justice are typically framed as the sole options on the table. The operative

condition of rehabilitative justice is for “perpetrators to receive re-education to correct

offending behaviour”, which proponents likewise hold to be both necessary and sufficient to

19
ensure justice. These two conceptions of justice focus on addressing the specific offending

actions committed by the perpetrator, with little to no focus on addressing the experience of

the survivor. Rehabilitative justice is frequently applied either alongside or in place of

retributive justice, depending on which of the following views is taken.

Those who argue that rehabilitative justice is compatible with retributive justice often

advocate for a combination of the two approaches. According to this position, both penalty

and re-education are necessary yet insufficient conditions. “Penalty without re-education”

and “re-education without penalty” for perpetrators are essentially insufficient on their own,

and the sufficient condition for justice is only realized when both necessary conditions are

met, such that the perpetrator is both penalized and re-educated. Conversely, those who argue

that rehabilitative justice is incompatible with retributive justice often position both forms as

a zero-sum trade-off, such that doing more of one will undermine the effect of doing the other

and thus render the combined outcome insufficient for justice. These proponents may either

call for perpetrators to be rehabilitated without penalty at all, or call for perpetrators to be

penalized without rehabilitation at all.

Centering the survivor in justice

The third conception, restorative justice, marks a significant departure from the previous

two conceptions. In this view, penalty – regardless of how proportionate – and re-education

for the perpetrators of sexual harm are both understood to be neither necessary condition nor

sufficient condition for justice. Even if both existed, it would not be sufficient for justice, and

justice can be realized even if neither of the above were carried out at all. Instead of the

perpetrator “being held responsible” by some authority, in restorative justice, the perpetrator

20
“takes responsibility” to address the harm which their actions have caused their survivors to

experience. The operative conditions of restorative justice are firstly, for “perpetrators to

understand directly from survivors what kind of harm their actions have caused to

survivors”, and secondly, for “perpetrators to take proactive steps to repair the harm they

have caused to their survivors and the wider community”.

In restorative justice terms, proactively repairing the damage one’s actions have caused is

both necessary and sufficient to ensure justice. Far from being some tangential or secondary

objective, the primary and central objective of restorative justice is to ensure both individual

and collective recovery and healing for survivors and their communities. Without this, no

outcome, process, or state of affairs can be considered just. The point is to heal. What

recovery may look like differs from person to person and from case to case, and depends on

the survivors’ own understanding of what is necessary and sufficient for their well-being.

Returning to the earlier analysis of the workings of relational violence, restorative justice

aims to “restore” social relationships to their non-violent and non-coercive form – before the

perpetrators transformed these relationships into their own implements of violence to coerce

survivors and their communities. This transformation itself is the root cause of the harm done.

The act of sexual harm itself, as commonly understood, is the second act in a two-act

process: it takes the first ongoing act of transforming nonviolent relationship into tool for

violence for the second act to be made possible to begin with. Restorative justice argues that

perpetrators have to undo the damage done through the first act – this itself is a necessary

precondition for survivors and communities to heal from the damage of the second act.

21
Where restorative justice focuses on repairing the harm caused at the relational violence layer

when perpetrators transform relationships into tools for violence, the fourth conception of

transformative justice turns to focus on repairing the harm caused at the structural violence

and administrative violence layers, by our social structures and institutions. This conception

shares in common with restorative justice the twin goals of healing from the damage, and of

restoring social relationships to their non-violent and non-coercive form.

The key difference is that at the structural and institutional level, the violence done is, as

Žižek defines it, “objective violence” rather than “subjective violence” 10. There are no

attributable perpetrators transforming a nonviolent structure of non-violent relationships into

a tool for collective violence. Structuring all interactions through rank is precisely what

enables their relationships – otherwise nonviolent on their own – to be transformable and

hence transformed into implements of violence to begin with. In transformative justice terms,

conditions of restorative justice become necessary yet insufficient. Restorative processes are

necessary because harm has already been done to survivors and communities, and this harm

still has to be done in the immediate term. They remain insufficient because perpetrators do

not transform social relationships into tools for violence from nowhere – it is this structuring

of all relationships according to rank that enables them to do so.

Structure is both noun and verb, and the verb-form process of “structuring” – how we are

structuring our interactions – is itself the original act of harm that needs undoing. Sexual

harm operates through an extended four-act process rather than a two-act process: the first

act is the structuring of all interactions happening in the background, which enables the

10 Žižek Slavoj, Violence: Six Sideways Reflections (New York: Picador, 2008).

22
second act of transforming relationships into tools of violence, and in turn enables the third

act of the perpetrator violating the survivor through personalized subjective violence. The

fourth act is administrative violence done repeatedly to survivors after the act of sexual harm

has been committed, throughout the administrative process in which survivors approach

institutions to seek relief and redress. Both the first two acts and the fourth act are

impersonalized objective violence, and transformative justice targets them at the collective

level in tandem with restorative justice targetting the subjective third act. Transformative

justice proposes that we, too, are responsible for causing harm through the first act of unjustly

structuring our interactions, and we, too, have to take proactive steps to undo this.

What is the shared end across all four conceptions, then? Let us examine the solutions each

conception of justice proposes, and why. Retributive justice proposes penalty as a means to

deter perpetrators from repeating such acts. Rehabilitative justice proposes re-education as a

means for perpetrators to learn not to repeat such acts. Restorative justice proposes restorative

dialogue as a means for perpetrators to take concrete steps towards not repeating such acts.

Transformative justice proposes transformative dialogue as a means for whole communities

to ensure interactions are no longer structured in ways that allow such acts to repeat.

This thesis posits that ensuring non-repetition – rooted in the concept of reparations from

transitional justice11 – is central to all four conceptions of justice. It is the means which differ.

11Patricia Lundy, “Historical Institutional Abuse: What Survivors Want From Redress,” Ulster University. Accessed March
31, 2021, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/what_survivors_want_from_redress.pdf.

23
 Chapter Two:

Research Design for Identifying Policy Responses

In Chapter One, we looked at some conceptions for how violence and justice could be

understood and framed. The research design aims to build upon this theoretical foundation to

establish how such understandings have come to determine policy responses to sexual harm.

Premises: A Four-Party Relational Model of Sexual Harm

This thesis will employ the following relational model as an original framework.

12

The Perpetrator

By committing an act of sexual harm, the perpetrator causes individual trauma to their

immediate victim. In this process, the act also causes harm to the surrounding communities

12 Original diagram (Carissa Cheow, 2020).

24
whose members experience collective trauma from witnessing the after-effects of the act.

On top of causing harm to both survivors and their communities, the perpetrator’s act also

constitutes a violation of rules outlined in the institution’s disciplinary Code of Conduct.

The Survivor

Sexual harm violates its survivors’ sense of safety and trust, and causes long-lasting trauma

for survivors throughout their lives. As such, survivors of sexual harm often first turn to their

surrounding communities to seek recovery from this trauma. They may also approach

institutional channels to seek reparation from the perpetrator for the harm inflicted, so as to

seek non-repetition of similar acts of sexual harm from the perpetrator.

The Community

Communities experience long-lasting trauma too alongside its survivors of sexual harm, and

this shared experience of trauma can often form a starting point for both to offer care and

support to one another for collective healing. Communities become crucial in initiating

restorative dialogue with perpetrators of sexual harm to acknowledge the harm caused,

while also initiating transformative dialogue with institutions to undo the harm caused by

current systems.

The Institution

After receiving reports of sexual harm cases, the institution responds to perpetrators violating

its rules by introducing punitive sanctions on perpetrators. The institution only interacts with

survivors and their communities for the purpose of investigative fact-finding to determine

25
suitable penalty levels. Survivors experience what Sara Ahmed terms strategic inefficiency13

when approaching institutions for any other needs, and communities likewise encounter

institutional inertia towards their calls for structural change.

Framework: Locating Responses within Policy Cycle Stages

To identify responses to sexual harm throughout the policy process, this thesis will draw

upon a six-stage adaptation of the five-stage policy cycle framework. Problem definition, a

key component of agenda-setting, will be presented as its own intermediate stage between

agenda-setting and policy formulation.

14

13 Sara Ahmed, “Strategic Inefficiency,” Feminist Killjoys, December 20, 2018,

https://feministkilljoys.com/2018/12/20/strategic-inefficiency/.
14 Werner Jann and Kai Wegrich, “Theories of the Policy Cycle,” Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, 2017, pp. 69-88,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093192-12.

26
Finding the Problem

At the agenda setting stage, members of a community start paying attention to specific

problems. These problems are brought to the attention of decision-makers, who then decide

whether they will pay attention to the problem and work towards solving it. How these

problems are solved very much depends on how they are framed, which happens at the

problem definition stage. Different actors understand the same problem in different terms,

and some interpretations become the chosen framing which will shape policy.

Finding the Solution

Coming to the policy formulation stage, these different actors may come up with and

identify a range of corresponding solutions based on how they have defined the problem.

Each solution expresses preferences for which set of policy instruments to use. After this,

decision-makers assess and compare each of these solutions according to political,

operational, and technical considerations. These assessments are used as grounds to inform

how they will select the final solution for official confirmation in the policy adoption stage.

Solving the Problem

The policy implementation stage commences once the policy has received formal approval.

Decision-makers can now instruct the relevant authorities to take concrete steps to put this

policy into practice. Implementation may be hindered by insufficiencies in design, support,

and capacity. Decision-makers close the loop at the policy evaluation stage by assessing if

policies are meeting their objectives. This will inform whether the problem needs to be

redefined, the policy needs to be revised, or the implementation needs to be reformed.

27
Methodology: Grounded Theory from In-Depth Interviews

My research aimed to uncover qualitative understandings of these responses to sexual harm

in an institutional setting at each stage of the policy cycle, by drawing upon first-hand

accounts of lived experiences revealed by students in the university itself as source data.

Towards this end, I employ Kathy Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory methodology,

which builds upon Barney Glaser’s and Anselm Strauss’s prior work on grounded theory

involving “discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research”.

I selected this method because it lends itself especially well to the objective of my research:

Our strategy of comparative analysis for generating theory puts a high emphasis on

theory as process; [this], we believe, renders quite well the reality of social

interaction and its structural context.

– Barney Glaser & Anselm Strauss, “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (1967)15

I collected qualitative data from 30 in-depth interviews; 15 interviews with members from the

community organization I co-founded, Students for a Safer NUS, and another 15 interviews

with students enrolled in NUS during either one or both cases. Each interview averaged

between fifty to seventy-five minutes. Interviews were open-ended and semi-structured, and

questions were loosely-guided and adapted in real-time depending on where participants led

the direction of discussion. I adopt Charmaz’s approach to analyze the data I have collected:

15Barney G. Glaser and Anselm Leonard Strauss, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
(Chicago, Illinois: Aldine, 1968).

28
 Grounded theory methods consist of systematic, yet flexible, guidelines for collecting

and analyzing data to construct theories from the data themselves. Thus researchers

construct a theory ‘grounded’ in their data.

– Kathy Charmaz, “Constructing Grounded Theory” (2014) 16

The intended objective of my research is to construct a theory on how institutions and

communities respond to cases of sexual harm within the university setting, which will be

directly constructed from and grounded in the data from the 30 interviews I have conducted.

Dramatis Personae: Students, the Institution, and the Public

For each interview, I left the questions open-ended in terms of what participants could share

without specifically constraining the direction of the interview conversations.

The one thing I decided to keep constant across all interviews is to cover the responses and

processes at each stage of the policy cycle from the standpoint of three key players:

1. “Students” – undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in NUS or Yale-NUS

2. “The institution” – NUS as an organizational entity, led by management and offices

3. “The public” – members of the general public in Singapore, outside NUS, at large

16 Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory (Los Angeles, California: SAGE, 2014).

29
This thesis hopes to identify the strategic interactions and relationships between the three

players and what these could reveal about the structural context underpinning the university

landscape. It is this context which informs the many decisions and responses made within it.

I identified these three players not as homogenous or monolithic entities representing only a

single perspective, but as diverse, heterogenous entities which are home to a wide range of

complex perspectives and experiences. The interviews were aimed at revealing this range

rather than simplifying and reducing each player’s responses to one-size-fits-all answers.

Interview conversations with participants reflected their understanding of this complexity.

Many participants explicitly prefaced that their own answers should not be taken to be

singularly representative of the entire group. Participants approached this complexity by

sharing responses encompassing aspects of the following:

a. Distinct strands, some contradictory, which they could observe and identify

b. Specific strands known within their own social circles, including from themselves

c. Specific strands known from observation or interaction outside their own circles

d. Specific strands which were widely known, shared, or felt by many, if not most

e. Specific strands which were in the minority, but which were clearly identifiable

30
 Chapter Three:

Responses to Sexual Harm throughout Policy Cycle

In Chapter Two, I explained how this thesis employs in-depth interviews to uncover these

responses to sexual harm at each stage of the policy cycle. Here, I will examine a selection of

relevant theoretical lenses of specific interest to each stage.

Agenda Setting: Who gets to be listened to, and by whom?

“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu”. What’s on this menu? According to Deborah

Stone, decision-makers justify their policy agendas using these causal stories to explain

cause-and-effect:

17

17 Deborah A. Stone, “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas,” Political Science Quarterly 104, no. 2 (1989):
p. 281, https://doi.org/10.2307/2151585.

31
These stories serve three purposes:

On the empirical level, they purport to demonstrate the mechanism by which one set

of people brings about harms to another set. On the normative level, they blame one

set of people for causing the suffering of others. On both levels, causal stories move

situations intellectually from the realm of fate to the realm of human agency.

– Deborah Stone, “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas” (1989)18

But whose stories are at the table? Who listens to whom?

Mohan Dutta recommends critically examining dominant voice infrastructures to uncover

how communicative inequalities systematically generate discursive erasures:

19

18 Ibid
19 Mohan J. Dutta, Communicating Social Change: Structure, Culture, and Agency (New York: Routledge, 2011).

32
In response, he proposes strategies to resist erasure:

The systematic erasure of subaltern voices from dominant discursive spaces that

manufacture knowledge and then utilize this knowledge to create policies and

interventions is resisted through structural transformations of public spheres and

through the availability of dialogic spaces for participation by the subaltern sectors.

– Mohan Dutta, “Communicating Social Change” (2011)

Problem Definition: Misconduct, violence, or something else?

Sexual violence emphasises that it is the survivor and their community that is being violated

and bears the brunt of the hurt. It is the hurting-of-people that makes this become a problem,

and proponents of this framing respond by focusing on how to acknowledge the hurt that was

caused to students and how as communities we can and must come together to undo that hurt.

Two variants of this framing exist: the singular-violence interpretation focuses on “the act”

itself and advocates for restorative justice, whereas the multiple-violence interpretation

focuses on the extended process of harm throughout and advocates for transformative justice.

Sexual misconduct emphasises that what is primarily being violated is a set of rules on

appropriate conduct. It is the breaking-of-rules that makes this become a problem, and

proponents of this framing respond by focusing on how to strengthen enforcement of rules

and how as communities we can and must instill a clearer understanding of the importance of

these rules. Masoud Shadnam's and Thomas Lawrence's institutional theory20 of moral

collapse extends this explanation to include widespread organizational misconduct.

20Masoud Shadnam and Thomas B. Lawrence, “Understanding Widespread Misconduct in Organizations: An Institutional
Theory of Moral Collapse,” Business Ethics Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2011): pp. 379-407, https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121324.

33
Proponents may advocate for both retributive and rehabilitative justice at individual and

organizational levels.

Policy Formulation: Identifying three key policy coalitions

The advocacy coalition framework proposed by Paul Sabatier offers a theoretical lens for

understanding the key determinants which shape the strategic interactions between our three

identified players – students, the institution, and the public – and for situating these

interactions within their underlying structural context.

21

21 Paul A.Sabatier "An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein." Policy
Sciences 21, no. 2/3 (1988): 129-68. Accessed March 31, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4532139.

34
From this framework, we can understand students, the institution, and the public as three key

policy coalitions within the NUS policy subsystem. Each of these three coalitions possess

their own resources, and are each informed by their own policy beliefs. Based on their beliefs

and resources, the coalitions have specific policy wants which they hope to see reflect in the

policy outputs and impacts. This guides the actions they take and the strategies they employ.

As such, what this thesis is really looking at is the interactions within the policy subsystem

of the public university. These interactions are shaped by relatively-stable parameters such as

the basic attributes of sexual harm, the design of decision-making structures and processes

within the university, and the prevailing moral consensus that sexual harm is wrong. The two

cases constitute external system events affecting the policy subsystem, limited by constraints

yet enabled by emerging longer-term possibilities.

Policy Adoption: How underlying beliefs inform policy choice

22

22 Cho, Katherine S. “The Perception of Progress: Conceptualizing Institutional Response to Student Protests and Activism”.
Thought & Action, The NEA Higher Education Journal, 2018.

35
Katherine Cho’s institutional response framework explains several ways which:

… universities respond to student demands, based on several dimensions. The first

dimension is the extent to which colleges and universities meet the demands of

students, ranging between buffering and bridging. The second dimension is the extent

to which higher education institutions share power with students, manifesting

metaphorically into both having a seat at the table and being able to make decisions.

– Katherine Cho, “The Perception of Progress” (2018) 23

Katherine identifies schisming, appeasement, co-option, and partnership as four strategies

institutions employ. In response to their actions, Jane McAlevey describes three possible

responses from members of the community:

Advocacy doesn’t involve ordinary people in any real way, (and hence) fails to use

the only concrete advantage ordinary people have over elites: large numbers.

Mobilizing is a substantial improvement over advocacy, because it brings large

numbers of people to the fight. However, too often they are the same people. The third

approach, organizing, places the agency for success with a continually expanding

base of ordinary people, a mass of people never previously involved, who don’t

consider themselves activists at all.

– Jane McAlevey, “No Shortcuts” (2016) 24

23 ibid
24Jane McAlevey, No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age (New York, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2016).

36
 25

Policy Implementation: Political will and institutional capacity

Change and inertia in institutions and communities depends on how willing and able they are

to change. An institution’s willingness to change depends on its political will, which relates

to its intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, whereas its ability to change depends on its

institutional capacity, which relates to its familiarity, know-how, and resources available.

Institutional inertia arises when the institution is either:

a. able to change, but unwilling to change (lacks political will, has institutional capacity)

b. willing to change, but unable to change (lacks institutional capacity, has political will)

c. unwilling and unable to change (lacks both political will and institutional capacity)

25 ibid

37
Strategic interactions between policy coalitions, therefore, depends substantially on the

level of political will and institutional capacity that each player has respectively. It is

important to remember that both factors reinforce one another.

For instance, institutions may be motivated by continued legitimation of their authority, while

fearing a legitimation crisis. This could disincentivize them from enacting change, especially

if it risks revealing potentially-delegitimizing shortfalls in institutional capacity.

Communities hurt by sexual harm may be motivated by transformative dialogue, while

fearing institutional inertia. This could incentivize them towards building independent power.

Policy Evaluation: What have we learned, if anything at all?

These documents serve as primary sources which indicate the University’s policy choices:

a. initial recommendations (15 May 2019), Review Committee

b. final recommendations (10 June 2019), Review Committee

c. three circulars (3 May 2019, 21 Oct 2020 and 23 Oct 2020), Provost’s Office

d. two letters (17 Nov 2020 and 17 Dec 2020), President’s Office

e. two circulars (6 Jan 2021 and 8 Mar 2021), Office of Student Conduct

38
Based on the above sources, the range of policy actions taken by the University can be

broadly classified into the following six categories listed below:

1. stricter sanctions framework

2. stricter infrastructural security

3. better reporting & investigation

4. better compliance & rehabilitation

5. compulsory module for students

6. establishment of Victim Care Unit

From the student community, Students for a Safer NUS has also enacted a six-part strategy:

1. support – collective care ecosystem

2. outreach – localized conversations

3. research – grounded sensemaking

4. literacy – firsthand theory-practice

5. membership – enable participation

6. partnerships – long-term solidarity

These sources, along with the 30 in-depth interviews, reveal the kind of policy learning that

has – or has not – taken place between and after the two cases.

39
 Chapter Four:

Discussion on Findings from Interviews

To analyze my data, I employ open qualitative coding to systematically identify conceptual

frames which participants have revealed to develop original theory.

Most prior research focused on either:

1. evidence on intervention and prevention strategies

2. student perceptions and attitudes towards sexual harm

3. prevalence of sexual harm experiences amongst students

4. factors influencing reporting and non-reporting of cases

26

26Sarah DeGue et al., “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration,”
Aggression and Violent Behavior 19, no. 4 (2014): pp. 346-362, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004.

40
These often do not situate sexual harm occurrences within their structural context, much less

in terms of interactions and relationships as experienced and observed directly by students.

My research aims to bridge this gap.

Identifying narratives and themes surrounding the two cases

At the start of each interview, I opened by asking participants to recollect what they could

remember about both cases. Participants often cited social media (in particular Instagram)

and conversations within their peer groups as a significant source from which they learned of

the two cases. As conversations progressed, participants began to reveal key narratives: either

their own, or from what they observed of those around them commenting on the cases.

41
Across the board, anger and outrage was by far the single most common emotional response

which participants both felt and observed. Anger at the institution, in this context of sexual

harm, is primarily rooted in the sense that they are “not doing enough”. Responses from

participants pointed to multiple ways in which the institution was seen to be trying to shift

responsibility when describing what constitutes insufficient action from the institution.

Participants also revealed other emotional responses as a consequence of this initial anger,

most notably a sense of disappointment and betrayal of trust due to the repeated cases

indicating institutional unwillingness or inability to learn from experience, which culminated

in many participants feeling exhausted, desensitized, and resigned by the time they came to

learn of the Jeremy Fernando case. A few participants likened the Monica Baey case to the

global #MeToo movement, and highlighted how her use of Instagram stories to share her

experiences and mobilize institutional change has made possible a newfound sense of

empowerment for many survivors especially, for whom social media was often the only

available means of opening the discursive space for them to speak up.

42
Theme #1: Transparency

According to 24 participants (80%), transparency and accountability was one such area

where they felt the institution was not doing enough in. In particular, many participants

highlighted that they only came to hear of the Jeremy Fernando case through word of mouth

or the media before hearing it from the university directly. Participants also described the

pattern of transparency as being very reactive in nature, where the university only provided

information when asked for it, and would otherwise not disclose anything at all. Survivors

also reported not being kept in the loop about what actions the university had taken and

updates to proceedings, with adminstrators often taking actions before informing them. Some

participants acknowledged that the university had subsequently taken steps towards

improving transparency, but added that this was contingent on students requesting for it

repeatedly, was done in a very clinical and reactive way, and was often not timely enough.

Participants cited this as a cause for the erosion of trust in the institution, both on their parts

and amongst their wider communities.

43
Theme #2: Protection

Likewise, 24 participants (80%) also observed anger at the institution for providing

inadequate support to survivors, which was often framed in terms of unequal protection.

Comparisons were made between how the institution was seen to not be doing enough to

protect survivors and the student communities affected, and yet was seen to be more

preoccupied with protecting perpetrators and with protecting NUS’s own image instead.

Participants described the institution as more focused on containing the fallout on its

reputation than on supporting survivors in the aftermath of cases. Indeed, one survivor

reported that top administrators in their residential college had attempted to intimidate and

guilt-trip them into revealing their perpetrator’s identity, supposedly in the name of

“protecting other students” instead. Additionally, references made to the sanctions meted out

on perpetrators tended to emphasise the inadequacy or absence of its protective, boundary-

setting function rather than focusing on the retributive element of the penalty itself. Some

participants also highlighted how this failure to protect survivors extended not just to the

44
university itself, but also to the survivor’s peers, the organizational structure of institutions

both in the university and at the State level. As with the first theme of transparency, this

failing to protect students and survivors was cited likewise as a cause for erosion of trust and

a feeling of betrayal.

Theme #3: Reporting

22 participants (73.3%) also elaborated on how institutional support remained inadequate by

addressing the fixation on the reporting and investigation process, in relation to both cases.

Some participants cited the inequality in emotional labour in the way Monica Baey had to

navigate a protracted, deeply re-traumatizing reporting process and recount her experience

again and again both to the university and to the police, only to receive an inadequate

outcome. These experiences were corroborated first-hand by participants who were survivors

of sexual violence themselves. Other participants highlighted the institutional decision to

insist on mandatory police reporting without respecting the comfort of survivors and what

45
they actually wanted during the Jeremy Fernando case. Participants traced this back to how

re-traumatizing State-level institutions such as the policing and legal systems can be for

survivors, rather than being reassuring.

Theme #4: Invalidation

On top of these, 22 participants (73.3%) also felt that the university had failed to take

students and survivors seriously. This was observed, on one hand, in the way the university

had attempted to engage students without actively listening to student experiences and input,

and on the other hand in the way that the sentences they dealt out, no matter how severe, did

not succeed in ensuring survivors and students felt any safer because the perpetrator was still

allowed on campus. Survivors themselves pointed out how institutional administrators had

even cited their trauma from sexual violence as a reason to exclude them from opportunities,

in what is essentially an infantilizing approach towards treating survivors as individuals who

cannot be relied upon to make their own decisions or who are somehow less stable.

46
Participants also recounted how the university’s actions demonstrated a preference for

listening to external consultants or the general public over listening to students and survivors.

Theme #5: Isolation

The university’s framing of cases as isolated instances of sexual misconduct, as opposed

to referring to it as sexual violence, harassment, or assault respectively, is another theme that

was surfaced by 22 participants (73.3%) during the interviews. Participants described this as

trivializing or downplaying the harm done to survivors and positioning them as if they were

of similar nature to other misconduct examples unrelated to direct harm, such as non-

compliance with COVID-19 temperature reporting and academic plagiarism. Several

participants made it a point to emphasise that this was no mere question of semantics, but

instead demonstrative of the institution’s unwillingness or inability to consider the systemic

47
character of the problem and preferring to interpret them as isolated, standalone cases, or

“tragic incidents” committed by lone perpetrators instead.

Theme #6: Elitism

Finally, 20 participants (66.7%) highlighted how there was a double standard in treatment

of perpetrators and survivors, with many singling out elitist standards of academic merit and

potential for contribution to society as a factor. Participants critiqued how institutions

reduced rehabilitation to what appears like an excuse for leniency rather than an emphasis on

reform, and noted that there was a difference in how institutions and the public tended to

practice infantilization. For example, perpetrators were infantilized to abdicate them of

having to take active responsibility, but survivors were infantilized as not knowing what’s

best for themselves and being unsound.

48
Identifying beliefs regarding what violence and justice mean

27

Based on the interviews, the only consensus shared across the three coalitions regarding what

constitutes as violence are that acts of sexual violence are intrinsically wrong by moral or

ethical standards. Beyond that, several participants even described sizeable segments of all

three coalitions as having no conception or understanding of violence at all, while other

participants discussed how the three coalitions diverged on what violence means.

How students understand violence

Participants noticed that students in general understood violations of consent and personal

boundaries to constitute violence, regardless of who does the violating. The institution was

27 Original diagram (Carissa Cheow, 2021)

49
described as also sharing this view, albeit pertaining only to individual interactions and

behaviours. Students also saw abuses of positions of authority, in particular by staff

perpetrators, as instances of violence, which the general public was perceived to concur on.

Participants also observed that many students often had a broader definition encompassing

attacks on bodily integrity, privacy, trust, sense of safety, and mental well-being. Many

participants lamented that these were not shared by either the institution or the general public.

Participants also highlighted retraumatization from investigative proceedings as violence,

echoing Dean Spade’s concept of administrative violence, and many described this as the

institution itself being complicit in reproducing violence. Participants also pointed to violence

as harm done not only to the survivor, but also to the community by making it less safe and

eroding trust. The persistent pattern of cases repeating was also highlighted as a sign of

sexual harm not merely being standalone one-off cases, but a form of structural violence as

per Johan Galtung. These cases are described as enabled by broader systems of power such as

patriarchy, sexism, and misogyny, which constitute systemic violence as per Slavoj Žižek.

How the public understands violence

The general public tends to conceive of violence in narrower terms of physical injury or

criminal offences, a view which the institution has also adopted. This translates into an

understanding that an act is as violent as the severity of the act, which has to be established

through investigation by institutions – university, courts, and police – to determine which

category of offence it falls into and how severe the physical injury caused was. In line with

these beliefs, the public therefore tends to rely on familiar or legal definitions to classify

50
something as violent, and a narrative of ruining another person’s life has surfaced in

relation to the two cases. Violence is often seen as a visible act with a visible injury,

echoing Galtung's idea of personal violence.

Some segments frame the issue as a problem of moral deviance and perversion, evoking

Žižek’s idea of subjective violence as a “perturbation of the normal” but re-expressed in

moralized terms. Because these moralized understandings attribute harm to individual

wrongdoings rather than structural conditions, the pattern of cases is noticed but re-framed as

an “NUS-only” problem instead, to the shared frustration of both students and the institution.

Participants also suggested that some sympathized with the perpetrator because they see

themselves as more likely to be accused of causing harm to someone else – the “subject” –

than being the one experiencing harm – the “object”.

How the institution understands violence

Participants overwhelmingly described the institution as, for the most part, not seeing this as

a problem of violence to begin with, instead consistently preferring the vocabulary of

misconduct and framing it as a violation of established rules and norms instead. Some

participants also felt that the institution gave the impression of being more attentive to

violations to their reputation and defining severity based on this.

51
 28

On the topic of justice, participants suggested that the need for harsher punishment and

tangible repercussions was shared in common across all three. This might explain why the

changes made in this area were front-and-centre of the two cases. At the root of what all three

coalitions ultimately wanted was non-repetition, though this was understood to mean

somewhat different things, such as reduction of all cases, reduction of reported cases, or

reduction of publicly-known cases.

28 Original diagram (Carissa Cheow, 2021)

52
How students understand justice

Participants revealed that students generally prioritized care and support for survivors and

communities as integral to justice, and this extends to respecting the agency of survivors and

not overriding their choices. Crucial to this is the need to recognize trauma and to actively

refrain from re-traumatizing survivors especially during the investigative process.

Participants also emphasised that justice required institutions to acknowledge their own

complicity in perpetuating violence and to go beyond this to actively address the material

and social conditions that create harm. In line with this, therefore, many participants

recounted that they and their student peers called for better sex education as a key element

of ensuring justice, and that there was a growing desire for restorative and transformative

justice to be incorporated. Like the institution, students also called for rehabilitating

perpetrators to prevent re-offending, but students disagreed with rehabilitation being cited

to justify leniency, especially on merit-based terms, which would be seen as even less just.

How the public understands justice

Many in the public share students’ desires for the institution to take responsibility for these

cases rather than assigning blame solely to perpetrators, but participants described this as

rooted more in a desire to expose powerful institutions and to see elites “get what they

deserve” rather than being let off too easily. Similarly, there is a sense that actions need to be

taken to fix the culture and environment in our university campuses, but unlike students,

this was often framed in moralized terms of curbing sexual perversion and restoring order.

53
Two camps emerged in the public – one condemned the perpetrator while the other

sympathized with the perpetrator. Those condemning the perpetrator either called for

criminal prosecution as the means for delivering justice, or if they felt the verdict was

insufficient, called for revenge and opted to name and shame the perpetrator, ostensibly to

warn others on the basis that the punishment is too lenient to be a warning.

How the institution understands justice

The institution generally focuses on lodging police reports and tightening security as

methods of enforcing law, which aligns neatly with public understandings of justice. Unlike

the public, the institution sees criminal prosecution as something for courts and the police to

decide on their own, and in turn see their own role as primarily to investigate the case. In the

Monica Baey case, the institution also cited the need for fairness in giving all students a

second chance, as seen in both their approach to rehabilitation and their “two-strikes” policy.

Participants also noticed that the institution does appear to have intentions to attend to

survivors, but lament that this often takes the form of simply referring them to official

channels which many students and survivors feel exacerbates the violence and injustice.

Many participants also highlighted that the institution tends to justify their actions as being

just on the basis that they followed proper procedures and did their part to fulfil their legal

obligations. This was linked to the underlying sense in the institution’s perspective that

justice requires them to restore public confidence by upholding their reputation of non-

tolerance for sexual harm, and by being seen to meet public expectations.

54
Identifying actions taken by each coalition towards their wants

In each interview, participants were prompted to identify what the student community, the

university as an institution, and the broader Singaporean public each wanted in policy terms,

and from this, to establish what actions they took towards attaining these wants, which are in

turn rooted in their respective underlying policy beliefs.

Across the board, there was an understanding that the student body and the general public

were both angered and disappointed at the institution, but for varying and sometimes

diametrically-opposed lines of reasoning. In response to this, many participants described the

institution as consistently demonstrating a pattern of taking the side of the public instead of

its students in deciding on what follow-up actions to take. This was also characterized

frequently as action aimed at placating the public’s backlash so as to avoid further scrutiny,

rather than addressing the problem itself.

What students wanted, and what they did

Many of the themes and narratives identified in the thematic analysis earlier were resurfaced

by participants when describing what students wanted. For example, participants highlighted

how students wanted the institution to inform them of what actions they were taking rather

than do it behind closed doors and withholding information, echoing the desire for

transparency. Students were also described as wanting the institution to acknowledge the

harm done and take responsibility for its complicity in reproducing this harm, reflecting their

hopes for greater accountability from the institution.

55
Participants also described how students wanted the institution to proactively make changes

to its systems rather than reacting to each individual case as isolated crises to be managed

only when they happen. Many participants linked this directly to students wanting the

institution to listen to them and take them seriously when engaging or consulting them.

This extended to a desire to be treated as equal partners and stakeholders involved in the

decision-making process, with clear commitment to following up on exact points students

have raised. Finally, participants – in particular survivors – described students as wanting to

feel safe and protected by the institution, and to be able to trust the institution when turning

to them for care and support after experiencing sexual harm themselves.

In each of these areas, participants recounted how students felt let down by the institution,

citing this as a key motivation for students to decide to take action afterwards. Participants

identified three main forms of student action. The first was social media circulation and

conversations with peers and loved ones, which constituted a form of discursive action that

fulfilled Marshall Ganz’s storytelling29 function in organizing. The second was case-specific

mobilizing, where students came together to take collective action to meet the immediate

needs of survivors and communities in the aftermath of these cases. The third was a longer-

term, more sustained form of organizing where students worked to build up collective

resources and capacities to address sexual harm themselves, notably through safeNUS, but

not limited to it. These correspond to Jane McAlevey’s three movement approaches30.

29 Marshall Ganz. Leading Change: Leadership, Organization, and Social Movements. 2008.
30
Jane McAlevey, No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age (New York, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2016).

56
What the public wanted, and what they did

Participants highlighted that all three coalitions – the public, the students, and the institution –

each had a wide range of wants, accounting for their heterogeneity. In this regard, the public

was often discussed as an amalgamation of various distinct entities. For example, many

participants distinguished between civil society and the lay public when discussing public

wants and actions, noting that the former often did have wants and were actively involved in

taking action towards achieving these wants. Participants also often brought up the media as

being heavily connected to the beliefs, wants, and actions of the public, and the media is

frequently described as playing an active role in shaping the views and goals of the public.

This is particularly cited in relation to how it aligns them to established power structures such

as institutionalized forms of legal justice or carceral punishment that draw upon State power.

However, in contrast to both students and civil society, participants noted that members of the

lay public largely had no specific wants in relation to addressing sexual harm. This was

generally attributed to the public having no direct stake in the issue, or at least perceiving

themselves as not being directly affected by it. Participants also linked this to how the public

adopted various strategies to distance themselves from the issue of sexual harm. For example,

many people articulated it as an NUS-specific issue while neglecting the prevalence of

unreported cases elsewhere. Likewise, participants observed how some people were more

likely to take the perspective of the perpetrator in considering the situation, as a means of

dismissing their own chances of becoming a survivor of sexual harm as being far less likely

than the possibility of them accidentally causing harm instead.

57
When members of the lay public were described as having wants, these wants were often in

connection to strengthening punitive justice. Interestingly, some participants also cited

concern over the university’s reputation as a legitimate want from the public, describing

them as feeling a sense of nationalistic pride or affinity for NUS as a national institution.

What the institution wanted, and what they did

Finally, participants observed how NUS as an institution had often approached cases of

sexual harm as public relations emergencies, with the desire of containing their fallout so as

to minimize the risk of damage to their reputation. Some participants, for example, noticed

how the university administration appeared to be guided by the hope that by not talking about

these cases at all, public attention to them would inevitably blow over. This was linked to a

consistently-observed pattern of actions taken by the institution to urge students to remain

silent about cases and to redirect all queries to official channels in the administration instead,

informed by the desire to “not make matters worse”.

Participants noted that the institution’s apparent concern with reputation management was

directly connected to the perception of international rankings playing a central role in

according public legitimacy to the university. This desire for legitimacy was discussed in

relation to how the university takes actions to reclaim their control or authority over a

situation of sexual harm, which is often characterized as “going out of their control”.

Conversely, participants also attributed the institution’s tendency to “pander to the public”

as rooted in this desire to preserve their reputation as legitimate in the eyes of the public

specifically – not necessarily their legitimacy in the eyes of students.

58
Actions taken by the institution, in a way, mirrors that of students in that it comprises of the

immediate actions taken in response to specific cases, and longer-term policies implemented

and practices adopted to be applied to all subsequent cases. Participants highlighted how the

institution appeared to see these cases as anomalies, rather than as a persistent pattern of

sexual harm which its environment has played a part in producing. Accordingly, nearly all

participants singled out how the institution’s belief that these cases constituted misconduct

rather than violence shaped their choice of actions, such as tightening security and

surveillance, as well as their choice of inactions, such as in according lower priority to

addressing the harm done, providing support to survivors, and improving sex education.

Moving forward: How can and should we reframe all this?

Across the board, participants had three main recommendations for how the university can

and should reframe how they approach the problem of sexual harm on campuses, namely:

1. firstly, to adopt a survivor-centric approach and prioritize survivors and students

2. secondly, to listen to students and involve students directly in decision-making

3. thirdly, to move away from approaching sexual harm cases as isolated instances

Central to these recommendations is the understanding that the institution has to actively

understand how students, and especially survivors, experience sexual harm from their own

terms rather than defaulting to viewing them from institutional terms instead.

59
While participants were pessimistic that the university would even begin to consider these

recommendations and enact them at all, many participants expressed hopes that sharing these

observations would lay the groundwork to contribute to eventual structural and institutional

change in addressing sexual harm.

Recommendation #1: Centering Survivors

Nearly all participants called for the university to move away from its current approach which

focuses primarily on attending to the perpetrator rather than on attending to the survivor.

Participants also overwhelmingly singled out the current practice of mandatory police

reporting as the most glaring instance of the institution failing to respect the wishes of

survivors. Such practices were widely seen as overriding and de-prioritizing the survivor’s

own experience of violence and the kind of justice outcomes they wanted, without their

consent. In line with this, participants called for the institution to recognize the harm done,

not only by the perpetrator’s act of violating the survivor, but also the harm done by such

administrative practices carried out at the institutional level.

Through the interviews, many participants, especially those who were survivors themselves,

had expressed first-hand that they did not feel like they were prioritized or taken seriously at

all through their interactions with the university in seeking support and redress. Participants

described harrowing experiences from the process of filing appeals and complaints. Many

recounted being repeatedly redirected to a different office on the basis that their issue was not

under a certain administrator’s jurisdiction or scope of responsibility, and this extended

beyond just sexual harm to encompass other issues concerning the welfare of students.

60
Participants also observed very stark disparities when it came to response durations, where

administrators within the institution saw it fit to prolong the duration of responding to a

survivor’s request. This duration often spanned months if not years, but upon responding to

the survivor, administrators often expected survivors to follow up within 24 hours or their

initial request would be voided, typically on the basis of some arbitrary internal procedure

which was not made transparently known to students in the first place.

It is important to remember that these experiences were almost invariably in relation to the

very same official channels which students get redirected to as their means of obtaining

support. Many participants recounted how this caused even more distress to survivors, as per

Sara Ahmed’s concept of strategic inefficiency:

A number of people I have spoken to thus far have understood slowness as a

deliberate tactic used to try and stop them from taking a complaint forward. Making it

hard to complain is thus not some separate realm of institutional activity from the rest

of the work being done. Making it hard to complain about what is being done is how

institutions are doing what they do.

– Sara Ahmed, “Strategic Inefficiency” (2018) 31

31 Sara Ahmed, “Strategic Inefficiency,” Feminist Killjoys, December 20, 2018,

https://feministkilljoys.com/2018/12/20/strategic-inefficiency/.

61
Recommendation #2: Taking Students Seriously

Participants also called for the university to change its approach from passive engagement to

active participation, and to prioritize student participation in decision-making. For example,

many participants were visibly frustrated that the university had already appeared to have

made up its mind beforehand, and that engagements with students were solely aimed at

validating the course of action they had already intended to take regardless.

Participants also expressed repeated disappointment that these decisions were often geared

towards addressing the concerns of the general public rather than of the student body. For

example, student requests for changes were repeatedly not attended to until the same request

had gained enough public attention to warrant institutional response. One participant

specifically cited the release of the Staff Code of Conduct as one such instance, in which past

repeated incidences of sexual harm in university laboratories which had been ongoing for

years led to students requesting for the document and being refused.

Only after the Jeremy Fernando case received public attention was the document released to

students, and this itself involved both Students for a Safer NUS and the NUS Students’ Union

having to request for it. Nearly all participants expressed a desire for the university to trust its

own students, to trust student organizations like safeNUS, and to work together with students

to make NUS safer rather than exclude them from the process.

62
Recommendation #3: Addressing Systemic Harm

Finally, nearly participants noted that the institution’s framing of cases as misconduct was

ultimately rooted in a view that they were only responsible for managing each case when they

did arise, and were not responsible for addressing harm done at a broader structural level.

Across the board, participants were overwhelmingly critical of the implementation of

infrastructural security changes. Participants called for the university to acknowledge these

cases as sexual violence rather than sexual misconduct, and to align their responses to address

root causes rather than case-specific symptoms.

63
 Conclusion

In this thesis, I set out to collect first-hand data from participants to construct an original

theory of sexual harm and how communities and institutions respond to it, grounded directly

in the lived experiences of students for a change. This is especially in relation to how they

experience both violence and justice in embodied, material terms – not merely as singular

acts, but as protracted and ongoing processes which are deeply connected. From this data, my

thesis proposes a layered conception of sexual harm that considers not only the original act of

violation committed by the perpetrator against the survivor, but also the harm inherent to the

surrounding context of social relations that enable these acts to be done, as well as the harm

compounded and reproduced by institutions from seemingly mundane practices such as

simply following official administrative procedures.

I present these not to demonize the institution or the perpetrator as irredeemable at all. To the

contrary, my findings demonstrate that the harm caused by both are not inherent to them as

agents, but are products of structures of power that create the social and material conditions

necessary for harm to be systematically produced and reproduced at the societal scale.

Consequently, my thesis problematizes the decontextualized simplifications of justice

frameworks and reveals the underlying nuances within propositions for and against them as

commonly articulated in the public sphere. These propositions must rightly be understood as

situated within the social structures that condition how they are carried out in practice, such

as ideologies and relationships that perpetuate elitism, undermine democracy and civil society

activism, and marginalize already-vulnerable communities.

64
The findings from my research are not intended to serve as a catch-all, uniform explanation

of sexual harm. To the contrary, my participants have overwhelmingly sought to unpack the

diversity of beliefs, wants, and actions taken in each of the loosely-defined coalitions

identified as part of the policy subsystem of the university. What my findings aim to do,

therefore, is to open up the discursive space further rather than to narrowly demarcate i t, and

to uncover alternative political possibilities rather than prescribe a fixed direction.

Future directions for research can hopefully build upon this to engage more students, as well

as other demographics such as staff or the public. This thesis also hopes to open up

possibilities of employing political science towards the uncovering of the workings of power

relationships not only at the State level, but also at the interpersonal level, and to present

interpersonal politics as a new mode of doing political science. These relationships of power

often mirror State-level practices of power, and future research can consider exploring that

across more issues.

Finally, in connecting theories of violence and justice to practical strategies for collective

action to address collective problems, my thesis aims to decouple the artificial barrier

separating political theory and practice in line with the concept of praxis, the process of

embodying theory through action. My findings have shown that participants’ everyday

practices are in themselves forms of praxis rooted in their own grounded theories, and these

merit our attention to, not only in research, but in institutional decision-making too.

65
In the footsteps of Adrienne Maree Brown, my thesis contributes to the wider political project

of interrogating disposability, the notion that we can somehow remove harm simply by

removing agents of harm. My findings have shown, repeatedly, that this has not worked, and

has instead caused more harm to all involved instead. Brown sums up the central question of

my thesis best in asking, “at a certain point we have to ask ourselves, what are we doing?” 32

32Adrienne Maree Brown, We Will Not Cancel Us: And Other Dreams of Transformative Justice (Consortium Book Sales &
Dist, 2020).

66
 Bibliography

Ahmed, Sara. “Strategic Inefficiency.” Feminist Killjoys, December 20, 2018.

https://feministkilljoys.com/2018/12/20/strategic-inefficiency/.

Arendt, Hannah. Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, Civil Disobedience, on Violence, Thoughts on
Politics, and Revolution. San Diego, California: Harvest, 1972.

Brown, Adrienne Maree. We Will Not Cancel Us: And Other Dreams of Transformative Justice. Consortium
Book Sales & Dist, 2020.

Charmaz, Kathy. Constructing Grounded Theory. Los Angeles, California: SAGE, 2014.

Cho, Katherine S. “The Perception of Progress: Conceptualizing Institutional Response to Student Protests and
Activism”. Thought & Action, The NEA Higher Education Journal, 2018.

DeGue, Sarah, Linda Anne Valle, Melissa K. Holt, Greta M. Massetti, Jennifer L. Matjasko, and Andra Teten
Tharp. “A Systematic Review of Primary Prevention Strategies for Sexual Violence Perpetration.”
Aggression and Violent Behavior 19, no. 4 (2014): 346–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004.

Dutta, Mohan J. Communicating Social Change: Structure, Culture, and Agency. New York: Routledge, 2011.

Galtung, Johan. “Violence, Peace, and Peace Research.” Journal of Peace Research 6, no. 3 (1969): 167–91.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002234336900600301.

Ganz, Marshall. Leading Change: Leadership, Organization, and Social Movements. 2008.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm Leonard Strauss. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine, 1968.

Habermas, Jürgen. Legitimation Crisis. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt, 1973.

Jann, Werner, and Kai Wegrich. “Theories of the Policy Cycle.” Handbook of Public Policy Analysis, 2017, 69–
88. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315093192-12.

Lundy, Patricia. “Historical Institutional Abuse: What Survivors Want From Redress.” Ulster University, March
2016. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/what_survivors_want_from_redress.pdf.

McAlevey, Jane. No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age. New York, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2016.

Sabatier, Paul A. "An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning
Therein." Policy Sciences 21, no. 2/3 (1988): 129-68. Accessed March 31, 2021.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4532139.

Shadnam, Masoud, and Thomas B. Lawrence. “Understanding Widespread Misconduct in Organizations: An

Institutional Theory of Moral Collapse.” Business Ethics Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2011): 379–407.
https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201121324.

Spade, Dean. Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press, 2011.

Stone, Deborah A. “Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas.” Political Science Quarterly 104, no.
2 (1989): 281. https://doi.org/10.2307/2151585.

Zehr, Howard. “Restorative or Transformative Justice?” Restorative Justice Blog, March 11, 2011. Retrieved
from https://emu.edu/now/restorative-justice/2011/03/10/restorative-or-transformative-justice/.

Žižek, Slavoj. Violence: six sideways reflections. New York: Picador, 2008.

67
 Appendix: Excerpts from Interviews

Identifying narratives and themes surrounding the two cases

1. Transparency and accountability (N=24)

1.1 Interview 1:

In the Monica Baey case, it was very obviously a lot of people were calling for harsher punishment. In
the Jeremy Fernando case, although it was more like, angry at a sort of cover-up, but it was also like a
lot of questioning on what happened and how come people weren’t aware of the punishment.

1.2 Interview 2:

On greater transparency - so obviously, when these instances of like, sexual violence or sexual
harassment happened, we shouldn't be finding out from like, news outlets, you should tell us first and
the school should be open about it. And the school should be open about who is involved, which means
like saving the names of, for example, professors that are involved, and also should offer greater
support for survivors, instead of viewing like the whole survivor support process is like a very clinical
thing. Okay. I mean, yah, transparency is what you owe us so that shouldn't even be like, a thing that
we had to ask for, honestly.

1.3 Interview 3:

About Jeremy Fernando, I guess it was more of - I mean, the institution was at first completely silent.
And I honestly didn't know anything about it because I just left Tembusu, so it was only really after
people started talking about it more informally, after [an alumni]'s post.

1.4 Interview 5:

I guess like, what kind of shocked me was I guess like, "hey NUS hasn't really changed!" I mean, they
really didn't release any details about it whatsoever. Like, I had to find out everything, like the
students, we got all the details from elsewhere other than NUS, and NUS's statement was also quite a
bit later.

So one thing I think students want is transparency, firstly, from NUS. Because, like I said before, right,
like, the Monica case, like, basically, we found out that NUS was very, was not doing their part to
protect their students. And like, in Jeremy Fernando's case, like, you know, like, they didn't tell anyone
what's happening, we had to find out from other sources. So I think something that students really want
is transparency, and not just like lip service transparency, it's like what is NUS doing, what steps will
NUS take to ensure that, you know, students are protected and like, then like, these things - it's hard to
say they won't happen again, but like, definitely to minimise these incidents and like, when they do
happen, make sure that you know, like NUS has, like the survivors' interest first and foremost. Also,
like accountability, because I think even after the Monica Baey case, right, like NUS said that, you

68
 want to do all these things, right? Like, oh, they want to have a consent module and things but it's like -
they're not well thought out? And also there are all these focus groups, but it's like, then what is the
result of these focus groups, right, like, even like the whole, like, how NUS now publishing like the
report on like sexual misconduct cases, right. It's like, it's a super recent thing. And like Monica Baey's
case, like happened, like, 2021, like three years ago. So it's like, clearly they haven't been accountable,
and they're not doing the best that they can. I mean, I think they're not doing the best th at they can to
like work with students to make NUS safer, like a better place.

1.5 Interview 6:

I think I do remember Jeremy Fernando, it seemed to be more about like, it was less about like, it
seemed to be more about the fact that the institution covered it up. And yah, that was I think, like, to me
that seemed like what was the main issue. I don't know. It was, it was less about like, the degree to
which like, they could punish him or like, whatever.

1.6 Interview 7:

Yah, so I think the other narrative among the students was how NUS and Tembusu inadequately
handled the situation and the survivors/victims themselves felt very disappointed with the lapse in
communication and accountability. So it's, like it's one thing for an assault case to happen, when it's
another thing like how you relay that to the rest of the community with transparency, I think that was
like two big issues. They basically tried to explain like what they did, so they released that like timeline
of events, right in the name of transparency, blah, blah, blah. I feel for both cases, there was this sense
of like, defensiveness to cover its own ass lah, basically.

I guess like another policy would be like NUS's whole schtick about "oh, we want to be more
transparent with you", then we start sending you, like emails now to inform you. I think that is okay.
Like I get the idea. I appreciate the effort, but also I don't know, like the way it, the way like these
emails are phrased are also very - sometimes a bit clinical like they briefly show a timeline of what has
happened. Or like we convened this when, then on this day the lecturer was sacked, blah, blah, blah,
then police report made that kind of thing. As in it's good to have this information, right, for
transparency's sake. But also, I think it was still lacking, like, that sense of care. And acknowledgement
of, like, trauma in like, emails. I don't even think they pull like trigger warnings. Either that or it's a
very, like, bare bones kind of thing. Yah. And it's like, their references to NCU are also quite bare
bones. It's just like, oh, if you are feeling this way or whatever, just go to NCU their number is here .
Yah. And again, like also lack of acknowledging, like responsibility from the institution itself. Like a lot
of times it's, all the responsibility is put on the offender himself or themselves. Like, this is the bad guy
in the situation. And we have sacked him.

1.7 Interview 8:

Procedures wise, I think a lot more transparency is warranted, especially to the victim. The victim
should be, should be informed unless they don't, they feel like they don't want to be? But in this, even if
they don't want to be informed, the institution should at the very least inform them exactly what is
going to happen from the get go before any action is even taken. Because, again, you know, the victim
has already had their trust violated, right? In going, in proceeding with a process without even letting
the victim know what's going to happen, you are again violating their trust.

69
1.8 Interview 9:

The trust issues also came from the fact that the College did not inform students that this was
happening. And most students got to know only because of the news reports or prior to that they knew
because of rumours circulating in the College. So there was that trust that was already, and there was
a communication breakdown on the Master's part, on the College Master's part, the Maste r was not
transparent enough in addressing the rumours and addressing the College response to the case. So that
trust was already eroded before that because of how the College handled the rumours and the eventual
acknowledgement of, hey this is happening, like is a lot of it is a communications issue, which led to a
breakdown of trust. The Master was, the College Master was inadequate in respect to transparency
and communication. And this got a lot of students very angry.

1.9 Interview 10:

The memories I had of the Jeremy Fernando case was honestly the silence. The strange like, because in
Jeremy Fernando's case, like, how, like, the news about it was all during COVID period. So the thing
is, like, unlike the period of time, where we were, you know, unlike the view of time for Monica Baey,
where everyone was just, you know, the whole campus was, like, filled with discussion about this, in -
person discussion about this kind of thing, where, it was happening when everyone was in isolation,
you know, like, we were all like, not on campus, basically. And so the theme of Jeremy Fernando's case
is that we were already, safeNUS had been set up by then, and as a member of safeNUS like, we were
privy to, we were privy to information from the survivors about what had ha ppened. And so we had
some idea of timeline, and some idea of things from the survivors' perspective. And, and the most
striking thing about that case was just how silent NUS was, how we have been waiting, like, teah,
because it's not and before this, I suppose it's not as I guess, it's not often for, like an ordinary, like
common everyday students to be able to be like, to, to be able to be like to see, and to know, like, cases
such as this, before it breaks in mainstream media, before it breaks out in lik e an email or something
like that, before you hear from a friend of a friend of a friend. It's, it's rare for a student to be in. Like,
it's not not everyone has been in a position where they know what's happening when it's happening.
And so, prior to having this kind of experience, I had always thought, oh, you know, like, of course, if
something big like this happens, something that concerns student safety, something of this scale of
violence, then, of course, the school will do something, some anything, anything at all, even if it's like
something that I think is inadequate, even if I think it's inappropriate, I thought there would be enough
importance placed on it, that something will be done as quickly as possible, there will be
communication of some kind. And it was very disappointing to know that I was wrong about that.

It felt like from the institution's perspective, it seemed like NUS was taking it from a, it's like, it was less
focused on "one of our students has experienced something no one should have to experience followed
by more things that no one should have to experience" and more about "our system is under criticism
and scrutiny, how do we fix our system being under criticism and scrutiny?" It seemed like, it seemed
like for the students, they were focused on the system, at least from what I heard from Town Hall, it
seemed like the students there were focused on the system. The public, to some extent were focused on
scandal. Because that was, because they heard from the media, and they're, oh my gosh, something,
something tabloid-y has happened. And for the institution, they were focused on the scrutiny. So it's
less of "we need to fix the system" and more like "we need to fix the scrutiny". And for the institution, it
was again, why are we under scrutiny? Why are they, you know, like, why are we under fire for this
occurrence? Or, I will say this, I don't think that the, I don't think the institution doesn't care about
student safety. I think it's less of that and more of the institution has we ighed student safety. Or like,
you know, like, yah, it has weighed the idea that we must fix this system for student safety in one hand
and they weighed we must fix this, like we're being like, completely like, you know, we're being, we're
having like so much, we're under so much scrutiny and criticism right now in the other hand, and have
decided that the criticism they face is much more of a danger, than the danger that students are facing
from this violence. So it's less that they don't care about - it's not that they don't care about us is that
they don't care about us as much as they care about-

70
1.10 Interview 13:

And the way that the way that they went about it, their delay in their transparency and actually giving
up the Staff Code of Conduct and then just not not responding to us directly at all. I think both of those
right, were huge contraventions in our, in the students trust in the institutions? They, yah, they were
just like, oh, we will just do what we got to do. And y'all can grovel at our feet. But anyway, yah, the
second case, it's so contentious, because we know that they have more to lose from a member of, right,
the faculty being the aggressor, rather than a student. They have other factors at play. I mean,
obviously, they did the, the things like dismissing him from his job and, and whatever, but, but they
were so silent about it, they were like, we're not gonna let anyone know. And then obviously, the way
they approached it, calling the police before actually informing survivors, again, sh owed us that they
didn't really put survivors first, they, they found it extremely important to make sure that they couldn't
be called out or disparaged for their lapses. But of course, in doing so they made even more mistakes.
And they just showed us that they were only interested in protecting their reputation. And they weren't
interested in, in actually making sure it doesn't happen again, they just wanted to make sure that it
didn't happen again, and then people wouldn't find out about it, they wouldn't get investigated, etc. It's
kind of feels more like that as long as no one finds about it, it doesn't get out into the open, it's alright,
you know, like all those cases that happened and didn't go out into can just stay under wraps. That's
been the impression that I've been getting so far.

1.11 Interview 15:

I feel like as these cases emerge, they just find, it's just become like a, like a PR crisis, right? They just
have to answer questions and explain their way out of it almost. So as in that was very frustrating to
see that, I guess, the institution has just, yah, publicly maybe responding to this crisis, but like
internally, like even our experiences, just like radio silence.

1.12 Interview 17:

For the Monica Baey case, I'd say the school wasn't very supportive at all. The institution was not
supportive. The institution was kind of gaslighting her. From what I remember, gaslighting? Like they
kept trying to make things hush hush. It's so irritating, like that's the worst leh, like just admit it, just
admit it and go, you know, the more you tried to keep it hush, the more people will hate you. The more
you keep it hush hush, the more it will blow up. Just admit it and go. You admit it people also won't
really talk leh, but you keep it hush hush - would you rather have the reputation of punishing somebody
with assault, or have the reputation of trying to keep it hush hush? Very dumb, very, very dumb.

1.13 Interview 18:

For Jeremy Fernando, I think the student population was upset over the fact that there was a huge lag
in terms of transparency, or in terms of not informing students about what has transpired in the case.
And that was when people were pushing for more transparency in terms of all these sexual assault that
happens in school, and what they've been doing about it. And I think after students asked for more
transparency, that's when they started being more open, especially with the case on Professor Ted
Hopf after that. Yah, so you can see that they are kind of listening to students.

Oh, I remember that the reason why this whole thing blew up was because someone posted it on social
media as well, to talk about how the school hasn't released any information about what is going on.
Why is he like, not teaching and stuff like that? And they demanded, I think it was Tembusu College,
demanded for more transparency, and that's when the whole thing blew up again. So you can see the

71
 similarities that both use social media except I think the Jeremy Fernando case was on Facebook and
then Monica Baey's one was on Instagram.

1.14 Interview 19:

Accountability and transparency - they do go hand in hand, because they both involve the idea of you
need to communicate. You know, and I feel like for Monica Baey's case it is more of they fucked up.
They didn't, they could have, they didn't help the survivor as much as they could have. And so they, they
could have communicated that and say, hey, look, I'm sorry, I made a mistake. And I feel like they
didn't do that for both situations. Because they were busy trying to cover themselves. They're trying to,
they are not trying, they're making sure that they don't say sorry because they are afraid that if they say
sorry, they are admitting to their mistakes. So there is that lack of accountability? I feel like the
institution wise, Monica Baey's case was very jargony just PR, solving like, like a, immediate response
kind of thing. They weren't really trying to - I don't know. I feel like it was. Was it? I don't know. How
do I say this? Yah, it's like they were trying to explain why they didn't, they weren't very, what's the
thing called - they weren't as, as like responsive as they could have been. Or like they weren't as strict
as they could have been, or they weren't as, like, I guess, handle the case as properly as they could
have been, they were too busy trying to, like answer that instead of trying to going forward, what can
we fix, kind of thing? You know? So it seems more like they were on a, they were more on like a, you
know, if you blame a child, then the child's first reaction is, I didn't do this, I'm not, I actually didn't do
this. So instead of trying to understand what, where they went wrong, they're trying to hide, they're
trying to put up a shield and say, hey hey hey, I'm actually not as wrong as I, as you all say I am, or
something like that. That was the general feeling that I got of NUS. I'm not really sure how to phrase
that, but.

Jeremy Fernando's one? It's interesting, because, like, I feel like they did try. You know, initially, it felt
like, okay, I'm gonna make a very, like it was an immediate response kind of thing. But I feel like they
could have been a bit more, a lot more transparent about it. Like, they could have definitely explained
where they were coming from. If they were like, okay, in a sense that okay, yes, they did explain
themselves, but they only explain themselves after doing it. And after the backlash occurred, then they
are like, eh actually I did this because ABC. It's like, so are you? Did you do it? Did you not do it? And
like, when did you do it? Because the timeline became very fuzzy to everyone. And then it just seemed
like, so if you've already done the right thing, then why are you hiding it from people? It's like, did you
do something wrong, you know, it's like then then the next question that comes up to you is li ke, so did
you do something wrong? What? Then why didn't you tell me about this? You know, if it's like, you
suddenly, like hide something or something from someone, like, oh, don't, don't look in this, this room,
I'm not hiding anything. You're just gonna prompt everybody, and like, then the person you're talking
to, to want to go and look into that room. You're like playing mind games leh, you're like, do I? Do I
trust you? Do I not trust you? Do I? I'm just like, what's happening? You know, because I can see that
they tried. But I still feel like, I cannot trust the institution any more than I did the previous round. So
it's just like, what are you doing? Why are you doing this, and I still don't understand why they did, do
that. They keep saying that it's for the privacy of the survivors, but they could have left the survivors
anonymous. And the thing is, I'm, like, you know, as a, as an ex-Tembu student. I didn't know about
this. And the thing is, everybody in Tembusu knew Jeremy Fernando. You know, he's , you know, he's
one of the more popular, everybody knew him in some form of another.

I feel like most important thing is communication with survivors. Yah. Especially especially with the
survivors, you know, instead of pushing them to the next administrative staff or administrative
department or something, listen to them. And like, make sure you give them the proper support, like
counselling wise, or whatever they require. Don't assume. Don't assume this is what they need. But, but
make sure that you, you allow for the survivors to be able to think and and help them I guess, come to
terms with what happened and also help them decide what they need instead of making the decisions
for them. And, and what else? And communicate with them lah, if you are doing s omething, The main
thing that frustrated us so much was the fact that they never taught us what they're doing. And I'm not
saying that NUS is this institution that is a corporate institution that doesn't care about anything but

72
 their own greed and stuff like that. No, but the thing is, if you're not going to communicate what you do
to the survivor, then the survivor is just left in like this black box where the only thing that they can
assume is that nothing's being done. And I think that's what happened with the Jeremy Fernando case
as well because they didn't inform the survivors that Jeremy was fired under what, what reasoning,
why they fired him under such reasoning, because I think there was a difference in the way they fired
him - it was, it was not because he's the phrasing was not because he's sexually assaulted the students,
was because he had a sexual - I can't remember the exact terms lah. But the idea was that it seemed to
be less of a sentence than what he actually did. On both accounts, the maximum penalty that NUS can
give this dismissal. Exactly. But then they didn't communicate this with the students. They didn't
communicate this with the survivors. They don't say anything until we prompt them. And we, we lose
our trust. And we ask them in anger, and then they respond. And then they're like, yah, that makes
sense. But why didn't you tell me and I feel like NUS really, really, really at the bare minimum, right?
You don't want to tell the public, you don't want to tell the student body, at least communicate with the
direct survivor. Ask them what they need. You do whatever actions you need to do, and get back to
them, at least weekly report our bi weekly report, or once every two weeks, once a month or something,
just get back to them. Even if you are not doing anything, or even if you're in the mid st of getting some,
some administrative thing done, you haven't actually finished it, just let the student know that there's
something being done, it just hasn't been completed or successful yet. So that the student knows that
their situation isn't just being thrown away. Something's being done. They know that they are hurt. and
yah lah, so I feel like there needs to be - I don't know. I don't know.

1.15 Interview 20:

Many of the themes are again, I'd like, I think I will say that these are the similar reactions that came
up again when Jeremy Fernando was released. I mean, rather, the news of Jeremy Fernando was
released to the public. Right, not just within NUS but to the public. But generally, because I come from
an institution in which we have one, we have a case, we had a case. So the discourses, the shape of the
discourse within my College was a little different considering the fact that we do have victims in our
College. So after the Monica Baey case, we had a case of another person. This was a very el aborate
plan of a spycam being disguised as a fire, a smoke detector, and was caught with, by the police,
rather, caught by my very own House Head lah actually. Yah, I think you know, the story, yah. But you
know, the whole story right? That one was, so the perspective is that, I come, I'm coming from a
perspective of being friends with direct victims. And the conversations are basically, and the students'
conversation generally revolved around why isn't the institution doing enough? Why are the responses
by the institution very muted, and also non-transparent? So, fast forward again, again, fast forward to
Dr Jeremy Fernando's case, that's where the, the Provost's Office took a clear and serious stance this
time to actually be more open and transparent with the news, with any form of news that revolves
around sexual misconduct, in their words, or rather and also the usage of the term sexual harassment,
sexual violence?

1.16 Interview 21:

Some students, I think, feel that, I think, the school was losing sight of what is really the issues here lah,
I mean, like, there was this idea where I think students are getting away with, with you, like, be able to
do these kind of things, on other students in the school. And there is no adequate response or care from
the school point of view to the students in terms of accountability, in terms of, you know, like care and
things like that. So I think that was being left off. I think that was also I think it was semester two, and
then I think it kind of like lengthened into the end of the sem and then, you know like, when students
have exams and things like that. So the thing is kind of like, not active anymore in a sense. But I think it
was, I remember, I mean, around that time, then there was I mean, safeNUS was greenlit. And I think
that was my impression. I mean, safeNUS was created as a response to that. And, some, sometimes in
some way, an independent student body to, in a way, to check, to review, I mean, like the whole
accountability issues of NUS regarding sexual harassment, sexual violence. Yah, I think there was

73
 there was that, I think it was there was other cases as well as that were not as high-profile as Monica
Baey. And then it comes to Jeremy Fernando, which is just last year, it was around August, late August,
early September, when the issues was raised up in social media. So yah, what happened was more of, I
think there was the claim that Jeremy Fernando, a fellow at Tembusu College was, has, had, you know
like, there was allegations that he has engaged in sexual harassment against two students, I think? I
think that was the case. And I think the main issues then was that I think the College has some
disciplinary committee being, being set up to investigate and things like that. But this information is not
being communicated directly to the students, especially to the wider student populations. And in a way,
I think there was an issue of accountability here in questions where the College did not feel that, and
maybe at NUS as well, that it was accountable to the student body. In terms of, you know, things like
what happened? How have we gone and deal with it? What kind of care that we can provide to the
student, in a sense?

1.17 Interview 22:

But I think generally, like, very much like calling for transparency, and better communication. Getting
a more like, preventative approach, and not just like, how do we deal with cases? Right, it's more of
like, how do we build a stronger? Or like safer culture on like, sex on campus, and like consent? Um,
yah, I think. Yah, also like writing or working on like policy consultation, or like policy memos for this
institution? Which, yah, I sense that they don't particularly respond very well to.

1.18 Interview 23:

I do think that there was an improvement in terms of transparency. That very, very belatedly, they did
actually give us step-by-step like, account of all events that have been, that have transpired, I would
have appreciated live updates. But I do think it is an improvement at least afterwards, they did give an
account of what had happened, I think that was useful. But I'm also very conscious that that was not
voluntary on their part. It was after very many demands that were made. And so I hesitate to attribute
that as an improvement that occurred after the Monica Baey incident, because that was, again,
something that had to be like, squeezing blood from a rock that they had to like go and demand, blow
by blow. And as much as Singapore in general tries very hard to like, strive for improvement and
innovation, then I think this is one of the one of those areas where, like, they actually have a lot to
learn. And if they were proactive enough, I think like now right, they're trying to deal with problems as
they come, so like students will call for something and then they'll do it. So like they'll ask for
transparent- ask for transparency and ask for report, then they give, someone asked for our Staff Code
of Conduct, then they give, someone asked for like, VCU, then they give - it's very reactive.

1.19 Interview 24:

For the Monica Baey case quite many criticised the slow and half-hearted response of the relevant
authorities. Similarly, many NUS students were not happy how the school tried to downplay the Jeremy
Fernando case, and that they were not well informed until weeks after the prof was dismissed.

1.20 Interview 25:

For the JF case it was more about asking NUS to be more transparent as to their decision to dismiss
the offender? But that is as much as I remembered from JF.

74
1.21 Interview 26:

The student community demanded NUS to be transparent with their approach with regards to such
cases. For the institution, initially, it tends to give off the vibe of if the matter can be settled privately
and without known to public as well as preserved its reputation, the institution would tend to favour
that scenario. However, as students tend to be more aware and vocal about such cases, the institution
took the stance of not condoning such acts that disrespect others and outrage of others’ modesty. I
think that due to the increase in the number of such cases being reported and the student population
has become more vocal about these cases, NUS has come to realise that their previous approach of
trying to settle these matters privately and away from public’s sight is not working. In fact, the old
approach seem to favour the accused instead as they will be spared from the shame and criticism from
the public. I feel that being open and transparent to the students about what happened is better as it
informs students about what is going on.

1.22 Interview 27:

For the student community, sexual assault/misconduct and the lack of transparency on such issues from
the institution is unacceptable.

1.23 Interview 28:

I don’t remember much of NUS response but I think it felt like a lot of the policy felt individualising
and not very transparent.

1.24 Interview 30:

For the student community, there was a lot of horror, a lot of outrage, demanding more action from
NUS, more transparency in the sexual misconduct policy and survivor support. For NUS, a lot of
damage control. Usually the knee-jerk reaction is to immediately brandish the systems that are
currently in place, and then outsource policy recommendations to third-party consultancies that can
give “objective” solutions to sexual misconduct issues.

2. Protection and support (N=24)

2.1 Interview 1:

So in Jeremy Fernando's case, I think, okay first of all, to start with, like he was the person, you were
supposed to report sexual assaults to, or like any cases of harassment. And there wasn't anyone else.
So there was this kind of like, idea of like, just having one responsible person? So no one really knew
what to do when it was the person you're supposed to talk to, that did the thing. So a lot of the, the
Tembusu responses have been just on like, making sure that there's someone, there's like more than one
person accountable. Yah. That being said, a lot of Tembusu students, like, had to point out that like, no
one else was really trained for this sort of thing. Yah. Like counselling students, responding to,
responding to like, giving advice on what to do after any, like, anything happened? Between the time

75
 where he just sort of disappeared, and like, I'm not sure, actually, I'm not sure if it's been settled yet.
But like, there was no one else you can talk to. And so there's literally no one you can talk to if you
have been assaulted on campus or anything? I think part of it is 'cause like Tembu can be kind of
insular? Like, it's its own little bubble. Also, at the same time this what's happening was the tFreedom
incident. So your other alternative was supposed to be tFreedom, 'cause like they have the Let's Talk
About Sex people, and they have the Femme people to like, deal with, like, maybe if you want to keep it
between students or something. In the Jeremy Fernando case, it was really kind of an unveiling of like,
how much rested on one person, and how easily that could be pulled away?

Yah. It's like every school is like, any issue of misconduct is usually about how they look like to th e
public. So maybe it's just me being like, very, very cynical.

But like, there had, there was like some point where I just stopped believing that like, any, like, anyone
in education cares that much about students, especially- caring teachers seem to be the exception and
not the norm. It's exactly what you expect out of a corporate PR and not like a school?

2.2 Interview 2:

Wow. I would just say it's NUS not - I think it's really just them trying to cover their asses, like I don't
know how to say it. It's just a very self-serving, self as in the institution. Yah, I think the objective here
is just trying, it's, how do I say - self-interest lor, in protecting your name and protecting your
reputation, if there's one thing that motivates all of their decisions so far - I don't know who is who is
passing these things. But it's nonsense. Because if anything, people don't even want to come here
anymore, because they're afraid that their daughters and sons are going to get harassed. Or their
children. Yah, nonsense lah. So I really think it's just poor, poor handling altogether.

Instead of just being like, okay you can go and seek help here, blah blah blah. So instead of just like,
referring individuals to like, the appropriate channels, I think there should be just a more cushioned
process because these people need - yah, it shouldn't just be like a very - yah, so like, really more
genuine support for, for students lah. Yah. In terms of like therapy or counselling or seeking recourse.

They didn't even provide her with any, like proper support, apparently they didn't even give her, like,
any proper, proper support channels. So, yes, I think it was horribly handled in terms of how they went
about punishing the perpetrator and how they ended up supporting or rather not supporting Monica,
as she navigated this, like, very traumatic incident.

2.3 Interview 4:

The fact that we give so much rigidity to structures, you know, it doesn't allow for any conversation. It
doesn't allow for any discourse. It allows for defence, it allows for protection of one's, you know, like,
for the, for the institution, it's just a protection of, you know, what they believe is right, instead of what,
instead of protecting what survivors believe is right.

2.4 Interview 5:

When the Monica Baey case came out, I found out about it through Instagram, I think. I don't know, I
was quite, mad, angry? Because like, when you read, when I read through her statement, and you
would think that NUS as an institution, right, you would think first and foremost they should protect
their student when, like, when harm has been done to her. But like clearly from what she went through,
the process of reporting her case like that, that wasn't the situation lah, like, I'm sure she got even more

76
 hurt by NUS. It's like, what was going on? Like, you know, this shouldn't be the case! So that was like
the main impression I get.

2.5 Interview 6:

There was another, another narrative. I don't know where this is from, like, NUS like, of your whole
idea of NUS seeming to want to protect the perpetrator more than, more than Monica Baey herself. For
the students, it was more like, they felt that the, they felt that the guy wasn't, didn't get as much justice
as was deserved, I think, and that Monica Baey herself was not being sufficiently protected.

There were a lot of different conceptions, like conflicting conceptions at war of what justice meant. I
feel like there was a large consensus that involved protecting the, protecting the survivor. And
protecting the survivor first. And I don't even know if yah, it was definitely not about compensation and
more about her safety. And at the institutional level, I think what they thought was justice was that they
also had to protect the perpetrator because he is also one of the students. But in the eyes of the
students, like the perpetrator doesn't matter. And he's like, not, okay to, I think to, definitely to some,
like the perpetrator didn't matter at all, like once he crossed that line, like he has sort of given up the
right to be worried about these kind of things. Whether one disagrees with that is up to them. But
definitely, like, it's, but definitely the survivors should come first. I think there's consensus on that.

And the school's version of justice is like, need to protect, whoever is a student must protect, but it, but
it seemed like they were not prioritising the survivor in ways that, in ways that the students felt should
be done lah. Yah.

2.6 Interview 7:

For the Jeremy Fernando case. I think the narrative among students was a lot of disappointment that
teachers who are meant to protect us who are powerful people in the community have led us down in
such an egregious way. And I think Jeremy Fernando, he wasn't just some lecturer in Tembu. Like he
was an influential figure from what I know, like from my friends who stayed in Tembu, he was quite a
prominent face, he was very popular among students. So for him to be exposed as an abuser, like
personally, it wasn't surprising to me, but I guess yah, I think the student community there felt very
angry and let down.

Personally, like, my belief is that I want to feel protected and cared for by the institutions I'm in. Yah.
So in, in that so-called pursuit of justice as a student community, like, I want to further thos e beliefs
lor, of like, trust and care. Because like, this is a student community that I love mah.

But I think another very big thing for the institution is this idea of reputation. So a lot of its responses
and actions are driven by this desire to protect reputation. So like, NUS's their own reputation. Yah.
Because I think for us, and a lot of institutions, it's reputation that ensures your legitimacy mah, like
what, rankings, you know, all these. And I think, in a way, like the public feels that also that because
NUS is a reputable National University. Like all these deviants need to be get rid of so that they don't
ruin, like, the reputation of our universities. Right. So I think there's a lot of overlap between the public
and the institution itself.

2.7 Interview 8:

A lot of people felt that the way that the school handled the case was protecting the perpetrator more
than it was protecting Monica Baey. People were saying that the, that Monica Baey was ruining the
perpetrator's life when, you know - it was quite ironic that people that they weren't considering that the

77
 perpetrator had ruined her life, you know, you know what kind of trauma that kind of experience can
leave on somebody? And I guess it's also about how inadequate the school authorities were . Like what,
the processes and policies that they had in place, were in the interest of, were in the best interests of
the perpetrator and not the victim, which was quite backwards. People were, I think a lot of us were
very confused as to why, you know, why they were putting so much effort to protect the perpetrator. But
I guess, you know, most of us assumed that it was because NUS was trying to protect their reputation,
which is understandable. Nobody wants to say that, oh, we have sexual predators in our school. But at
the same time, it was, it was kind of counterproductive, it kind of had the opposite effect, it kind of
exposed the, yah, the inadequate procedures put in place regarding these kinds of situations happening
within the school community. And then, of course, you know, what sparked up from there is that
everybody thinks that NUS is full of sexual predators, people aren't safe. And I think within my own
community, like after that incident happened, a lot of my peers, like my female and femme -presenting
friends were quite scared to go to school? Because like, you know, we felt that you know, if something
like that happened to us, we wouldn't be protected.

The whole unfair treatment, I guess, like the fact that they put the interests of, they seem to put the
interests of the perpetrator above that of the victim? And then - but the public kind of viewed it as you
know, the, the school, the school will protect you, I mean like, there's a whole, like, culture of, meme
culture now, surrounding NUS, and how, like, you know, you can, as long as you do well, in school, as
long as you go to NUS, the school will protect you even if you're a sexual predator. That whole idea of
like immunity?

Isn't it like quite, quite surprising, that they're even willing to like ignore what the court says to be just,
like, the government is telling you that this is how you're supposed to, like justly proceed with these
kinds of cases. And NUS is saying that no, we can set our own rules. So again, it's just like, it gives this
impression that they're just trying to do the bare minimum and just protect themselves above anything
else.

Obviously, it seems like you know, they want to handle it in a way that, is being just by themselves. But
like the under- it seems that their subconscious beliefs, their subconscious want is to, to protect
themselves, to protect their image, which is why they, you know, decided to handle it in a way that
pandered to the public instead of that of the, that of the students themselves. So I'm pretty sure they're
aware of it themselves, they just don't want to talk about it. Again, like I said, you know, they're
behaving very much like a corporate business. So their belief that, you know, that the image and the
reputation of the school should be protected at all costs.

2.8 Interview 9:

It at least kickstarted the national discourse on sexual violence, if any, and in a sense, after Monica
Baey, nothing could slide. Nothing, nothing, nothing went out. Nothing regarding public violence, went
out of the public eye, like, in the sense that it was ignored like, people could not ignore it. And that was
also the start of the news cycles of NUS like sexual violence, like cases that they were reporting. So it's
also the start of what would become pretty bad public discourse, on like, at least public online
discourse on, on like sexual violence, like the Monica Baey really showed people how, NUS as an
institution was, at that time was, was completely unable to, to be safe. Like, they didn't know how to
deal with students who were going through such violence. They didn't know how to give them support.
And the subsequent responses also kind of showed how they were quite inadequate in their response.

2.9 Interview 10:

But for students, you know, students at least, like, all the students who I know who have been, like,
involved in trying to combat these problems, or like, are passionate about like, having a safer sexual
climate, whether in safeNUS or not, have always been like, oh, you know, like, how can we reform the
system? How can we raise more awareness about it? How can we educate more people? Yah, just, just

78
 things like, how do we make sure that if such cases happen, how do we make sure that survivors have
enough support? How do we make sure that people listen to survivors? Always, it's always along those
lines.

2.10 Interview 11:

They framed it as a peeping tom incident and I think she caught the other - she caught the student who
was showering her I believe? Or did she? Or did she come to discover the video? I can't really
remember. But I do know that it, it kind of catapulted into like a big case because of the student
community's outcry against what had happened plus her own, her own pursuing of what could like, of
compensation, of adequate compensation to the suffering that she had, you know, experienced, which
came very slowly. I think, from NUS I guess, they didn't explicitly support her case, nor did they
provide any immediate support to her. So I suppose that was very difficult for her to navigate. And I
think that's probably why the case dragged out as long as it did.

The students would be more - how to say - more interested in framing it from a survivor point of view.
So they would frame it more like, what did Monica Baey do? What did she go through? You know, how
in the journey of advocating for herself, during that entire process of trying to get sufficient support
from NUS, and also to get the perpetrator punished? What struggles did she have to face? And what
barriers did she have to overcome? You know, so I think that would be something that students tend to
focus more on, right? And then also, how can we prevent similar situations from happening in the
future, because all the students are going to be involved in that just because of, by nature of livi ng on
campus, this is going to be a recurring risk or something that they need to look out for, you know? So
that's one. That's the students' perspective, of course, there will be differences, by and large.

2.11 Interview 12:

Then NUS, I assume, they want to protect their image as much as possible? Ego-driven, I don't know
what's the right term to use.

2.12 Interview 13:

And they just showed us that they were only interested in protecting their reputation. And they weren't
interested in, in actually making sure it doesn't happen again, they just wanted to make sure that it
didn't happen again, and then people wouldn't find out about it, they wouldn't get investigated, etc.

2.13 Interview 14:

Actually, I, if it's okay, I would like to like phrase this in terms of like, parents and children, although
it's kind of a very sad like, analogy.

Yah. Like, it's like when something happens at school. And the child is like, you know, like, here's a
problem, like, you have to help me, you have to help me deal with it. And then the parents are like,
okay, but this is the school's problem what? Like, what can I do? I just go and give you a, just give you
a curfew. You don't go and play with your friends, then nothing will happen. Yah, so that's what a lot of
parents would do lah, but like, what, the child - and then the parents are like, okay, then what do you
want us to do? If you don't want us to give you a curfew if you don't want us to like, cut off all your
playtime and like stop you from interacting with people and stop you from ever like coming into harm's
way? What do you want us to do?

79
 And then the child is expected to know everything and expected to like, to demand the perfect thing and
to articulate that properly. But the child is a child, how is the child supposed to know how to articulate
what they want, when they have never been shown true alternatives and like, real, good alternatives, of
like how this problem can be dealt with. And also they are a child like, they are meant to be protected,
and to be taken care of by the parents and by the school. But the school and the parents are not like,
have not been fulfilling their duty of care to the child.

And instead, to some extent, like there is a lot of subconscious displacement of responsibility on to the
child to articulate their needs, to articulate their desires, and to articulate what, like, concrete action
should be taken when no child should have to freaking like, expect, no child should be held responsible
or like be blamed for the fact that they're not articulating things perfectly. And no child should be
blamed for the fact that like, they don't have concrete solutions to demand like, they're a fucking child.
And also the child is not going to know what the implications of concrete, like solu tions are, even if
they try their best to come up with them. So like, how can you blame it on the child when something like
that doesn't go well, like? It's, it's not something to blame on anybody. It's just something that
everybody has to work together with and like, try to see if whether the child's needs are fulfilled.

2.14 Interview 15:

And I think, for a lot of other students, for a lot of - and for students, yah, I think like, there were parts
of them that similar to the public just wanted, like, harsher punishments, more like I guess - it's like a
child, right? It's like, oh, I want to see myself being protected. I want you to, I want, I want to see like
the actual, you know, barrier so that the bad people can't get me.

But ultimately, we're all just motivated by a desire to be, to want to feel safe, and protected? All of
which are very human things to want, I think. And I wonder why they don't see it that way?

2.15 Interview 16:

Honestly, I don't know. Like, to me, it really was just about publicity. The only reason why the Jeremy
Fernando case probably didn't seem to blow up that much is maybe, I don't know, because they have
protocol in place now? Um, but like, I don't know anything about how they're helping the victims, I
know how they're saving their own reputation in that, like for Monica Baey, they released a public
statement, they do all these like, gestures, you know. I don't remember much about the Town Hall. But
if I recall correctly, someone like on the panel, or like on a stage, like some staff or something said
something ridiculous that I remember, like, someone had to shout at them for something. I don't
remember the details.

But um, yah, like so on the institutional level it just becomes like a panic over, how do we quickly, like,
keep this contained? And like the way that they handle the Jeremy Fernando case is that they dismissed
the person, right? Which is like necessary, because you want to keep that person out of like, the space.
But at the same time, I'm just like, that's such a convenient way to like, like that doesn't, that doesn't go
hand in hand with like, making sure your victim is being supported, is being supported. Then, isn't that
just a very convenient way to like, expel something that's hurting your, like institutional, no t just safety,
but like brand? And then like, you don't have to deal with it anymore? Like, it's just convenient. Yah.
It's quick and efficient, that's the word, efficient.

2.16 Interview 18:

I think for the Monica Baey case, clearly because it was the first I think, instance of sexual assault that
kind of blew up and gained traction on social media, that the issue was really the fact that there was no

80
 redress for sexual assault victims and survivors. That society as a whole kind of puts more, kind of
backs the perpetrator a lot more than they help the victims of sexual assault. And obviously, that's not
justified. That's not the kind of society that people wanted to live in where you, you expect survivors of
sexual assault to kind of be okay with everything. And, yah, so I think and also the fact that there's a
lack of support for sexual assault victims and survivors in a school setting. You know, during the, when
the Monica Baey case happened, there was no Victim Care Unit. I think the consent and respect
module was also a new thing, which kind of shows that there's a lot of gaps between, there's a lot of
gaps in terms of the school providing a safe space for people, not just women and girls, but like people
against instances of sexual assault.

2.17 Interview 19:

When you're so busy just throwing the students back and forth between one admin to the other, the next
admin, like oh not VCU, oh sorry, is OCS, eh sorry, sorry, it's actually, don't know what, this person or
that person, and you're just throwing the student - honestly, if you're a survivor, I don't, I wouldn't care
who the person in charge is. I just, the person just needs help, you know, the survivor just needs help,
the survivor just needs someone to provide some guidance to the student. In stead of saying, sorry,
sorry, this particular thing is not my jurisdiction. So you're gonna have to go and figure out who the
next person is. And then like, just push them aside to the next person. And then that person like, pushes
them to the next person. It's like, hello, are you playing, like, pinball or something?

And that's the thing, and the problem never gets solved, because half the time I feel like they're just too
busy trying to make sure that they don't have to handle the cases, it's the next pe rson that has to handle
the another case. And I feel like that's, and then, obviously, if you're the student, and you've had, you
deal with this, like, for an entire year, what you're gonna do, you're gonna be fed up, you're gonna feel
like, no one's listening to me. I need to go to the media. They go to the media, and of course, it's gonna
blow up lah.

2.18 Interview 20:

It's not contractual, neither it is like written explicitly but rather it is like organisational trust, like the
trust that the people have towards the organisation. Because they know that if I stay, I will be
entrusting myself to the organisation. But I also don't know whether I can trust organisation to protect
me because of whatever the hell has happened.

2.19 Interview 21:

Students are generally quite negative, either ambivalent or negative about the whole cubicle things like
that, just in general, it doesn't make sense lah, I mean. Because it's like, how much it can protect them?
I mean, and then there's other things also, I mean, just from a security point of view it's never foolproof
because I think there was the whole case, I guess, in CAPT, there was a case of where this guy was
going to the female, the spycam case. I mean, how do you protect from that? Like from, from the point
of view of a, you know, like, you can, you must have the card to tap into access, if there are people who
will willingly letting their friends in, because of that, then it can be an issue. So, I would say that the,
the, those changes doesn't make sense, from the outset.

81
2.20 Interview 22:

Okay, institution as in like NUS but also as in like police, were not doing enough. And I guess, doing
enough in terms of like, justice, I think. Towards NUS especially, there was the belief that like, NUS is
not doing enough to like, protect students? Um, yah. And I think they didn't really believe that, like,
NUS could do it. Yah, there was a lack of faith.

2.21 Interview 23:

Like, I think as well, a lot of times NUS, people aren't aware of, like, what are the options t hat were
available to her at the time? Like, I don't know about the police lah, but at least like, what were the
protections available to her in NUS, and I actually did know this, because when I had my own case, I
actually went deep into like, the NUS code of conduct and their disciplinary, like, guidelines, because I
was trying to find out exactly like, what protections did I have, and what punishment could I have
possibly sought for my own case? And so like, I mean, these are outdated now because they've updated
it since the Monica Baey case but I had like a list and like, exact, like this is like, this statute, this code,
etc, etc, that detailed exactly what kind of response could have come out from it. And I think it would
have been more severe for Monica's case than for mine. But I remember that, for my case, the max that
they could have done is that they could have suspended him from CAPT for six months maximum. So he
could still come back after that, it wouldn't count towards his residency, like CAPT, you know, they
give you two years free and then any more than that you've got to apply, you know. He could still come
back and done his six, another six months subsequently, they will not have suspended him from
academics, but they would have only suspended him from extracurricular activities. So like, so like, oh,
so you, you, it's like you commit this, like sexual misconduct, right. And all we're going to do is ban you
from CCA and ban you from staying on campus for a while, but you can come back later, n o problem.
And nothing would have gone on his disciplinary record. Nothing would have affected his academics,
there would have been no like, no contact order, or any of those kinds of things, nothing, absolutely
nothing. And that was the maximum harshest punishment I could have gotten: no CCA, which is
absolutely ridiculous. And then just to have, just to have gotten that measly punishment, right? They
would have sat me through like weeks of, of like, interviews or, not even interviews lah, but they would
have forced me to like testify and plead my case and prove that all this had happened. And I face my
abuser and recount my story, right, just to get him banned from CCA.

And I think people don't realise this because especially part of the, like, the student community that
hasn't had to face this themselves doesn't realise, at least at the point in time, how few protections
students had, I don't just mean girls, because this cuts both ways. Like, the productions that they
realistically had were very little. And so for all those people who were saying that Monica like, had a
nuclear response to something that could have been dealt with, like more quietly, don't realise that
truthfully she had no option, and the ones that were really available to her were, not i n any way, like,
commensurate to the level of crime that have been committed lah. And I think it was only like, at least
within my own circle of friends, it was only after I had spelled, and I posted this on my Instagram, like
all the like, the protections that were available. Not because I was trying to like, prove that there were
no protections, but just so that people knew what was available to them if they ever wanted to report.
Yah. And I think it's only after like I show people exactly how bad it was, that at least the people
around me were starting to see like, oh, man, okay. And I can see why she had to do the things that she
did.

I had this conversation with, with Master Seow and Soon Fen because I hadn't reported my case with
them. I reported it to Angie. Angie knew. But for whatever reason she didn't take it higher up. And the
only reason that it actually came to Master Seow's attention was because [the College Students’
Committee President], told her without my permission. After I had mentioned it to him in private, he
brought it up to her attention without my, without my permission. And I got hauled in for questioning,
pretty much because of that, yah, so like student council member who I would argue had a duty to
protect me, without my consent, brought this up to the professors. And by then it had been months
already. This was like six months after the fact. So it was not like a pressing, like, need to report, it was

82
like freaking six months after the fact. And they dragged me in and Master Seow tried to, essentially
strong-arm me into naming the person who had done this, because at that point in time, the person was
also staying on campus. And so she tried making the argument that like, oh, I have a duty to protect the
other students. And if someone is going around doing this kind of thing under this roof, then like, it's
still a danger to others. And I can understand that, her perspective. Absolutely. Like, she's not wrong in
that point. But she essentially tried, like, she tried lah, to tell me that I had no choice but to formally
report and to name the person who had done this. And then when that failed, she tried the whole lik e,
like, emotional blackmail thing, where she had to tell me like, what if he does it to other people? You
know, you have to step out, you have to say something, because if he - she implied it lah, pretty much,
that if, if this happened to someone else, then that's your fault, because you didn't name names. And I
was like, what the f-? I was so upset honestly, and Soon Fen just did nothing. She just stared and did
nothing. And at least I was lucky, because by then I had done my research. And so I knew, like , at least
I knew at that point in time that like in the Code of Conduct, code of- whatever regulations it's called, I
knew that I was not obligated to report. Like, that much I knew, that amongst the measly like,
protections that were offered, that much was still there, that I was not obligated to report. And so I
knew that she, that she could force me. And in a way, I was lucky, because I knew that she couldn't,
because I knew that it's written there. And I could tell her, I know exactly where, and I could quote her
the number that says, you are not allowed to force me to do this. But if I hadn't gone into that meeting
already knowing that beforehand, I think I would have caved. Because like, she really tried very hard
to pressure me.

Yah, it’s very – I think it's very clear where – yah, I think it's very clear, it was very clear to me lah
where NUS’s priorities were and I can highlight for this lah, at least with, with my first case, like
where it was just like me and then there was like one perpetrator.

Like the only time that I ever felt any, like, institutional support was with regards to my academics
where that semester that had happened I ended up failing two subjects. Okay lah, one of them like I
bare passed lah, I got a C minus or something like that. So like, I, like, scraped by a pass but it was like
a core module that I really like needed to actually have done well in and it tanked my, my CAP
(cumulative average point), because I had scraped a pass only, if I had failed, at least I could have
retaken it right. Yah.

And I found out subsequently that I was actually allowed to appeal. So I did and I told them like yah, I
had, I had been hospitalised and then all this crap had happened to me like two weeks before finals.
And it took them like a while to, to process my appeal, but they actually did eventually say like, okay,
yah, we'll make an exception for you. You'll be allowed to retake this class even though you're
technically passed it. Because of all this like, yah, absolute crap that happened to y ou. And even the
one that I had failed, they allowed me to like – ‘cause normally if you fail, like, you S/U it right, and
then the U will still reflect on your grade, on your transcript, yah. So at least for that one they offered
as well to like wipe it off, and they marked it instead, as both of like, both these classes as having been
incomplete. Yah, and then they allowed me to retake it, which was like, okay lah, I am glad at least that
they allowed, they gave me that much allowance.

But it was also very clear to me that right, even throughout all of this, and even as they were
processing my appeal, their focus was really solely on my academics. And there was like, cursory
support of like, in their email, they'll say, like, one line of, oh, we are so sorry that this happened to
you. And that’s it. And then everything else is just, really like, the red tape and the bureaucracy of like,
the whole like, okay, yah, you need to send your, your letter to so -and-so place, and in order to submit
your appeal, we do need to speak to, like you've got to go to UHC and get a doctor's letter to say that:
“okay, yah, this definitely did happen”. And then even after they had approved the appeal, there was
so, like, it was so administrative and bureaucratic that they actually told me like, okay, we have
approved it, you've got 24 hours to acknowledge it. If not, you will lose this opportunity forever. Yah,
yah. So they gave me 24 hours. And they said like, if you don’t reply within 24 hours and confirm, then
all this would have been for nothing, and we won't allow you to retake it.

Yah, so like, when they finally approved my appeal, like they sent me an email, right? And I think I
hadn't, like I don't check my email, like every minute of every day, right? And so I hadn't seen it for like

83
 a few hours. And I think the working day was like ending already. And so they had like, called me a few
times to try and make sure that I saw the email and I finally picked up the phone, because like, I don’t
carry it with me everywhere else, right? So I finally picked up the phone. And then the woman who had
called had berated me for not replying. Because she said, like, you know, it's almost, it was almost
5pm. It’s like why haven't you checked your email, why didn’t you reply, I sent this t o you at like, you
know, 10 o'clock or something. They basically scolded me for not having replied fast enough, when
they gave me a 24-hour deadline to reply to something that was like, would have been very, have like a
very drastic effect on my, on my grades and my CAP.

And it's ridiculous, right? Because this is a purely administrative thing. Like it's entirely internal to
NUS. And this, like, 24-hour deadline to acknowledge is something that's completely arbitrary. Like
there's nothing in their formal system right? It's not like they need to submit grades for the entire
semester by the end of the year. This was like a random, like it was like week five or something dealing
with issues from the previous semester for one single student. Right, there was absolutely no reason for
them to have imposed this, like, ridiculously harsh 24-hour deadline. Like, there was no reason for this.
And yet they called me up and like berated me for not having checked my email fast enough. And like,
again, like throughout this whole thing it was always like, okay, you need to submit this-and-this, you
have to go to the doctor and get this letter. And then you have to go and like, submit to this-and-this-
and-this, like, there was no, like there's very little support. It was not seamless at all. And yes, the
burden was on me to prove that all of this had happened, and to make my case. And it was like, yah,
and then they will take like weeks to reply to like one single email.

Yes. So they are allowed to take weeks to reply with no updates or answers to me, but I'm given 24
hours to acknowledge their final answer. The imbalance is very very starkly obvious.

It was very similar to the way that CAPT responded during the spycam incident where their
communications were all, “do not speak to the media”, “don't gossip about the issue”. And they could,
they could, had like typed out long messages telling students to keep their mouths shut and like not
spread gossip or to like badmouth NUS or say any of those kinds of things. And not a single time did
they type out any message of like concern or support for the students? It's very obvious, like where are
their priorities, that it's either on academics, or it's on their reputation.

There is no, there is no like holistic understanding of like, like sure, like they want their students to do
well, right, they want their students to succeed. Hence the importance of academics and the reputation
of the school. Tangentially related, right? It’s like, there isn’t like a holistic understanding that like, if
you want your students to perform, then they need to be in a safe environment, they need to have their
well-being protected. They need to have, like, their safety and all of those kinds of things like placed as
a priority, because the conditions need to be right for your students to thrive. And there is no like
understanding of that in, at any formal level in NUS. And so while they were, I would say at least
helpful in in addressing my, my academic complaints, they made no efforts to actually ge t to the heart
of the issue. And I think that's – yah, they've compartmentalised things very neatly to them, but not
realising that actually all of this affects each other.

2.22 Interview 25:

For the students and public they generally have the belief that the school is not doing enough to protect
the students. Especially for the MB case, there was this widespread belief that if the police doesn't give
an appropriate penality, NUS could step in to give a more severe penalty, but NUS later clarified that
their decision was independent of the police's decision.

84
2.23 Interview 26:

Monica Baey’s case was a breach of trust for her friends (the guy who filmed and the girlfriend who is
their mutual friend). When the girlfriend found out about what her boyfriend has done, she tried to stop
Monica Baey from seeking help instead of encouraging her.
Jeremy Fernando’s case was a breach of trust in which students and society place in an educator.
Generally, educators are deemed to be role models for students. Hence, it makes it much easier for
educators to prey on their students as the preconceived notion that we have since young that educators
are people we should trust.

2.24 Interview 30:

I remember still being an undergraduate during the Monica Baey case and a lot o f outrage on the
Yale-NUS campus about it. I remember that the case was about privacy on campus, and how sexual
misconduct policies at NUS being way too lax. Further, it was also that survivor support was wholly
lacklustre. I was also the Student Government President at the time, so my immediate thought went to
survivors on campus and how we could best support them since the case was circulating so quickly on
social media. I think right after that I also published a resource list for students who wanted to know
more about Yale-NUS’ system of handling sexual misconduct.

3. Reporting, investigation, and policing (N=22)

3.1 Interview 3:

Oh my god, fuck, okay. Well, I think the like, ironic example of that is when they, when they, when they,
you know, filed the police report. Yah, even though they weren't planning to do that before like, it got
public attention. So it was like, yes, it's like, just like a stupid example of like, responding. But, yah,
there's definitely like permanent change of policy lah, I feel. I guess it's like a, it's like an inevitable is
like, it's like kind of an inevitable thing. When you have like these core student groups, or like these
core people involved. They're not involved in like, the actual decision making process. They're just like,
kind of yelling at the sidelines, and then you don't have any discussion. And they just kind of guessing
what will make like, the most sense and like, in like a PR way, that'll be filing a police report, because
it's like, it's like the least work administratively isn't it, but it's like the most like, PR thing to do, I feel
like. Not sure if it's just the pessimistic way to view it. But yah, but there is definitely included in
everything now. Because like, yah, ‘cause I recently like, I got referred to the VCU recently, not
because of anything but just like for like a tutor, like a prof thing. And then like, as in I just - initially, I
think they were just trying to refer me to the whistleblowing unit, but they also kept like, trying to, how
to say, like, pushing the police thing? I sense that they were maybe so focused on like, things like the
news headlines, I mean, the news headlines, were kind of, were getting kind of crazy lah, with both
cases. But um, yah. So like, I don't know if they just wanted to do the thing that had like, the most
attention grabbing headlines. So things like filing a police report, or like, holding a to wn hall, but
without anything to actually say. Those kinds of things. Yah.

85
3.2 Interview 4:

Like again, like I bet some students are like, you know, like, some students were like, yah, let's
introduce mandatory police reporting, it's what we want. It's what you know, it's what you guys were
calling for, right? More justice, quote, unquote, but like, you know, but when they, but when like, after
like, frankly, after conversing with people who talk about it, you know, they, like, I'm not saying that
they realise it because they but they still stand on mandatory police reporting as key, supporting us .
But they can understand where the students who do not want it to escalate to a police report, where
they come from, you know, when you explain it to students like, because we are peers, you know, when
we talk to our peers, you know, it's much more grounded on that basis. And we tend to believe each
other to experience more, especially if we're friends, or we have close kinship. And like that, you know,
that is how education, which of these - it's sad that education of these issues only go through kinship
and not the institutions, you know, if you don't have a friend who's like, positive, like, you know, it
would just - that network would stop, you know, at your circle of friends. And that's it. You know, if
someone isn't convinced enough that, you know, that this is how sexual violence and should, should be,
you know, accurately handled and the proper avenues of justice - it wouldn't spread beyond that.

3.3 Interview 6:

Yah, it was the way that NUS dealt out justice - oh I remember there was there were a lot of people
who were also saying like, oh, it's less about NUS and it was more about the law, and I'm like, well, I
mean, okay, I don't know whether I'm like, but I mean, the question is like, well, yah, then the law
doesn't seem to take it very seriously either lah. Or, like, maybe they just face a lot of constraints. Who
knows?

3.4 Interview 7:

Right, like the fact that I barely remember it. When you say change the reporting process, like, do you
mean more streamlined or? Okay, how do I put it? Okay, I, I'm conflicted because like, I don't think
it's inherently problematic to tighten sanctions. But I think it's only problematic when the school feels
like, oh, we tightened sanctions, then that's all already, it’s like our job is done already. Yah. And it's
like, if your so-called sanctions don't really fit what the victim or survivor wants in terms of how they
want the restoration process, or like restorative justice to play out, then that's not really justice also,
like, then the question becomes like, who? Like, whose justice is this serving? Right, like? And how
does the victim/survivors needs even, like, factor into this whole framework? Which is, like, unclear so
far. Yah, like, I get that, that is very difficult work, and I also don't know how to go about doing it. But I
feel like as an institution, it shouldn't be an excuse to avoid that difficult work. Yah. Especially when
you have so much, so many resources available to you.

3.5 Interview 8:

There's that disconnect, that the institution is holding very, very strongly to their own ideas of just, of
justice, and completely ignoring that, that of like the victims - what, what is needed to be achieved for
the victims to feel like they have achieved justice. I think we are still on Monica Baey right? Ha ven't
jump into Jeremy Fernando yet right? I can jump into the Jeremy Fernando part. So, so from the
Jeremy Fernando case, I know that the victim didn't actually want to go forward with like a police
report, and the victim themselves, like they - from what I gather from them, like pursuing a police case,
a police report, would not have been justice, like it wouldn't have been what they consider to be justice.
And yet, you know, this is a perfect example of like, you know, the school, the institution saying that oh,
we've done what is just, because it's in our policy. And the fact that they didn't even inform her, that

86
 they had gone ahead and proceeded with a police report fully knowing that you can't retract a police
report once you filed it, it's ironically an injustice towards her.

And again, I guess, you know, the general public did want to, you know, they, they were kind of like on
a witch hunt, they wanted to see him pay, they wanted him to suffer, and go to jail, and all of that? And
I guess, you know, again, there was a disconnect between what the public felt to be justice and what
the, what the victim felt to be justice, and, and what the institution felt to be justice, you know - the
institution feels that oh, as long as we are following policy, then it's fine. But again, I think we were, we
all inferred that the reason why they went ahead with the police report was because of the pressure
that had been placed upon them from the previous sexual misconduct cases in NUS that were handled
without enough aggressive action. So it just shows how like, you know, insensitive they are, I guess,
you know, the fact that they're more willing to to appease the public.

3.6 Interview 9:

Something that wasn't discussed is the involvement of the police, and how the police as an institution
also lacks the sort of care that survivors need. And the police as an institution also, like, they're just
unable to like handle the case as well and they are like, as inadequate and, you know, they weren't very
nice to Monica Baey. I remember her anecdotes from there. And, and I just shudder to think of how,
how many people, how many survivors of sexual violence went to the police thinking that they could get
some kind of help but got traumatized or re-traumatized?

I know a lot of students were unhappy with the response regarding like, the mandatory reporting, and
all that. But the Jeremy case, the Fernand- the Jeremy Fernando case really showed one how the
institution has a limit in approaching sexual violence, the institution and like, how like, the offices of
the institution, like, like the Victim Care Unit, right, or the NUS Care Unit. They - by policy, they had
to do the mandatory reporting, no matter regardless of whether the survivors actually want their cases
to be reported to the police. And again, we've discussed on how the police themselves are quite
inadequate, can be inadequate in supporting survivors. Especially during this, the taking of statements.
Yes. Yah, and it, and this clearly showed how the VCU or the NCU as an official office in NUS. They
are tied to the guidelines and the bureaucracy of the institution and at the same time, NUS as an
institution as a whole is tied to State instruments of judicial law and public order enforcement, police.
So the funny thing was that, as opposed to the Monica Baey case, I was a lot less angry at the
institution and more angry at the State because I realised at that point how this need to mandatorily
report to the police, regardless of care, it contravenes the whole framework of care. And it contravenes
the entire purpose of the Victim Care Unit in trying to provide care to students. Like, like, like, how
could you, how can you provide care if you know that, if you had to, I mean, how can you provide care
if you're forced to report to the police, which might further affect, affect, affect the survivors.

3.7 Interview 11:

Well, I suppose the Jeremy Fernando case is more fresh in the mind, just because of how recently it
was, how recent it happened. So I, what I do remember about the case was that, you know, this,
Fernando, the perpetrator, he, if I remember correctly, was a, in a position of a, of a mentor in the
Tembusu College residential programme in NUS. And so he had, he had on multiple occasions
overstepped the professional boundary as a mentor, and also a faculty when he was interacting with a
bunch of the students at the hostel, I mean, who were part of the residential programme as well, both of
whom I believe were women. And I think I don't really remember the details regarding t heir
interactions, but it was a rather sexually inappropriate nature. And that's why the both of them stepped
forward to report the case and seek NUS's, you know, help with regards to navigating what, what
recourse they could seek, you know. So that's essentially, I think, was the gist of the situation. And then
thereafter NUS launched this investigation period. They conducted their own investigation, and then
subsequently reported the case to the police, despite both of the survivors having, having, didn't

87
 having, having, how do I say? Like, I don't think they both wanted to go to the police, right? They
didn't want that. Yah. I can't remember if they explicitly mentioned that in the articles. Yah. Yah. So
they both didn't want to go to the police, but still NUS lodged the police report regarding that, and they
framed it as what was the right thing that should have been done in that situation? Which we don't
have to unpack. That's, that's questionable in and of itself. Definitely, though. Yah. Yah. So either way,
Fernando was, I think fired, and I don't remember if he was charged with anything. I kind of didn't
really read up thereafter.

3.8 Interview 12:

NUS's response was more detailed, but also not great, because it was cool that they provided a timeline
of what happened, you know, when it was reported, incidents? So at least there was some form of
transparency on their part. But there was also a lot of action taken that were not , I did not approve of,
like the police report. Yah. Give them a badly drawn goldstar like an attempt was made, but that's all I
can say.

I feel like at least for the Fernando case, like there was some administrative action taken already there
was like, hey, a prof has did this. Here's what has been happening so far. Rather th an, oh, only when
news media's are covering it, then we deal with the problem? Yah, so there is at least a good direction
that they're going in. Also, again, the police report thing, I think, because now that they were getting
more public scrutiny, they were like, oh, let's do what the public wants and not necessarily think about
the victim. So that's why they went to the police route.

So I think their, NUS's idea of like, oh, crime and punishment essentially. Then I think they don't
consider that these, these kinds of cases deal with very, like, strong and vulnerable emotional states.
They're not just like, random problems that show up and you can solve with a standard procedure.
There are a lot more things they have to consider before they approach anythin g that is more like
giving out the punishment and following up on these things.

3.9 Interview 13:

And then obviously, the way they approached it, calling the police before actually informing survivors,
again, showed us that they didn't really put survivors first, they, they found it extremely important to
make sure that they couldn't be called out or disparaged for their lapses. But of course, in doing so
they made even more mistakes.

So obviously, basic things like asking the survivors before you make the police report is not that
difficult.

3.10 Interview 14:

I'll start with the Monica Baey one, I guess. From the student community, at least what I witnessed of
like friends, showing me the Insta stories after it had, after the news, after the news had reported lah,
so I was finding about this quite late. So what I felt like the students saw it as was, like they they
definitely saw it as an oversight. And like the university failing, lah, to actually take action, despite,
Monica Baey like, like taking the official route, like and reporting and everything like she did. She did
everything that people expect a survivor should do. So there were, there were expectations, like, of
course placed by the general, like, student population, like, oh, you should report, why didn't you speak
up that kind of thing. But the thing is, like, she did all of that, like she, she reported, she underwent like
the long process. She, she had to wait like a year or something like really long. Just to get any kind of
response and like, the communication was shit between like her and NUS. And that's why like, I think

88
 she, she did everything that what students felt she should do as like a victim of like sexual assault. And
yet, like the university handled it so badly. So I think that's why students saw it as, like a very clear
example of oversight. And they saw it from her perspective, because she posted it on Insta stories. So
that certainly helped.

Wah, this is so infuriating lah, yah. I'm pretty sure like, I'm pretty sure NUS never at once even had to
think about justice. Like that's the thing. Like they, I think they purely dealt with it as like an
administrative like or disciplinary issue within the school or how they approached it. I don't think they
were thinking in terms of like, actual justice or accountability being served. Like they were just more of
like, oh, shit, like, yet another problem. And here I am like, I'm a poor bureaucrat, and I have to solve
this. Yah. So, so I'm not sure they had like any conception of justice beyond like, what is sort of very
yah, justice lor, like I will, I will discipline you and just like, put you in, like, suspend you, expel you.
Like, it's just yah, very school type. There's nothing, there was nothing really even rehabilitative
beyond like, the fake counselling lah. I feel like even those Facebook groups are better managed. Yah,
because the moderators have like some sense of like nuance and like, they, you know, they think it over
before they actually like, do something. And like they like they give, they give people like three chances
that you get banned and they actually respond to your reports. And yes, it's like a don't report it.
Exactly. Like the moderators will be like, okay, so you have done this, this, this, hence this or they wi ll
be like, do you want to consider doing this instead? And then maybe we might give you a chance? Yah,
but then NUS is like, you know, like, oops, parents are here on my back. I shall just throw everything
and hope it works.

3.11 Interview 15:

Okay. I think for like the Monica Baey case, I was still like in my first year of study. And I remember,
like, I was very taken aback by the response and the outrage, like I was definitely very outraged myself,
but seeing people collectively organise was something that was very new to me. I don't know, I think, I
guess, like, growing up with the Singaporean education system, you just see activism as very absent.
You're not really sure, like, how do people, you know, demand for change? How do they organise
themselves in a political capacity? And I think seeing that happen in a university that I was studying in
was, was very encouraging, was like, introducing me to a part of higher education that I didn't expect
and how, like, I don't know, like, seeing social media being used as a tool for mobilising. That was very
interesting as well.

And I think like one of the, one of the most salient experiences I had through the Monica Baey was like
attending the Town Hall, and how you could feel the anger in the air, like how you could tell that
people were fed up, that people were frustrated. And so I was part of CAPE at that time, and I
remember there was like an entire group that was just like organising themselves. So they were like,
okay, you ask this question then I ask this question. You go up first, and then I'll, and then I'll follow up
on that. So I think like, just seeing it, like, coordination, that was very new to me. And I guess, also
made me realise that individual action is very negligent, right? Yes. Because Monica Baey, the Monica
Baey incident wasn't just about Monica, like, the reason why it blew up was because everyone had been
subjected to that kind of violence, at some point. Yah, so I think that was, there was just that point of
like, we will not take this lying down anymore. And it was that collective outrage that I feel like, had
made the Monica Baey movement what it is, I remember like coming out of the Town Hall feeling so
dissatisfied and angry, and just also having to comfort my friend who was breaking do wn, because she
felt like she was being violated all over again. Yah, like, you're not just violated by the perpetrator,
right, you're violated by your institution, you're left, you're just left so vulnerable and exposed at every
point.

I mean, like what I said before I think NUS just doesn't understand that in itself as an institution, as an
administration it’s very violent in the way that it approaches sexual violence. Everything literally like
the cases that we've gone through and safeNUS, the way that survivors have to move through this
incredibly arduous, painful and bureaucratic way of reporting acts of sexual violence. It's so much. I
feel like that in itself is like, equally if not more violent, and like traumatising. I think NUS doesn't

89
 know that. If it does, it doesn't care. Like to them, it's only as I said like an alienated, isolated event of
like, okay, an act was committed. And that's, that's the only violence that we look at. And I feel like for
them, justice is very, like, punitive. Very surveillance-based very like, Oh, don't worry, we'll keep we'll
keep these bad people out of a university, and then everyone will be safe.

And yah, so justice is a very, like, a vengeful kind of concept to the institution and sometimes even to
the public, right? Because they’re like we want, immediately, it's like immediately what we think of is
like, oh we want, like, longer jail sentences for these criminals? And I think like, I don't know, I can't
speak on behalf of all students. But I think what I've learned from our safeNUS community is that
justice goes beyond that, because the more difficult question of justice isn't about how much can we
punish a perpetrator, but it's like, how much can we change the systems that had made that person a
perpetrator?

Yah. And also just like being more survivor-centric. And I know, it's also a very loaded term, right?
Like, what does it mean that, and that's, I think that's why NUS has also a very hard time
understanding what we mean by survivor-centric because, I mean, survivors aren't a monolith. Every
survivor wants something different. And that kind of flexibility without that bureaucracies is something
NUS maybe isn't used to. And that’s, as in that's why I'm saying like the entire system has to be
reformed. You cannot bureaucracy your way through this process of like, reporting sexual violence,
being accountable for these cases, because this is, it's just not. It's not within that administrative
University thing that NUS loves to do. And moreover those, those things are the ones that, that is
causing harm.

3.12 Interview 16:

I mean, I wasn't in NUS yet when the Monica Baey thing happened, I was in NUS, I was in Yale -NUS
when the Jeremy Fernando case happened. To be honest, I didn't hear much about it, like, without
having to dig a bit. So like, in my own, like, Yale-NUS kind of bubble, that wasn't very made known to
me. Monica Baey I remember, I remember there being a Town Hall. I remember basically, I remember
her having, like, endured a very long, like, investigation process where the outcome was very, very,
like, unsatisfying. And that's when she took it to social media. Then I remember that was when it gained
traction lah. But I know, I know that her taking to social media was a result of NUS having
continuously like, centered Nicholas over her. Then I remember the outcome of that was the Town Hall.

3.13 Interview 18:

How did they talk about it? I'm trying to recall for the Jeremy Fernando case, I think when- oh, I just
remember, basically, the school was obliged to report the instances, right? I mean, the sexual assault
cases, can't remember, this was for Jeremy Fernando, or for Ted Hopf, but I remember there was
something to do with like the victims didn't want to lodge a police report. But the, I don't know, school
laws or some law dictated that the school had the obligation to report this to the police. And so they
did. And there was a bit of upset over that as well, because clearly the institution's approach wasn't
victim centric. Yah.

3.14 Interview 20:

Especially for Dr Jeremy Fernando's case, it's - why was the police report made by an organisation
without the consent of the victim? I think the only point of contention was about the police reporting
thing where the victims were not informed of - or rather were not requested their consent to actually
make a report before the, before a police report was made against Dr Jeremy Fernando by NUS.
Which to me I am on the fence lah because I don't know. I mean, I see the I see the merits in both lah.

90
 You know, of an organisation writing it on behalf of the student but also at the same time having the
student to provide their consent lah. So for me, it's like I can't make a proper judgement based on that.

3.15 Interview 21:

They do see that - I think they, I do see that they - it's not that they are avoiding responsibility, in a
way, to act on this injustice. But at the same time, I think they they also view justice, in some way, in a
very institutionalised legal means that can only be corrected through formal, legal, you know, like say,
a court case, through a formal investigation and prosecution. So on.

3.16 Interview 22:

I think it's really just like, the idea of like, prison and like state power being used against this person,
was a big part of it. In terms of administration? Um, I don't know. Yah, I don't think I feel like in terms
of like, thinking of what justice is, I got the sense the administration was very much like, hands off. It
was like, you know, we'll, like, pass it on to the police. Yah, so, yah, I didn't get the sense that they had
their own idea of what justice would mean.

3.17 Interview 23:

Like, why does it matter that, you know, it's like I said, you know the spycam incident right, in, in
CAPT, like the, I had to actually spell this out to Master Gary and to Soon Fen and Prof Kankana.
Because, like, to me, their response was very, very, very underwhelming, and very understated. Where
they were, they were so focused on like, like the camera and like the perpetrator, and like how did he
enter the building? All those kinds of things, right? And then once they had like, recovered the device,
they were like okay lah, we found it already, what's the big deal.

And I was like, and I had to spell this out to them that, like this device has been here for an unspecified
period of time. We know from like, reports from other students that it's been around for several weeks,
at least, that you have 40 girls living on this floor, and at least 20 of them use this bathroom, because
you minus off the girls in the suites. So like, yah, at least 20 of them use this bathroom. That means
you've had at least 20 girls who take presumably daily showers for at least like three weeks already.
And so you have like, like not, we're not even talking about one victim here, we're talking about 20 over
victims. And like sometimes, like you have like their friends or like, you know, other visitors that come
in and use the bathrooms as well, that have been filmed day after day after day. Like in the, what was
supposed to be a private space, like completely naked, trying to take a shower. And like completely
without their knowledge. Because it's something that like, is so innocuous, because it was disguised as
like a smoke machine, smoke detector right. And I had to spell out for them like why this is so awful.
Because it meant that like, literally for days on end, someone was spying on them without their
knowledge. And like that they were literal recordings of, of like their, like their bodies and everything.
And then I had to go and explain that. Okay, so it's not just this one guy, right? Who has been filming
them. But now for them to even find out whether or not they actually got filmed because they don't
know. Like maybe just nice they never use that cubicle, because there's multiple cubicles, right? So
maybe just nice they never use or whatever it is right. So for them to even find out wh ether or not they
were actually filmed. That footage has to be surrendered to like a team of police officers who are now
going to comb over that footage to try and identify them by their naked bodies to try and find like who
were the victims. So it's not just this one guy who's gonna see it. It's an entire team of like strangers
and police officers. Where the only way the only way for these girls to find out whether or not they
were filmed is for even more people to see them naked. And like, that is awful.

And it was like, and it's like, until I spell this out right for Master Gary - it's like his face like stunned
leh. It's like it had never occurred to him that, that like the extent, like even, that even the justice, so -
called justice side of things, which was like okay, yah, they found the footage, he's been caught. We can
go to the police now and everything right? To them, that was the end of the story, and that was the

91
 justice already. But it didn't even, like it doesn't even occur to them that even the justice side of things,
is a continuation of the violence. Because like now even the good guys, even the police officers are
going to be watching this footage and seeing like all of these girls. And that's just like violation after
violation after violation. Yah.

And like that just doesn't, it just doesn't even occur to anybody that, you know, that even the justice is is
more harm. And that like, that was just the beginning of the pain. Because even after that, like, they
would have to wait to be called, to say like okay yah, you were, you were filmed. And then because of
that, they will need to testify, they will need to like, it's the beginning of like a continuous recounting
and testifying and like an endless process of trying to achieve justice. And each step in that journey is
an extension of the trauma. And I think that that's something that people don't understand that it's not a
once-off incident. It's not like, you know, they film you one time, they take one photo or like they grope
you one time, and that's the end of it. It's not - it is every single time you have to tell your story, it is
every single time someone questions, it is like every single time after that, like, yah, it's not one
incident. And I think people don't necessarily understand how continuing it is.

3.18 Interview 24:

NUS authorities were somewhat muted. Apart from carrying out/ cooperating with the investigations
and reporting material facts and outcomes, I did not learn anything more from NUS.

3.19 Interview 26:

However, for both cases, NUS is still not able to support the victim to their best. For Monica Baey’s
case, they did not provide her with any support at all with her having to make the police report herself
whereas for Jeremy Fernando’s case NUS disregarded the victims’ wishes and went ahead with
making the police report without the victims’ knowledge.

3.20 Interview 27:

Basically NUS would not act on a 'victim' empowering approach (in quotes because they should in the
alternative be called survivors instead) and therefore not handle the issue with enough sensitivity -
'just' could be following through a SOP rigidly, or reporting the issue to the police whether the victim
wanted to or not.

3.21 Interview 29:

I think some from public thought Monica was making a big hoo-ha for nothing and NUS was taking it
too lightly. Police only gave a warning I think? I’m not too sure I can’t remember honestly

3.22 Interview 30:

Honestly, these are all very reactive/stop-gap measures and I don’t think they actual deal with the root
causes of sexual misconduct. For instance, I understand from some friends that they know of survivors
who are now unwilling to come forward because their perps were close friends — the mandatory
minimum makes it difficult to pursue non-punitive types of justice. In other words, they do not want
their perps to be put on a 6-month LOA, they would prefer other types of intervention like mediation or
counselling. I am also unsure of how effective the survivor support center is — I have heard very mixed
feedback. On the positive, the center exists, which is a great step in the right direction. On the other
hand, survivors still need to come forward to access the center, so there are still limited resources for
support that does not require NUS’ intervention.

92
4. Failure to take students and survivors seriously (N=22)

4.1 Interview 1:

I was at the Town Hall for the Monica Baey case, it seemed to be just, like, apologetic but kind of
trying to taichi away? There’s a lot of resistance, I think, to like, creating change, and they came off as
out of touch with students’ feelings? In the Jeremy Fernando case, I didn’t really see much of an
institutional response, it’s just like, two press releases, it’s just like, the email, and that’s about it. And
they didn’t even respond to the safeNUS statement, they just responded to The Straits Times.

4.2 Interview 2:

NUS as an institution, I think, first of all, all their emails are very, all their emails are very fact based.
They'll just say, okay, this one, this said professor, accused of this, this, that, has since been terminated,
that's it. You know, that kind of thing, just giving you the facts.

According to what Monica said, they just said that, they will give him counselling or something. Right?
Oh, oh! They asked him to, they asked him to write a letter, right, to her, an apology. Right. I think
that's what they requested. First of all, I think it's bullshit. Like, I mean, are we like in primary school
or something? Did he, like, steal her mechanical pencil? And then, and now she's like, now please go
and write, say sorry to Monica via a letter. No, like he literally violated her privacy! He took very
compromising images of her, he took videos, and then that's all he gets, he gets a written letter and
some counselling sessions. So I think it's a horrible, horrible way of handling it.

Same thing lah, I feel. When the students can come together and demand more from the institution in
terms of, being more selective with the professors that they let into the school, you know, in terms of
support systems provided to victims, in terms of like, for example, ensuring victim's privacy by not
revealing their names, but instead revealing the name of the professor involved? Um, yah, I think
there's a lot of, yah, they can definitely demand a lot from, from NUS if they do it together. Like a
collective thing? Yah. And then what did they do? They sent one email and terminated him. And then
they actually sent some either emails, actually, I have something about like, we care a lo t about sexual
misconduct, one case of sexual misconduct is one too many.

That, like, it just went up the seniority, right? I don't know man, like is there like some - Okay, if at first
they try to deflect, then it's probably because it was like first release, right? And then I think the minute
after, that was really, I - what, what I'm assuming is that people must have kind of, highlighted, like,
the ridiculousness of the situation. And then there was more discourse on it, which warranted, you
know, someone else higher up to kind of respond, to respond and share their thoughts on the matter
and like, promise to ensure safety and stuff like that. You know, thinking that, you know, because
they're higher, that means that there's more legitimacy attached to their words. That's what I'm
gathering lah.

It's just them trying to say that they are handling the matter seriously since now that it's the NUS
President who is emailing all of you guys about the matter. I mean, that's what I got lah. It's like when
shit gets bad, you better let people know that you are taking this so seriously, that even like the NUS
President is involved. I think, but then it's interesting, because then it seems like a kind of last resort
kind of thing. Yah, only when shit gets very bad, then let me involve the NUS President, but if I can, but
let me just shoot someone that is like sort of an authority figure, but not that much of an authority
figure to kind of send a mass email. And then if people are not happy with that, then sure. I'll j ust go up
the ranks, I guess. But um,

93
 I mean, it could be, I could be assuming, but it could be a, really just a reflection of how they just want
to keep things on the down low as much as possible lah, like if you don't need to bring it up to the
higher-ups then let's just not, let's just try to handle it among us Provosts or whatever.

4.3 Interview 3:

I mean, definitely, like what I say about the ground-up channels, just because so much of it gets
overlooked. And not everybody wants to go viral in order to-

I mean, that's for sure. But also, just like, I think their policymaking is probably missing a lot of, it's
probably just being done from like a very disconnected way. Like, there's not the right stakeholders
involved, or if they're being involved then they're clearly not being involved in the right, at the right
moments, or like in the right places. That kind of thing. Yah, that like all of their, all of their things
seem so tone deaf. Yah. A lot of their efforts seem quite half-baked as well. I think the VCU is quite a
strange concept also. Yah. Yah. And like, yah, and that, like the VCU is quite limited in its capacity. So,
because they're really just like a support wing, they really can't do much else from that.

As in, but it makes sense lah. It's very much like an on-paper thing for NUS also. Oh god, yah. I think it
could definitely be more survivor-centred, for one. Yah. Because clearly like, even if I'm not sure, I'm
not sure what is exactly happening behind, like, behind the scenes. So it just feels, like, even the
survivors themselves aren't really necessarily being involved or updated. And that's why like a lot of
these things happen also, where there's like a misalignment even though apparently the institution
claims that the survivor has been assisting with their investigation for so long already.

4.4 Interview 4:

What do I remember? There is a lot to remember. Oh my gosh. Okay. The first I heard about like the
Monica Baey case was just seeing like, how people how my friends like, we were reacting to, like, her
case on Instagram. But, like, it initially, like, popped up on Instagram, and everyone was like
discussing, have you heard about this incident? Eusoff Hall, etc. It was very gossipy at that time as
well. Like how, yah, like the people would just gossip? Do you know about this case, from this person
called Monica? And I was like no. And like, they'll tell me, check it out on Instagram, like, okay, sure.
And then the moment I check it out, I, like, see it. And it's like, this happened? Like, this is real? Like,
not just that, more the reaction of like, how people were, of like the police, you know, response and
NUS's response. I was like, is this really what it is, you know, like how people like, how administration,
like responds to sexual violence? Like, so like, there's obviously the Town Hall and like, because I
know some friends who like just introduced me to, like, you know, everything about, everything I know
about - but I was like, I want to go down with them, you know, like, see what it's like, or, you know, and
I want to like, see what is actually being discussed, what is talked about, like, this is something new.
Like, I go down to the Town Hall, and I hear every, the Town Hall was just... was so good, yet so
disappointing. Like, good because of the students' response. Good, because I heard you know, what
students feel, what students are saying, what students' opinions are, what students, you know, want to
see change from the university. And then it was bad because the university basically did not respond.
So it just was infuriating to hear that response. And that's partially why I set up, helped set up
safeNUS. Yah, thanks, Cari, by the way. I wanted to get that on the record.

But yah, and then, like, the Jeremy Fernando case, it was, there was no similar like, Town Hall, no
similar democratic process, if you think about it, but like, because I heard it like from, you know, but
because I was able to hear about it earlier before it came out on the news, like, I wasn't as, you know,
surprised with like, and also because like, having been part of safeNUS, that surprise factor, wasn't
there. I was just disappointed, but not surprised. And like, and, and just, but hearing NUS's response
gave me similar feelings about the Town Hall, like there was limited accountability, there's limited
action, there is limited acknowledgement of what survivors want, there was limited acknowledgment of,

94
 you know, students' input. There was, it was very, you know, it was, yah, it was still very restricted in
that regard. It improved in that they actually listened to some students and some, you know, ideas, but
they still, you know, relied on old ideas of sexual misconduct, you know, all, you know, ideas of, it has
to go to the police. It just, you know, it just felt this - even though it was different, it felt the same.

At least like feeling the same from where I was, you know, now being part of safeNUS, for any other
normal student, I bet they'd look at that and go, it's an improvement. Sure. But for like someone from
safeNUS, like, actually going through these processes of how the case was handled, how the case was
reported, how the case was badly handled, and how the case went to the news. It just felt the same.

A quick one, oh, my gosh, the need to defend themselves. Like the need to defend themselves by saying,
these are our systems, you know, why haven't you been following it? If you follow it, you will be safe,
because we have listened to you in the past. But like, you know, this form of listening, you know, is not
what they are saying, you know, if you really are listening, you listen, and not stick to rigid structures,
you need to be mutable, you need to be, you know, like, knowledgeable that there's so many
intersections of what sexual violence is. You can't just one size fits all.

And when I talk about how like, how other people, you know, have ideas for violence, it doesn't
recognise the mutability or malleability of you know, changeability of survivors ideas of justice. Like so
whenever you, like for the people who are affected by, the most by this, for the people who are - okay, I
know seeing victims is bad, but if you want to frame it in a you know, punisher -victim dialectic, you
know, the victims of these, the ones who are suffering, they have, you know, they, let them - it's their
right to, you know, decide what they want and when you don't listen to them, it again engenders more
violence because not listening to them is essentially breaching their consent.

4.5 Interview 5:

I think among students, like, there was this kind of consensus that it was, NUS really did screw up q uite
badly. And I think that was something that was quite heartening to me because I think, like, among my
circle of friends right, could be 'cause we discuss like things like this quite often, I think I wasn't
surprised that they were mad at NUS? But I think like the wider student community, especially like a lot
of guys were like quite mad, angry about what had happened and how NUS had failed to like support
her also, so I think that was something that I really - it was nice to see. Yah. In terms of the school,
narratives from the school - I don't know if this is a narrative, but like, I think like one thing I kept, I
remember a lot from the Town Hall was like, they kept saying, like, we need you students to tell us like
what you wanted, what you wanted that from NUS. But also like, it shouldn't be our responsibility to
handle this, these things.L ike of course, like we would, we want to be part of the process to like, you
know, enact changes but like, we shouldn't be like the be all end all answer right, l ike, like the school
should be the one who's the first person to take action, not like the students. So I think that was one
thing that I was, I remember like for Monica's, Monica's case.

NUS's actions, right? Okay. So I think right after the Monica Baey case, they were kind of like trying to
show that - because I think like they wanted to appease students, so they, they kind of tried to show
that, oh, like we are taking you seriously. So they did like, they did their Town Hall, then they did their
focus groups. Even though actually students wanted another Town Hall, they didn't have another Town
Hall, they just decided to have these focus groups. And then also they had, they enacted the con sent
module, that one came up pretty fast actually, the consent module. You know, to show like, oh look, we
are taking this seriously. We are now teaching students what consent is. And also, like, I feel like the
consent module was more important for students who were going to freshman orientation camp,
because of the whole, like, scandal that they had with the, like, sexually suggestive like orientation
games. Because I was the orientation group leader in that year, like, right after Monica's case. And it
was quite like, it was emphasised during our briefings lah, like, oh, you have to be very careful and
things like that. So like, I still feel like the actions were more for show, you know? Kind of like, to show
people, to show the public that NUS is doing these things, but, and actually the like, students who take
the module, like, most of us feel it is quite inadequate, right? I mean, you can, anyone can just fill up

95
 whatever they think that NUS wants to hear right and they will move on. It doesn't actually address
anything.

4.6 Interview 6:

I mean, her whole point was that NUS was just not listening. And like the the anger of like, how can a
written apology for something so heinous, like, be acceptable?

But I suspect that even before this, students were already pretty deeply mistrustful of NUS and how it
tends to do things. Because it is quite a big organisation, I think, like, even in, sort of, small injury
cases, Llke it takes some it takes them a while to get around to it. And you feel like you're not r eally
being heard because you get shunted from one department to another.

4.7 Interview 7:

Okay. I think some, like narratives that really came out was, firstly, how NUS has had a long history of
inadequate responses towards sexual violence on campus. I think that was an issue that students really
felt very angry about. And it was - and past a point, it wasn't about the Monica Baey case itself
anymore, but it was just, that case was a catalyst for all of this, like, outrage, and discourse to happen.
So yah, like and NUS's insufficient responses, and how there was a need for more institutional
safeguards.

4.8 Interview 8:

The main thing was that the students felt kind of betrayed? We didn't, we felt that our interests weren't
being - we felt that we weren't being taken care of. And basically, we felt that the institution had failed
us? The fact that they were so willing to ignore what the victims wanted, that kind of like showed us
that we didn't matter? I think it was like quite shocking, I know, a lot of u s were like, wow, this can't be
happening right? Like a lot of us were quite like, shocked, at like, how poorly they handled the
situation. So, yah, that was like the main thing. And a lot of us didn't think that it was handled justly at
all, we all felt that there was a real injustice. Because they, because of like, the very skewed concepts of
justice that the institution had held, and the fact that they were willing, so willing to pander to the
public instead. Obviously, what we wanted was for the school to take, to be accountable, to take
responsibility for what had happened, and to change the system. And listen, listen to us! I think that
was the main thing that we wanted, for our voices to be heard, and to know that our wants, our
welfare, will be respected and taken care of by the school.

4.9 Interview 9:

I can't remember how long after the case, I mean after, after Monica Baey went public, but the Town
Hall was held. And the Town Hall really showed, like, you know the, the concerns of the students, an d
also the, a lot of problematic things that students were talking about as well, they were discourses from
survivors. But generally, it was like a top, it was like a, it was a conversation that wasn't working at all.

Like the, the administrators were not prepared for a student response. The administrators basically
didn't seem prepared. And it's just, I mean, they say that they were listening to the students. But how
much of it was more of placating the students, as opposed to listening and getting that so rt of feedback
that they needed? Like, and the thing is that the Town Hall as a discursive platform broke down really
easily. The massive volume of students that came, and of course, the emotions were high. And you

96
 know, and the way they dealt with the students was just not great. Which, and like, like what I said
before right, that you know, they're just trying, they seem to be trying to placate the population, less of
actually engaging and trying to like, find a constructive dialogue. So naturally, it dev olved, it went into
a lot of shouting, very, very valid shouting, shouting and, like, argument. But yes. And after the Town
Hall, they went to do a bunch of focus group discussions, which was slightly better, less public. But,
but, you know, when, like, during these, like, focus group discussions, you could, looking back, you
could tell that they already had certain ideas in mind.

They already had particular, I think they were, they were already planning to do something. And I'm
not sure why, I don't think they were consulting the students on policy, per se. Like it was just a talking
session.

And how much of what we were saying, or maybe they did listen to what we said, but they only listened
to what they wanted to hear. Because I know there were a lot of students who, for no fault of their own,
though inadequate, they, they are very concerned about security and they wanted to increase security.
So obviously, this is something that was probably already in the minds of the administration. Yah.
There was no consultation on that point.

4.10 Interview 10:

So in line with that I previously mentioned that the institution does not share, it does not - I, I also
understand that it's not correct to refer to the institution as a monolith, because there are different
people working in different offices. Yah. So that's, that's an important note to have. However, I think
what is important, in this case, is the actions from an institution regardless of different beliefs, the
actions that the institution takes speaks louder, and the actions that they've taken, are very much in line
with the belief that the system is not fundamentally flawed, the same way that the students seem to
believe so and, and that their main concern is scrutiny because the immediate reaction of the in stitution
after like, I cannot say for the Monica Baey case, because I was, I can say that they did reply to the
media backlash very quickly. But I was not as present for that entire process, as I was for the Jeremy
Fernando case, because safeNUS was already there. We were already asking them for a statement.
And I must say it was very disappointing that it sent a message what their priorities were when they
replied to the media before replying to emails. They replied to the media, ironically, saying that t hey're
working, they're working with students. They're engaging students, they're talking to students,
ironically, without replying to our emails. Yah. So it did show where their priorities were, they did have
a lot of actions that were very in line with the idea that scrutiny and criticism is the problem because
they replied to the media a lot, as in, which is on its own, not a bad thing, but paired with the relatively
slow or lack of action with regards to collaborating to students, with students and list ening to students
and talking to students about this case, and things like that. It was very clear that one of this was the
priority. That was talking to the media. And as an institution, if you talk to the media, first before your
students, and you talk to the media more than your students.

Yah. But they didn't. As in, like that's a very serious thing. I don't understand why that's not, like,
focused on more? There was a very, I think that was the biggest - that's a very, very serious issue that I
don't think that we focus on enough, that the, that the institution told the media that they consulted the
survivors, and that the survivors say they didn't want to have the report. This is very in line with the
idea that-

Yes, exactly. So. So. Okay, so so this is a very serious issue. So I'll just touch on this for a while,
because it's very telling. In regards to everything that has been said before, what does the institution
prioritise? How do they frame these cases? And like an answer to those has been like, th ey see this, as,
you know, the problem is scrutiny and criticism, and they frame this as misconduct. And this is, this
issue of like, you know, telling people that you consult survivors without actually consulting survivors,
is, is the most telling action from the institution because it shows that your move is to tell the media,
signal to the public, that you are survivor centric, instead of showing that to the survivors themselves.

97
4.11 Interview 12:

From the institution, it felt like a very - here is a problem, we must solve it, but we are not going to pay
much attention to it. Because I don't think they could have foreseen the sort of public traction that it
gained.

4.12 Interview 13:

Do they even take our suggestions into account? Yah, I think one thing that worries me is that the
institution wants to go on with the way that they've always been going, while also trying to solve the
evident problems of sexual violence, which would be for them, like reputation, or maybe people not
coming to the school because of the cases being publicised. Yah, like, they definitely have to look at it
in more of a, okay, so there are, there are people being hurt on our campus, there are students being
harmed on campus, how can we actually listen to them, and tell them that we're there for them and not
just in lip-service, but in taking their suggestions and also, and not just taking their suggestions, but
also showing that they understand the issue in its entirety and not, not on the surface?

4.13 Interview 14:

It's very mechanical. And it's also it's like, it's purely a PR exercise to them lah. Like, it was so clear
from like my closed door discussions between like, GC, Tembusu, tFreedom etc with like the admin, it
was so clear that to them, it was almost clearly a PR exercise. And like, that was the main concern.
And we always had to, like reassure them like, oh like, if you go with what we, with what we are
suggesting and like, go with what the students are suggesting parents will actually see that as like, you
know, you're doing shit. We had to reassure them of all these things, because that was their primary,
like, priority, like, safeguarding their reputation. Sorry, NUS really do just be throwing shit at the wall
and hoping that it sticks. That's Yah, that's seriously what they're doing.

I didn't know how to, I don't know how to feel about this. But yah, this was totally how I felt from like,
not even just their open public, like official response, but also, like their private closed door response,
even when they were relatively good about it. It just looked like, you know, they were just anxious as
fuck and just throwing everything like, they were like, Oh, the bathrooms, doors and locks don't work
ah. Okay, then I will, I will call on the "gender deviants" to go and talk to me and like, give me some
suggestions. And then they would like, oh, online module. Let's try an online module. Let's see if it
works. And then they're like, oh, let's let's throw the disciplinary penalties. And like send out a circular.
Let's see if it works. Yah. Right.

And it's like, I was like, it's ridiculous. Because we are the we are the ones who have to actually deal
with like, we are the ones being impacted by fucking sexual violence in our campus. And we have to
reassure these people to do something. Like you know, maybe we should be reassured? And this was all
by the way, like, while we had Dean Pang, who was very receptive, like, and, like unexpectedly
receptive to our, to whatever we were suggesting and where we were coming from, like, he could see
that we were genuinely concerned lah. And we weren't like here just to, like, beat up NUS, because we
hate NUS. And we were, yah, like he could tell that we were coming purely from a student welfare
point of view, and like, concern about the issues and that we knew quite a bit about the issues. So he
was receptive, but still very, of course, like bound by administrative obligations, right.

4.14 Interview 15:

I guess like the more radical but in quotation marks, or like the bigger reforms that had happened were
to me notably after the Monica Baey incident, so like what I was talking about harsher punishments for

98
 perpetrators like immediate suspension, something like that, like as in isn't this, I guess, strengthening,
again, quotation marks rhetorically speaking, strengthening like formal channels through which they
could punish the perpetrator more. I guess yah, so that's, so I've already talked about that, so I should
like, I won't go into that again. But I think like another thing to mention is like setting up the Victim
Care Unit. Yah. And I mean, at first, like, that was very revolutionary! And I mean, these things like
when I call them revolutionary and radical now, I look back and I'm like, what the hell, how were they
not like already afforded to us as students? Back then like, it was like, okay, yah, we now have like a
dedicated care unit. But now that we are seeing this, right, like we are seeing the violence of
institutions, something that we talk about a lot in safeNUS is how it's, it's, the violence is at, is at every
level, it's at every tier of the institution. You can't have a specialised unit, caring for the survivors,
when the survivors have to go through every channel in the institution.
So how do we make care an ideology and not like, outsourced to like a single unit in the university,
because we are all interacting with both perpetrators and survivors everyday in our lives. And I
suppose that's a, that's a scary thing lah, right? And that's why people are like, oh no, like, how do we -
again, that's like, the more difficult question. And that's, that's why we avoid asking that, that's why the
institution something like NUS that's very result oriented, like very like, okay, we hit the mark, because
like, there's been a reduction of like, this x amount of like sexual violence cases, and then even the way
that we achieve our rankings like it doesn't mean we don't game the system, but we know what criteria
to fulfil. Yah. Yah. Through like, through, like, knowing what criteria to fulfil. Right. So so I think like,
it was important for NUS to like, okay, prove something that okay, at the end of the, at the end of the
year, we can like show people that like, oh, we actually did something. When actually like, the more
long term measures are the, are the harder things to do, the more difficult things to think through
properly and to do, and more importantly, has to do with like students, because I remember our
students, we were very minimal, peripheral, peripheral part of all this decision-making, and it
continues to be, we continued to be marginalised from the systems and reforms that are ultimately
supposed to protect us. So I mean - yah, so how are we supposed to build these systems of care for
students when we are not even part of the conversation?

I remember, I remember I read this quote a couple of days ago. Like from this talk about decolonizing
the university, where it's like, actually, we don't care about a, a seat at the table, we just want to eat.
And that has, that has actually stuck with me for a very long time. Because a lot of times the
universities just see students as like mere consultants, or like, oh, just people that you run by, we make
up the plan, then we run by it. Like all this, like we run, we run all this students through our plans. And
then we tell everybody that oh, yah, this was done with students. And at one point, you also just have to,
I guess ask, like, why exactly, are we doing this? And how our safety is just being compromised and
ignored and abjected by the institution? Exactly. And it says a lot about NUS that, to this day, it still
doesn't take students as like a, an equal, serious and equitable stakeholder in this issues, because to
them, it's, I feel like it's a PR crisis. And it continues to do things that don't prove me otherwise.

I mean, remember what you said how, like, we have been thrust in this unfortunate position where we
are somehow the, one of the only few student groups that are speaking about this issue, and I think
we're like the only dedicated student group on the issue of like sexual violence on campus, and that
puts us in a very strategic, but precarious position. Strategic because obviously as the only student
group, we do get to, we do get like a huge public say, public say, not like actual say because the school
doesn't take us seriously. In, in these matters, and I think just having a platform where students are
allowed to voice out their concerns, their thoughts, their frustrations, their grievances. It's very, it's
very powerful to me lah.

4.15 Interview 16:

And the institution's reaction to it is obviously just to pacify - pacify, ‘cause now it's a matter of
reputation rather than a matter - it's always like this, right? Like, the institutions always just, when
they get, when they are being held accountable, their instinct is publicity and reputation rather than
actual reflection? I'd say they're trying to pacify the public because they knew that - once it got brought

99
 into the, like, the public domain, a lot of eyes are on them. It's just common sense that they were trying
to like, PR, like mitigate the, after.

4.16 Interview 17:

So passive aggressive! It's like, We're sorry you found out. Dude, it's like a typical toxic guy! They say,
oh, I'm not sorry I cheated, I'm just sorry you found out.

4.17 Interview 19:

"Engage us" is basically, here's a notification, here's like a piece of notice for you, that's it, I'm not
gonna communicate. It's not - they're not listening to us. They're just notifying us of something, like, be
it us or the survivors. Goodness, that was, that was so, that pissed me off so much leh. I was honestly so
triggered by that. Especially, especially, I mean, okay, the thing is, at least for us, we are a n
organisation. So, you know, if you're ignoring us, that's another thing. Of course, they shouldn't. But
the thing is, at least, at least, don't ignore the survivors or engage properly with the survivors first?
You know, you're not even - the thing is they're not even communicating with the direct persons that
were involved with the case.

I was like, what is happening, you know? The thing is, the thing is, right, we are part of safeNUS and
you know, some of the people know the survivors personally and stuff. So we know firsthand what's
happening, you know, we are like the people that are inside. And I myself was that need to get confused
by what's happening, because on one hand, they're saying that they have communicated, on the other
hand, you're hearing pieces of information here and there that the communication didn't go through,
and stuff like that. And for us, we are part of the, the, the immediate NUS community. So we know
what's happening, we can keep ourselves properly informed and updated. But then the external, like,
public, they're just gonna get mixed information here and there. And that's just honestly very
detrimental, in my opinion, to the survivors, it's just gonna make it sound like, you know, there are
definitely people out there who are going to be like, they are just doing this for attention. NUS say they
communicate already, then they purposely twist their statements or something like that. There will
definitely be, be a few people that would say this kind of things. Because you're twisting the truth, and
you're not conveying the information properly. If you're a third person, would you more likely think
that the institution is right, or the individual is right? You get what I mean? So then you're just
confusing the students, you're just confusing the media, the public more. I don't know whether this was
their intention, or not. But this is definitely not good for the survivors lah.

And I feel like if I was, if I am a student of NUS, right, and if anything were to happen to me, and I
become the next potential, like survivor of, of this kind of things, would I trust NUS? No, I wouldn't.
What are they doing? What is the, what is the image they're trying to put out to the public versus to the
students of NUS? I don't understand because it seems like they're trying to cover their asses to the
public, but I feel like their relationship with the students is just getting worse. Because I, as a student,
do I trust the institution to help me with this? After all of this has happened? I'll be very, very , very
hesitant leh. Like, I'm not even talking based on statistics lah, this lah that, I'm not talking about. I'm
not, I'm not talking on behalf of another person or something. Me personally, would I trust NUS? No!
If anything were to happen to me, would I trust NUS? No, I wouldn't! Would I go to them? I might
hesitate. I wouldn't. I might not even bother much, you know.

4.18 Interview 21:

So what happened after that was that I think there was some sort of a movement within the school,
within the student body to draft up some demand and getting, you know like, signatories from the
students, from the student bodies to, you know like, there's already some demands regarding not only
the discipline of, the reviewing of the of the disciplinary code, I mean the Code of Conduct lah, in NUS
but also I think demanding the school to have to provide more adequate, you know, like victim care, so,

100
 so to speak, for, for the victims as well. And I mean, it culminated into, I mean, this whole big Town
Hall where I mean, the school was really caught - I was there, I mean, my observation is, I mean, like
the school was very much like not, no, doesn't know how to respond to the students' concern, and how
to, you know, change and all that. And it also resulted in some, in some way, quite a heavy handed, I
mean, within the institution itself, not to the students, but in a way, I think there was a certain
committee was brought up, they will say, we're trying to take control of it. They will ask, they're having
student representatives to be on the board of, I mean, in the committee and through this they will
gather to do, I mean, do this review thing lah.
I remember there was a, there was a meeting, I mean, they will go to different halls, and asking, you
know, like, oh, how, these are the proposed change, or you ask the students like, oh, what do you think
of the change? And a lot of things, I mean, like there was, I mean, there was definitely, I mean, the idea
of Victim Care Unit was, was brought up, it was quite welcome, in a way because I mean, for us, before
that most of the sexual harassment case was handled by - I mean, if it's in your hall or residential
college or residences, it's by the residential team there, if not, it's going to be handled by the Student
Affairs Department office of NUS of the respective faculties, the things like that. So I think it was
knowing that now there's a separate body that we created in the dedicated to, you know, to handle this
case, and knowing that there are people there who are probably more professionally trained compared
to like, what the status quo was, so that was, maybe that was welcome.

For the institution I think there is a very standard way that they have been dealing with that, in the
sense that I think there is a, there is an explanation of the due process that, you know like, it is not
perfect in terms of like, the things right now. So we, they need to take time to, to like correct it and
things like that. And then there was like, a lot of consultative I mean, they say that there is a new, like,
consultative and talk to the student stakeholders and, and see what- uh, yah, not much to say about the
– (inaudible), a very, a vague memory of me, of that, you know, there’s that Monica Baey Town Hall,
right, where I think, Florence Ling – was it Florence Ling or someone? She keeps saying, I mean, they
there was like student was heckling her and saying that, why is the school not doing things, then she
keeps saying sorry, without, like, being able to provide any straight answers to the issues. Again, it was
a, it, it kind of represents kind of like that school narrative of like, you know, like , we are not going to
make any decision, like, like firmly make any decision that potentially may have some legal
implications, or, I mean, like there's other things lah, that, like, that they don't want to make the, this
whole process of the school action to then become public, become public matters to be reported or to
be you know, like, commented on. So, I mean, then there is this optics, where the school is very
secretive about how they want things to do and how they want informations to, to spread as well. So
that's my view on the school.

4.19 Interview 22:

I thought okay, I think one thing, which is like actually not specific to the case, but I think more
generally, I think they have definitely been not so friendly to like gender and sexuality groups on
campus, right? Really a long-standing issue. I got the impression that they like, were a bit more
interested during the incident, but I think still broadly, they're not very, like accepting or receptive.

4.20 Interview 23:

Yah. So yah, and the way that Master Seow responded was really just one in very many ways that like,
they really mishandled my case lah. And when all this was, so like, the one where she tried to confront
me to like, like, confess my report right, was several months after the initial incident. And when the
initial incident had happened, it was, um - it happened like in CAPT lah, sort of, like, we had gone off
campus for a field trip. And then while I was there – and the field trip was the day after the incident,
and I think it took some time for like, the shock and like, trauma, everything to kind of set in and so it
kind of really hit me like while you're on this field trip, and I was like very much like in shock and not
really responding and just so upset because, as in, the person who had done it was on this field trip
with me lah and I had to see his face and I was like, fuck, I couldn't deal with this. And I had just shut

101
down and I wasn't speaking and I wasn't responding to anyone. And Dr Tan decided that it warranted
a trip to the A&E, because they're like, must be, like, conscious. And they–
Yah, so they forced, yah, they forced me to incur the expense for something that I didn’t even ask for,
and they send me there, right. And okay lah whatever, the whole A&E thing was a shitshow by itself.
But that aside, right, because they had hospitalised me against my will, subsequently, they tried to use
that as a reason to say that I wasn't allowed to attend STEER Myanmar, which was like a overseas,
like, study opportunity for, for students. And they tried to say that like, oh, like, it wasn't safe for me to
attend, because clearly, I wasn't stable. And they thought it might be dangerous, or like my health was
too much of a risk for me to go.

And I want to make this very clear, right, that they had received no reports from my doctor, they had
had no updates, like, about what my condition actually was. They never received a diagnosis or
anything like that. They send me to the A&E once after this episode. And just because of that, they used
that as a basis to then unilaterally decide that I was unfit to attend an event with no evidence or no like
proof at all, that I was not fit to go. And they went ahead and they booked everyone else's plane tickets
except mine. And they stopped and said, like, we want you to, like, yah, you can't come. And they put
the burden on me to then prove that I was medically fit to attend. And they forced me to incur more
expenses to go and see a specialist like specifically to write a letter that says I was fine and t hat I could
go for something that they had no right to declare me unfit for. And I was very unhappy with this. And I
actually took this up with Angie. Because, like, one of the teachers in charge for this was Dr Tan, who
is like a medical doctor by training. And, and I think they, like the school, in a way, had taken his
expertise on this because like the fact that he's a medical doctor, and he said, like, okay, Dr Tan thinks
that she, that she is unfit to go. And just because of that, then like, we will ta ke his word for it. And then
that, it’s like, the word of law already.

And I made it very clear to Angie that like, this was not acceptable, because as much as Dr Tan is a
doctor, he was not my doctor, he didn't have any access to my medical records, he di dn't have any, like,
he didn't run any tests or do any kind of like physical assessment on me or nothing. And he had no
basis to be making any kind of proclamations on my, on my medical state. And they tried to use that
lah, as a way to, like, take away, like, an educational opportunity for me, and I was so angry. And it
was just awful, lah, because in the first place, right, this happened on like, like, in the first place, like
the sexual assault happened, happened on campus, like in a place, in a building that they were
responsible for, that they should have ensured the protections of their students in. And failing that, then
failed to like properly handle like student crises, right, with my health and everything where they vastly
overreacted and, like, put me in A&E against my will, then failed to follow up because they didn't so
much as ask me like, okay, so what was actually the problem? Like, what was your actual diagnosis?
Like, are you okay, now? Is there any further support that you need from that? No, nothing. Instead,
they just said, okay, so she had an issue, we sent her to the A&E, seems suspicious, let's make sure that
she can't go for any of our school’s field trips or do anything else because I guess she's just crazy, or
whatever it is, and then let's not, let's not follow up at all. And let's just make all these decisions behind
the scenes and not inform her until like, buy everyone else’s plane tickets and just say, oh, sorry, you
can't come. That's so messed up, that’s really so messed up.
You want to know what they asked me when I applied to be an RA? They asked me whether I was
medically sound, like, mentally sound, and by then it was like, what, why and how, one and a half years
after the fact already. And so they use their knowledge of me – knowledge that they should not have
had in the first place, because like, again, [the College Students’ Committee President] disclosed this
to, like, the higher-ups without my knowledge. And then even after, like, he told Master Seow, then
Master Seow went on to tell Dr Seow without telling me either, like without my consent. And so like the
whole, basically, the entire faculty knew, without like, me-

So like, even after I complained that they were discriminating against me once, right, because they
tried to use this as a reason to exclude me from STEER Myanmar. Then when I tried to apply for my
RA position, they went on to ask like, are you like, psychologically sound for this position? And of
course, I didn't get it. And they will attribute it to other reasons. Or they'll say there are other better
candidates, but let's be honest, like- So yah, I can count the opportunities that I lost because of this.

102
4.21 Interview 27:

I thought they were more on the defensive, so their responses generally suggest they have done their
best (they have not.) TBH, it always boggled me a little because it's as if the school is surprised such
incidents happen - it's like they expect a student body largely in their 20s to be totally asexual...

4.22 Interview 30:

Survivors are often burdened with having to gather evidence to prove that something has happened
before the institution takes action.

5. Framing as sexual misconduct rather than sexual violence (N=22)

5.1 Interview 1:

Well, the general idea when you think of sexual misconduct would be like, a very boys will be boys
kinda thing. Like it's bad behaviour, it's just an attitude problem. So it seems to be more of a thing that
like, just need some, I don't know, like reflection and community work? The idea of misconduct just
makes it become like a professional sort of idea, concepts rather than like an action. When you use like
harassment, or assault, those are like action words. So it sounds harsh.

5.2 Interview 2:

Um, and then in terms of - yah, for NUS, honestly, all I got from it was their email like, really. I don't
think there was anything else that was said about it. Yah, once again, um, just trying to, not really
trivialise, but, like - maybe just like using words better when highlighting the gravity of the situation?
So like, let me see what they sent:

Okay. Yah, sexual misconduct. This one was in November. Something about zero tolerance for sexual
misconduct. And - yah, so misconduct in general, that seems to be their word choice. Which I mean,
see, misconduct can refer to many, many things, you know. I think it's like a very - how do I say - soft
word. Because apparently, rape, sexual misconduct, but then again so is, like, touching someone. Or
you know, I mean, like, misconduct can be anything, I feel, and it's not very specific enough. Um, yah,
they definitely really tend to shy away from like, the words like sexual violence, sexual abuse. Yah. So
they definitely used certain words, not really to like, I don't know if it's like glossing over the situation,
but really, just to make it seem like it's not as bad.

Yah, that it's just not as intense or like, not as bad. Because, okay, first of all they don't really provide
any details of what happened,, they just tell you that this person was accused of what, an d then when
they, and they just said, like, they really just say sexual misconduct, so they don't go into detail. So you
don't even know what the person did. Um, yah. And overall, like sexual misconduct really can be like-
It's easier to phrase in an email, it's easier to write in an email, it's easier to admit, right? It's like, a
professor engaged in sexual misconduct versus my professor inappropriately grabbed my student's
breasts and left her traumatised.

103
5.3 Interview 3:

I think NUS, like, has like a specific sexual misconduct definition in their Code of Conduct thing? Yah,
that I haven’t really, that I haven’t looked at lah. But um, yah. But I think like, if I’m, I’m not sure if
I’m paraphrasing, but I think like, if it’s if you’re talking about also, when NUS defines any, like,
sexual harm- oh, yah. I think when like us defines a case of sexual harm as like a necessary problem,
would probably be related to the, like, the like, the reputation thing we were talking about previously.
But also, like, now that I’m thinking about it again. You could also say that, like um, how to say? Like,
in an institution, usually, I’m assuming that you need people to, you need like, a collective response
that is big enough to, yah, to say that it’s a problem lah. Or like, you need some, you definitely need
like some kind of ground-up channel to inform you whenever there is a problem that the institution at
the top will definitely, will definitely overlook. So it’s like, that’s why I think maybe the problem is also
that NUS didn’t have or like, doesn’t necessarily have that, those channels in the first place. So it’s not
necessarily that like they were at fault for undermining or like, overlooking sexual harm, but like, yah,
they don’t actually have for example, like, if we’re talking about faculty misconduct, then it will be like,
they don’t actually have any proper, like, um, how to say like, like, something that’s more severe than a
teaching evaluation. As in, it’s from personal experience lah, just me trying to complain about my TA
has led to, has led to me realising that, for one, nobody knows where the office in charge of TAs is, like,
I don’t even know what the office will be called, kind of thing.

5.4 Interview 4:
And like, yah, and from the school, it was very defensive, like they wanted to acknowledge they made a
mistake. Like that is the one thing that I kind of remembered, like, they want to acknowledge, you know,
that we are sorry, etc. We'll see how to do. But it was very much like, acknowledge a mistake but
instead of asking the people who called out the mistake what they can improve on, they took it amongst
themselves to improve it. And every feedback session, like they open tonnes of feedback sessions, I will
not lie, like with the President, yah, and the Town Hall as mentioned, but it felt so much like a
pushback from - like, they would only accept, like, they only, like, really acknowledged, you know, the
feedback that was already in their plans. Feedback that, you know, wasn't in their plans, o r going
contradictory to their idealisation of what sexual misconduct / sexual violence was? It - um, how do I
say it? Like, they weren't as supportive? At least I didn't feel as supported. Like, I remember one of the
sessions, like, there's a trans student, like, with me and talk, and when the issues came about, you
know, bathroom security, yah, like they raised the issue about, you know, gender-neutral bathrooms,
and they, you know, were very defensive on their stance, you know, for like, you know, about yes, men
shouldn't enter women's bathrooms, women shouldn't enter men's bathrooms. But I can tell they're
either defending, they're either ignoring the case or defending their stance, which is infuriating as all
hell. And heaven. Because, yah.
Okay, policies I've remembered just acted out in general, like, after both cases, okay. First case, the
security based thing, the doors, you know, the increased restricted access, which the university students
hated. Everyone hated that. I could let you put down that everyone hated that. Survivors hated that. The
perpetrators - perpetrator hated that, that's sounded so, no, that sounds wrong - but just anyone,
affected or not affected by this issue, hated it. Like, it limited the one thing that I know people like
about university life is this general freedom, you know, like, no one - like this, this policy is obviously -
okay, in my opinion, these kind of policies are not the way to go. We should go towards more policies
that actually educate people and you know, talk about systems that engender sexual violence, but still
keep the freedoms that university students so desire. Especially like for most residential areas that
move out into places where they shouldn't feel like they should feel policed.

5.5 Interview 5:

I guess for the students like the recurring theme would be one that like, institutions are not doing
enough? Because like, I think, it is that evident in Monica's case but also in like the Jeremy Fernando

104
 case right, that even after like one year that NUS had to kind of enact certain changes like it was, it still
wasn't enough, it was - it's not good enough to address like, survivors of like sexual harassment or
assault. And also not good enough to, like hold themselves accountable not just to like the survivor s,
but to the wider student body because like the student, the students also have a right to know what's
going on and what actual steps NUS has taken. So I think that's one, like, recurring theme that mainly
students talk about? And also that it's not like, it's not like a singular issue. I think that's something that
students have been saying right, like, it isn't like a case by case problem, it's like a systemic, and like,
institutional problem. So it's like, so it's like-

So it's not like, okay, it's not like, I think it's something important that students don't look at just
Monica's case, like, isolated and like Jeremy Fernando's cases like isolated, right? It's like these things
that like, add up, and it's like, yes, it's systemic lah, it's like you hav e to look at it together, you cannot
look at it, like alone. I think that's something that students, it's like mainly a frame that students take
but like, I feel that NUS doesn't take this train of thought? Like, they look at each, at each incident as
like one incident. So like, okay, this Monica case or like this Jeremy Fernando case, and like - but I
don't know if they don't realise or, like, they don't want to recognise that this isn't like, oh, these aren't
one-off incidents, right? These are like, problems that are systemic. So it's like, you know, things like
toxic masculinity or like, sexism, misogyny, it's like, all linked together. And then that's why we have all
these cases, like, you know, just occurring one after another, like, as we have seen ov er the last two
years, like from Monica's case, like, it's been more frequent, the reports? So like, I don't think - I don't
know why NUS doesn't want to see it as an institutional problem? And, and also like, I feel like they
want, I guess they kind of frame it as like a, they almost frame it as like a very like, okay, at least this
one is more for Monica's case, not really for, I mean, not really for Jeremy Fernando's case? But they,
I remember, like, they framed it a lot as like a, like a security issue and then right after the incident
there was things like, oh, like, you know, you cannot bring a stranger, like, people who don't stay in
your hall, into your hall! Like, you will get new bathroom locks and things like that - but it's like, these
things don't stop, like, sexual assault from happening, right? Like, and it's also not the root cause of the
issue? And NUS's consent module clearly isn't - it's like the bare bones of like, consent? So like, yah,
they refuse to see it as like a, like a, education - it's not only just education, but like, they refuse to see it
like, as more than like, this security issue lah. And yah. As for Jeremy Fernando's case, it was different
because like these things happen like not - it wasn't like a filming incident right? It was like, he went to,
like, harass, harass his students. But it also feels, framing it as kind of like a, oh, like yah, we have a
Staff Code of Conduct and stuff like that, but then it's like, it runs deeper than that lah. Like there's all
these power imbalances and things that students have to think of, but NUS - it feels like NUS doesn't
like take into account in their response that like, now you have a Staff Code of Conduct, and like,
everyone else also has a, like, every other organisation also has a Staff Code of Conduct right? It's like
sexual harassment also occurs in like every other organisation, so like clearly it's not the problem with
like having a Staff Code of Conduct or not having a Staff Code of Conduct.

And then like, I remember the whole like, that they had bathroom locks, right, and things like that. Like,
it was very like surveillance-centric, and, uh - well it didn't really address the root causes of the issue.
And like, also, I just don't think having more surveillance is a good answer to anything. So I was kind
of like, why would NUS do this, but these are like the actions that they can take to show like they are
taking this seriously.

5.6 Interview 6:

I remember the Town Hall. I remember asking people if they were going to the Town Hall. And I
remember after that, there was a survey that was done. Lmao, my friend, like my friends, of course, had
a lot to say about it. And they, I think they, especially during the survey, I think they were, they
disagreed with how some of the questions were phrased. I cannot remember which ones. Oh, I
remember at the Town Hall like, like, people are quite dissatisfied with the Town Hall. I didn't go but
from what I heard, like, yah, people are dissatisfied with the Town Hall because they felt, it felt like
they were not really addressing concerns? I remember. Yah, I do remember them in like, them tending
to use the word sexual misconduct. And everyone was like, no, that's not what happened.

105
 I don't know if this was a narrative, or if it was just how I fe lt, but I'm quite sure that I wasn't the only
one who was thinking this, that it was not fucking sexual misconduct, do not fucking call it sexual
misconduct!

Um, I - Oh, I remember one very clear one. The one where - I don't know if this was a narrative, but
maybe it was the way it was operationalized like sort of contributes to a narrative like them, trying to
deal with it at the very, at the very faci- at the level of facilities like wanting to get more security
cameras, changing the doors, and everyone was like, how is this going to help? Oh, I remember, I
remember thinking that it's something more fundamental that has to change. It's not just about how, it's
not just about a security issue. It's about this, it's about the kind of culture that goes on in dorms, and I
don't know how that's going to be addressed. I guess the whole like addressing it at the facilities level
is already tied to the institution.

Security issues I've already talked about lah, like, I mean, like, it is, I mean, it is, it is an asp ect of that,
but really, like, it's not, it's got, it's got nothing. It's not the core of what is happening. And it did, and
even after they installed that, I remember my friend complaining that like, now that they've done that,
like, it's really hot, like, our bathrooms don't work properly anymore. And it's a whole lot more
inconvenient to get in and like, it's not actually going to stop sexual harassment.

5.7 Interview 7:

Institution, I think like - it was this idea of, like it's just that, it's always like sexual misconduct. And
that, okay, we are taking a strong stance against it, and we want to be more transparent with you.
Which I can see like, I think recently they've started sending like emails to students, I think when the
Ted Hopf thing happened. So it's like I acknowledge that, like, but at the same time, the misconduct
framing is still inadequate in my eyes. So yah, like treating sexual violence as a punitive issue. Yah.
And the whole like, security thing lah.

Also, like adding locks, right, and patrols and all that? I think speaking from personal experience, like
after the CAPT thing happened. Um, I don't think it - and also after Monica Baey in general, I don't
think it really does much, like I don't feel extra safe that there's more security and surveillance going
on? And I think like what you pointed out before, not all campus sexual violence comes from external
perpetrators. A lot of times, it happens in spaces that are like, not very surveillable, like, for example,
your own rooms, like common spaces in, in the College, that kind of thing. Or sometimes even outside
of school, right? So like, yah, like, for example, if it's the Jeremy Fernando case, like, how is security
or surveillance going to tackle that when it's like an internal abuse sort of thing that is going on? Yah,
so like, to me, the security stuff doesn't address that part of like, campus sexual violence lor, which is a
pretty, I would say is a pretty big part of campus sexual violence. Yah.

5.8 Interview 8:

I guess, for the Monica Baey case, the school, the institution kind of angled it as, it wasn't really like
their responsibility, it was just like a tragic incident that happened. It's just, you kn ow, one guy who did
it on his own volition, the school had no control over it, it's just unfortunate. And they were doing the
best that they could to handle it for, for both of the students, which was quite strange, I guess, like the
whole unfair treatment, I guess? The fact that they put the interests of, they seem to put the interests of
the perpetrator above that of the victim? For the Jeremy Fernando case, I guess, again, in a similar
way to, like, the Monica Baey case, NUS didn't really take responsibility, like as an institution? To
them, it was that, oh, it just so happened that, you know, this one guy, unfortunately, did this. And, you
know, I think that a lot of people were quite upset that NUS didn't say that they would be doing
anything to make sure that something like this doesn't happen again. Yah, in a similar way to the
Monica Baey case, they just pinned it on the individual and they didn't recognise it as like an
institutional problem, or like a problem within the NUS community and the mindset s and ideologies

106
 that were perpetuated that allowed these things to happen. And then I think it's also worth noting that
Jeremy Fernando was in a position where like, I believe he was supposed to be the person that these
students were supposed to report to, if something like that happened, which was very ironic, and it -
like, how are you supposed - how do you vet these people, you know, are there even procedures in
place to, to check the backgrounds of these people to make sure that these people aren't abu sing their
power, especially in institutions because if you're giving, if you're giving individuals this kind of power,
to be responsible for the welfare of students, especially in residential halls? Like, I think a lot of us
were quite surprised that, you know, they weren't monitored? And the fact that these students felt that
they had no one to come to because he was supposed to be the person to turn to? I think that, quite
solid that, there's quite a huge flaw in the institution, if these students feel t hat they didn't have anyone
else at all to talk to.

5.9 Interview 9:

I don't think it, I don't think most people will consider violence - what it actually entails and how
violence, and how violence is in a structural and systemic sense. Again, NUS has no conception, the
institution has no conception, NUS always calls it sexual misconduct. They never call it sexual
violence. I mean, I don't think we should be pedantic in that sense lah. But sexual misconduct frames it
as a misconduct, whatever the hell that means. Yah, it's just a violation of conduct, it's a violation of
particular conducts and the guidelines of a staff conduct. Yah, bureaucratic guidelines. And, and,
bureaucratic, sort of, like, morality and ethics. So that is what I can understand on the institutional
level. On the public level, completely no conception of what violence entails. Like, unless they are like
already an academic or they are, you know, students or people on the internet who understand like
discourses on violence. But that is where most of the public accepts these things, they accept these
things as normal. They accept these things, as you know, stuff they should just brush away, or
something you get the police involved in. That's, like, like again, the whole thing about law and order,
and to them, like, they just don't see violence. I don't think they care about survivors. In any sense. They
just see them as you know, either complaining too much. Or they see them as spreading, like, false
allegations against people. Or they just see it as like, yah, you have to go to the police and it'll be
solved.

Institutional framing on both cases were - of course, they were very different. For Monica Baey, it was
very, they made it very clear that it was a security issue, or at least they believed that it was a security
issue. And this was confirmed in the sort of infrastructural changes and policy changes in which they
made or like the sort of policy decisions that they made, which is like you know, the covering of
cubicles. They almost implemented card lock access doors, but what they ended up implementing was
number pad doors. Like number lock, yah, num locks on doors. They also - yah, the patrolling, yes, the
patrolling of residences within, within the NUS, within the NUS ground, and that sort of thing. Yah, as
a very security sort of thing, and also a bit penal as well, because of like the whole, like punishments,
like the the sort of Board of Discipline and the kind of punishment that they can enact, I can't
remember the details of what they were, but they changed some of the internal penal frameworks. But
of course, one of the jokes that came up from the, from the, from online discourses was that, you know,
plagiarism is still more of a, like a serious penal offence as opposed to sexual violence. Yah. Because,
NUS is very well known among its students to have a very harsh stands on plagiarism. Although of
course, I don't believe that penalisation like this is effective in any way. And - but for Jeremy, it was a
bit different. Because this was, this was a case where, and Jeremy was a, was a part of the faculty here.
And it was very apparent that Jeremy was an integral part of the faculty, this was a, this was a staff, at
least not known to the public, but this is a staff member who has participated in college discourses on
sexual violence and consent. And this was a very much loved staff member. Very important fellow. And,
of course, it was, it was a case, it was a case of like, you know, your own people, so called, ike your
own faculty and the people you hire, who have been there for so many years, and so much more than
discourse was on the fact that NUS has to follow guidelines. And also like, whether the Victim Care
Unit was adequate, adequate, as a care unit. It also exposed some, many of the problems that the NUS
care unit was facing. And with regards to like, the law and order, as well, and the complications that
result, yah, in terms of care frameworks, with respect to like, officiality, law and order, yah, it's - but

107
 we could, but, but yah, the institution just, I don't think they really had a position by then because they,
you know-

5.10 Interview 10:

Like, and also this sense of unfairness? Because, yah, this sense of unfairness in like the punishment,
the punishment that the perpetrators receive. I would say that for students, there are a lot of people
who are also disappointed with, like, the lightness of the punishment, in comparison to, I think people
have compared this to like, you know, y'all know how you get punished if you plagiarise, accidentally
or something? You'll know how you get expelled, or you get like all kinds of punishments, if like, you
plagiarize, you do this, you do that. Yah. Yah, like, there was. It was, it was really less of like the
punishment itself, and more like comparing it, in comparison.

Yah, like even - no matter how geared towards restorative or transformative justice, like anyone is,
right, everyone was shocked by the unfairness of like, how severe - because we all know how severe
punishments are, like for many, many non-violent - never take temperature you kena, yah, you break
COVID rules - and by break COVID rules, I mean, you have like six instead of five people in your, in
your room? I don't know, like- yah, it's like, wow, okay lah. So, so we see where you are, it's - and the
reason this shocked, you know, both students and the public because it shows, it sends a very clear
message about what the priorities are, you know, like um, like, Oh, so your priority is that students
should, you know, your priority of student conduct has, I don't know, more to do with writing down
something correctly, you know, maybe some sentence of no consequence, and making sure it follows all
the correct guidelines and everything. And that is prioritised over - over violence, over actual violence
that affects people!

And there was this, and the reason why this is the reason why this is, the reason why this shocked, I
think, both students and the public so hard is because that is the narrative, I mean, that's the framing
from the university. That's the framing from the institution, that this is an act of sexual misconduct, that
misconduct means, that misconduct means some breaking of rules, some breaking of some abstract
concept that we have agreed not to do, rather than an act of violence that actually happened to
someone who has to live with it for the rest of their life. And there was a sense of, you know, lack of -
not only empathy, but lack of humanity or understanding in that.

Yah, because it's very clear. Like if um - because the, the violence that has been enacted is very, is
fundamentally tied to the, to having your choice and your agency, like, violently forced away from you.
That is what it is to like, experience sexual violence. And if you see that, you will not do that again, to
someone who has experienced that. You wouldn't - that's the, that's the very last thing you will do. The
focus will be on what do they want, what, and respecting what their choices, and their autonomy, and
reassuring them that their experience is over and now they have agency. But if you do it again, the
experience is not over for them. So that's what you would do if you saw it as violence, as an institution.
But what has been done is telling of seeing this as misconduct, which is like rule-breaking. When a rule
is broken, when you see as a, when you, when you see, when you think of it as a rule being broken, you
think of it as a wrong, that someone has done on the institution, because the institution is the one with
these rules, right? And if you think that's the case, you think the institution has like the, the right to
decide. And so this is very important in terms of framing.

5.11 Interview 11:

As far as narratives go, I guess you could frame it as more, more survivor-centric when it comes to you
know, assessing the responses from the students themselves. But when you start to shift your gaze to,
say, the general public, right? It starts to be more of a - how to say - they're more focused on the
outcome of the case than they are the well-being of the survivors. Right? And they're also more focused

108
 on the outcome, as opposed to say, the, the environment or the factors that had led to how such a
situation can even arise to begin with.

So what I understand from a lot of people that I spoke to, personally after both cases was that, you
know, it's good that NUS had launched the investigation, it's good that NUS had done, had gone ahead
and reported this case to the police. It's good that NUS is ramping up surveillance practices in the, in
the halls, in the residence communities, whether or not these surveillance practices actually are doing
any good, or even how they're being implemented. There's not much discussion on their part. It's just
that you know, NUS is doing its job, it's good. So that's the general feel I get from speaking to
laypeople, maybe people older than me, mostly people older than me, like middle-aged people,
regarding the cases. But then when you, when you ask them further about, hey, so how do you feel
about the fact that you know, NUS went ahead with making the report without really consulting,
whether the survivors were going to be able to consent to that. Then for them, it's like, oh, it was what
was necessary, it was what that needed to be done. And, you know, at the end of the day, you know, it's
sort of like justifies itself, because you just want to charge the perpetrator. And so their idea is very
much more on like, what is the legal compensation? What is the legal outcome for the perpetrator, as
opposed to any of the other aspects of the case?

Then the third one was, I think, the institution, is that right? Okay. Hmm, I suppose I wouldn't be able
to speak very much about that, just because I'm not in a position of organisational leadership within
the institution. So it was very neutral. They tried to stay away from any form of emotion-laden
language as what they would usually do for anything. So I do remember, for both cases, it was framed
more towards, like what you mentioned earlier, just sexual misconduct, it would never be framed as
sexual violence or any way of framing it as sexual assault of any nature. They would not, they would
just frame it as sexual misconduct. So in the most neutral, mild way, they could say it without
undermining the nature of the offence. Yah. And based off the circulars that we had in our emails, it
seems like it was framed as, NUS had their own reasons for taking the time that they did, and that now
that they are releasing the details of the investigative process, they are making the effort to be
transparent. So yah, it felt that way.

5.12 Interview 12:

For NUS, I guess they see as sexual misconduct because it seems like probably for them, it seems like
the most neutral word to use, especially if they're going to have to report things to news outlets. So it
seems to like reduce the harm that is done, when in reality it does not lah. That's why probably NUS
also wants to use misconduct, because it seems like a, like an easier term, and then can cover
everything in a more broad sense.

Monica's case, not really because, it seemed like their first time dealing with such a big, like, hoo-ha.
So for them, it was, I think, a lot of things were taken out off their hands because people were up in
arms about being angry. So they could only do small short term and fast policy changes, like the toilet
doors, for example. But as mentioned, they don't do anything about the root cause.

Policy wise for Monica's case, at least in the residential colleges, they did some infrastructure changes.
So now in all the showers, there's one cubicle that is completely fenced off. So you physically cannot
see into the toilet when someone is showering. To me, I was like, I guess, it's a very stopgap situation,
but I guess it can help. I don't remember much about the Monica case afterward, because it seemed
like they were more focused on the punishment, rather than, oh let's fix things internally. Yah, because
it was the first time something like this has blown up so much. They didn't think about solving the root
cause, they were more like, oh, let's deal with the consequences. Yah, again, as you mentioned before,
reactionary lor, this thing happened, let's deal with it.

109
5.13 Interview 13:

Two things that I can note, off the top of my head would be, one: isolating each incident, and two:
calling it misconduct rather than calling it sexual violence or, or harassment or any other term that
might sound inflammatory, in their view. So for the isolation of cases, so I think this is obviously not
new, they're always going- about the isolation thing, okay, people do recognise that ther is a continued
trend of sexual violence in maybe NUS, NTU but the thing is they don't see it as, maybe a problem of
educational illiteracy, they just see it as, just a, they just see it as, oh the school has a lot of perverts.
Yah. And, and because of that, they don't, they aren't able to identify what's the root causes and, and
how we can better help our survivors and and prevent sexual violence and just improve the overall
sexual climate on campus. It's just like, oh, yah, that it's all these, like, don't go to these schools, there
are, like, weird people are there, which is an understandable sentiment if you're an ou tsider. But it just,
obviously, only makes the problem more, I would say, normalised? It just naturalises it and makes it
out to be like, oh, it's always going to be that way that this school has all of these perverts, or what
have you, whatever people frame or label these people, these aggressors as. Yah. Which is - it's very,
it's very weird, because - yah, they don't really get what's going on and it's like, oh, I heard about
another new case in your school again. That's what I've been getting when I do talk to people about
what's going on and what we do at safeNUS. So that's on like the community, on the outsiders side, so
like the general public.

With students, it's a little bit more varied, because there are definitely people who, who know that this
is a bigger and possibly growing problem of, there's so many, so many factors, factors of power, social
knowledge/literacy and all that, there's just so much multivalent. And with students, there's people who
have maybe, well who are survivors themselves, or are allies, or friends of survivors, and then there's
people who never think that it's going to surround them, that they never think they're going to be
involved. So they just stay out of it. They say they're not political or not interested in social just ice. And
so it's just something that they don't see on. Yah, they're just like, oh, this is a thing that happens, I have
no stake in it. So there's another- there's that kind of apathy that I also see, besides the brushing it off,
and isolating it. Yah, and the other one that I said was - okay wait, I mentioned isolation and - okay.
Yah. With the institution. Yah. I think they have no choice but to treat every case as another threat to,
to their order? Not to sound dramatic, but there's, there's that. So th at's why they feel the need to clamp
down and, and intensify their penalty. So that they can maintain some form of order and control over,
over this situation that is, that might be spiralling. They say, okay, so these are all the things that we're
going to do. We take the hardline stance against it, and you can see this through our numbers and
increased rules. They need something to quantify their action, which is fair, but again, they didn't, they
didn't keep the student body in mind when they - so, yah, there's, I, at this stage it's no longer about
isolating the cases, but rather just trying to, to rein everything in? And as we saw in the Jeremy
Fernando case, to keep their, their name intact, which is a common, pretty commonly seen thing to be
doing for organisations, where sexual violence cases do surface. But obviously, in Singapore, it's much
more heightened, as with NUS.

5.14 Interview 14:

Then for, from the institution. Like, I think one thing that we were very, very irritated but also had our
hands tied somewhat about was the, of course the use of the sexual misconduct, like, phrase. I mean,
the framing of misconduct, like it suggests that of course, it's mostly about contravening whatever rules
are there, rather than like, you know, this is a moral like, this is a moral problem, like not moral, but
like this is an ethical problem. This is like a violation of someone's, like, privacy and bodily autonomy.
Like, yah, so it was framed in that terms, very disciplinary. So we were kind of, we were kind o f pissed
about it. But then I think at the time we didn't, like, we didn't think of using sexual violence as like a
phrase at the time. So we were using mainly harassment and assault. Yah, sexual harassment and
assault, to like, sort of as, like, for more specific terms. So I think misconduct seemed like one of those
like, very unsatisfactory umbrella terms that we had to use in, like, statements also, because it's like,
when you write a statement, you're also referring to how the institution, like, has commented already,
or how the institution has spoken? So like, we had to sort of mirror some of the language to, like,

110
 address some of the things that NUS had done or said lah. Yah, but that was one thing that was very
unsatisfactory because of the disciplinary way that it was framed. And also, let me think ah- yah, I was
very pissed off about like, NUS’s framing of, like, it as a, like a security, like a security issue. And then,
like, which warranted more surveillance and like ridiculous levels of like, like , changing physical
infrastructure, as if that will actually help anything, like, yah.

Yah, so that really pissed me off the most, because it was also the thing that NUS talked about the
most? And it was the, it was sort of like the most, the most obvious way in which NUS could, lik,e
default to like showing that, oh, they want to do something about this to the public because the public
was mostly like concerned parents, like who all want to take the pitchfork and, like, set fire to NUS
because their kid is in NUS? So, yah, like, I think that's why like that, that's what I felt lah, like, they
were trying to appeal to parents and hence they, hence they relied a lot on things like, oh we will put up
this physical infrastructure, etc. Because it's a very tangible and like, visible way that you can literally
show parents? But for like students, of course, like students know better than to think that these things
will work because, like, we know that, I mean, literally, even if you put locks on the bathrooms or like,
you make the, you make the stalls, like full length and all that, like, there are still going – like predators
just get smarter, or like predators just get, like, more crafty and all that and they'll find ways around it.
And also because predators don't exist, like primarily in the bathrooms, like, they’re just every fucking
where, like, what are you gonna do if there's like, sexual, sexual violence that happens in the lounge,
like during, in open sight, like, so? Yah, it's just nonsense lah.

And I think it was also like very, it was very, at the front of my mind because like at the time before,
even like right before the Monica incident like I was in LoveUSP right, the mental health one and like
in Gender Collective so I was dealing with, like three survivors who came forward to me to like, to
share about like their, their rapist and like the assaulter like, in my house lah, like in USP. So I was
dealing with, like, that, because, yah, and I mean, to me, it was obvious because like, literally most of
these like harassment and assault incidents happened in like, so called consensual, like, territory, and
also like happened in like, really completely innocuous settings like house parties and all that like not
even like party party where alcohol is involved, but just like straight up like those officially organised
like events where people have food that is used, that is like set up by the house. And then you go there
and it's like all the house people from USP in your house. It's like a very, very innocent and like normal
event and like my friends got harassed and assaulted there. So I was just like, okay, is NUS also going
to ban house parties, then? Does NUS want to like, you know, ban all open public spaces and prevent
us from like, interacting with each other ever? Yah, because that's essentially what they were doing,
trying to do, for infrastructure.

5.15 Interview 15:

And I think, like, that's exactly what the problem was, right? The fact that NUS only saw this as like a
survivor-perpetrator problem, that, oh, by punishing the perpetrator, by going hard on them, by having
more punitive measures, we’re somehow eradicating the entire problem of sexual violence when all
these other structures are still there and they're still violent. And that's precisely what we saw in t he
Fernando incident right? Like the way that the survivors were not centred, they were not asked about
whether or not they wanted to pursue this as a police case. And I think that just goes to show how off -
base the university is, about their approach to sexual violence, and how promises of, like, more
surveillance, more punishment for perpetrators, isn't what we're looking for, I think, for Fernando
case, there was also the important point that actually sometimes, like not sometimes, but like, very
likely, these people who cause harm, they are from our own communities. Like, Fernando was almost
part of the safeNUS, right? He was in our circles, he was in all of this, like you would think like, oh,
left-leaning progressive circles, and he still caused harm. Like none of us. None of us are exempted
from this. And that's something that we should always be mindful of, ‘cause NUS employs all these
security, constructing CCTVs. But my question is: who are you surveilling? Like, it comes from us.
Right? Like what we’re talking about, like, the harm is coming from our community. And it's time for us
to like, direct, redirect our attention to ourselves, like why why why are these people behaving in this
way in our own communities? And I feel like, that's like the more complex and complicated question to

111
 be asked, and which is why the university isn't asking it, because there's no straightforward policy or
like, recommendation that can be done to to solve this or to answer to this.

I mean, yah, I think like what NUS do is very much in line with what they thought was good, which was
so yah, okay, so we have to remove to to obliterate like the perpetrator because they are like the
alienated, unwanted thing that we have to dissect from our system, and they are the problem i n
themselves. And so yah like, suspending them, which I think is important for like, survivors’ safety and
mental well-being. But you know, with that, like, yah, police report, lodging police report, having more
security guards, having more surveillance, I remember like in the aftermath of Monica Baey, like being
on campus was a very strange experience. It was like, I've never seen that much surveillance, I think
like, I even like got, like I would, I would get asked for like my card. So there was that there's also the
idea of surveillance that oh okay, if you're an NUS student, that means that you can't do any harm.
That means you're not an unwanted being on campus. You're not, you're not an unwanted but you're
not, you're not a dangerous voyeur on campus. But I mean, all our cases have been the perpetrators
have been NUS students. So should even the way they surveil is like not very, like they didn't really
think it through, you know?

5.16 Interview 17:

Um, I remember us trying very very hard to frame it as misconduct. They try to frame it as a discipline
issue, like a minor discipline issue. But you know if you don't take temperature, you stay in Hall but
you don't take temperature, same punishment as sexual misconduct. Meh! Make! this! make! sense! It
doesn't make sense.

No, it should – no, one is a crime! One! is! a! crime! One is a precaution, one is a crime. One deals
with forgetting to take your temperature, one deals with perpetrators who should be in jail. It's very,
it's not the same level NUS, it is not the same category. They're very very different topics. Why did they
put them together in the same office?

It’s not conduct, it’s not conduct at all, it's not how you behave. It's straight up legal crimes leh. At
least put under security also never mind, you know. Conduct - the way they say it is really euphemism.
They use euphemism when it comes to sexual misconduct, we're gonna call it assault. It's not even
misconduct. It's straight-up assault. The euphemism isn't making things any better. It’s redefining
misconduct. Framing in terms – yah, they frame both of them the same way lah, they frame both of
them as misconduct.

5.17 Interview 19:

I think when - oh, yah, so when the case got public, and what happened is that, I was still staying on
campus at that point in time. So, um, what we, what I saw, because the Monica Monica Baey case was
a peeping tom incident, right? Yah, so what the university's immediate reaction to it was to like, you
know, you know, in the cubicles of toilets, there’s like that gap at the top of the doors and stuff so like
in between the wall and the door, there's like a bit of a gap for like the air to pass through. So they
were trying to like, sort of put some cover, some kind of like a, like covering on, on the ceiling, yah,
kind of thing. Which didn't make sense to me, because they will only do that to one of the cubicle even
though there was like five. Yah, it’s like, but that's not really solving any of the issues, right? And I
think what happened towards the end of the semester, like literally, I think, two days before the
semester ended, like before we had to like, move out of, of – we had to, like, pack and leave and stuff. I
think either two days or one day before, what happened is that there was another incident that
happened. I can't remember where, I think it might be Raffles Hall. So a very like, another peeping tom
incident happened at that point in time. So every, like the people who were in, still on campus at that
point in time – because people Saturday clear out already right? So those of us who were still behind,
all the residential assistants were telling us, okay, you know what, if you're going to the toilet, just lock
the doors, keep yourself safe and stuff like that, but so everybody was just like on high a lert lah, ‘cause

112
 like, you know, the sem’s ending. And suddenly, there's like, suddenly, like, so many new cases that's
happening, popping up. Which I guess just put everyone in a bit of like a panic. Especially because you
are someone who was, who was staying on campus, right? And then it’s just like, what’s happening?

You know, so I guess, like, I don't know, it was very sudden, because for me, that was my last semester
on campus. So it was when I was supposed to be like, okay, now I'm done. I'm gonna. Be cause Tembu
is a two year programme mah, and I was year two by that time so I was gonna, like, you know, I'm
done. I'm gonna stay at home from now on, kind of thing. So, in the two years that I stayed on campus,
I didn't know that this has happened before. You know, at least I wasn’t made aware of it lah, if there
had been any other cases. But then, you know, when this was happening, literally back to back, just a
few days before I was leaving, I was very, I don't know, I feel very shocked, I guess. Because , you
know, you're someone, you literally have been living there for so long. And then suddenly, all of these
issues pop up. You're like, oh my god, you know, this could have been – like, it could have been me, it
could have been someone I know. That’s so scary. And it's like, it really makes you be, I guess, on
edge? Because you, you're, it's literally where you're living, you know, it's supposed to be where you
feel safe, and like, that kind of thing. So when this kind of thing happen, you're like, oh my god, you
know, it's, it's not something that's not happening. It has happened before. It's even quite rampant. And
the way the university was responding to it was making things worse, basically. Because they were
literally – okay, honestly, at that point in time. I think everybody's general opinion, I might be wrong,
but at least my opinion was that the university isn't actually trying to help the students. They're just
trying to cover their, their, their backs. So they're just trying to like, you know, oh, yah. Oh, we are
definitely doing something about this, you know, it’s like a reactionary response, like –
Yah, yah. So it's like, you know, when the students are saying something like, hey, you know, why aren't
you doing anything about it? And then they're like, look, we are doing something about it. But the thing
is, what you're doing is not what is needed, you know. There’s like a huge gap between what's needed
to be done and what they're doing. So they're just using whatever surface-level solutions they have to
solve the problem. Yah, and I mean, okay, honestly, at that point in time, I felt like, it was too sudden
for them to make institutional changes. So fine, you know. I heard the Town Hall also didn't really go
well. But I guess they were just, weren't prepared enough to handle the questions lah, which, I don't
understand why also, you're literally a university, like honing students who are going out into the
world. The students are definitely going to come up with like, hard questions for you. Exactly. And
they're gonna expect you to, like be able to respond to them. I don't know. I feel like the expectation the
university has on students, even now, I feel like the expectations the university has on students is like,
you know, once you graduate, you're supposed to be ready to work, ready to face adulthood and stuff
like that. But the minute we do behave as adults and ask for accountability, they just pretend like we're
kids, and then they're like, eh look, we're dealing with it, just let us – you get I mean? So I'm just like,
why, why is there, why is there such a huge disconnect? You're literally wanting us to think critically.
And then when we do try to think critically, you’re telling us to stop thinking about it.

Yes! I know! And the thing is, it's not even - the thing is, when you see the toilet, it just makes it even
more ridiculous. Because there's five cubicles and you close off one toilet, because you don't have the, I
guess, the manpower or the materials or the money to like, cover up everything, then, okay, if you think
about it, right, from the perspective of the perpetrator, if they see that cubicle is blocked off, what are
they gonna do? They are just gonna move to the other one! It's like you're not even solving any issue,
then, like, you're not even solving it on a surface level!

5.18 Interview 20:

So, I will talk about social media first for the Monica Baey case, which is basically, a pile of Instagram
stories and interactions that Monica did with, because she unprivated her account and then after that
made her story public, and made the consequences, and made the actions by NUS public as well, which
then caused a lot of stir, memes also on social media, talking about like, and which then created this,
basically, like, a huge, huge amount of noise about the, about why - okay, about a few topics, actually.
Number one, why is sexual harassment still a thing? Why is the term sexual misconduct used instead of
sexual violence or sexual harassment, a topic that became, that constantly came up in the subsequent

113
 cases that happened. Why were the measures taken by NUS very rudimentary, or if not, in the first
place - not enough lah, for lack of a better way of saying it.
The student discourse is more related to - why are the, why were the original responses very
organisation-centric. Why was the term sexual misconduct used as compared to sexual harassment or
violence?

5.19 Interview 21:

However, I think there was a lot of, I guess, the discussion on, you know, like, the idea of - it's a multi-
faceted discussion, and it's the most pressing issues where an issue of education and, like, the issue of
security comes up. I mean like it inevitably, also concern things like privacy of students and things like
that. I mean, if you remember, there was a discussion on the cameras. Installation of camera, then
there's this issue of like, you know, like have to strengthen the, you know like, need to hide, like need to
block on the gap, on the cubicle doors and things like that. Whenever it becomes a - I mean, some
students, I think, feel that, I think, the school was losing sight of what is really the issues here lah.
Of course like, for the institution I think they try to - I mean they themselves now cannot accept, like,
use the word sexual harassment in, in their, in their lingo, right, to describe things, it's still very much
like sexual misconduct and things like that. So I don't think they have any conception of violence, or
rather the usage of this idea of violence in the first place.

5.20 Interview 22:

I think - their response to the incident was very much like, I mean, I think the setting up the Victim Care
Unit in particular was like a big part of their, like, oh, we're going to do better narrative, right? I think,
um, or I guess I would also add, like surveillance to the theme from administration? Very much like,
oh, like, we're going to have better, like, surveillance, to make sure like, boys don't enter the girls’
dorms or something like that. That was the the vibe that I got? I think also like, the very specific, like
use of the word victim rather than like survivor, for example.
Um, yah, I think it's very much like, I guess. Yah, like very much seeing it as like a case of like
misconduct, rather than an issue that is much broader, which like, as it ties back to like, gender and
patriarchy, and blah, blah, blah. But yah, I think they were very much focused on the like, Victim Care
Unit, and like, surveillance, and addressing the very, like surface level, or the very immediate things
that were happening.

I think for Monica Baey's incident, like, the most concrete one was like setting up the Victim Care
Unit? I heard, I don't know of like, of like, yah, just like more surveillance and like more regulations
around like, whether you know, like dudes can go into like, female dorms or whatever. I think that's
pretty silly and ridiculous. And I don't think it's effective. I'm sure it doesn't work. I'm sure people – and
also like, just in principle, it really doesn't get to the heart of the issue which is sexual violence, right?
It's not like, I mean, it's not interactions across Tinder. Um, I think my, I am suspicious of like, their,
I'm, I'm suspicious as to whether their like Victim Care Unit is really like survivor centric or like their
new policies are survivor centric. Um, yah. And I think they are quite understaffed, but –

5.21 Interview 26:

Initially, NUS only gave the accused for Monica Baey’s case suspension for a semester and have
implemented stricter dormitory rules. On the other hand, for Jeremy Fernando’s case NUS was quick
to removed his position as a professor.

114
5.22 Interview 30:

But, I think that there is a lot more work to be done. NUS’ measures, as I have said before, are very
reactionary in nature and they have made little attempt to have more robust consent trainings. Their
excuse is that the scale of the institution is too large for a more effective consent module. I think there
is still an air of conservativeness when it comes to sexual misconduct as well. Every time the topic
comes up with NUS administrators, it’s almost a taboo and people speak with great caution. Naturally,
that means that there is a lot of stigma still associated with misconduct, and makes it hard for survivors
to feel supported in NUS. The focus of misconduct cases is still the scale of punishment— not
rehabilitation. There are few attempts to help perpetrators reintegrate and to learn from their actions.
Misconduct cases are also filed based on evidence and investigation as a result, because the institution
needs to guarantee that harm was caused to justify the punishment.

6. Elitist standards in distributive injustice of "second chances" (N=20)

6.1 Interview 1:

So for Monica Baey, the anger was at a lack of consequences, what was perceived as a, like a, slap on
the wrist. And so the call was for harsher punishments. Like that was the general public. A lot of
students also, like if they weren't talking about consequences they were talking about the Victim Care
Unit basically, having some kind of support. But yah, the dominant narrative was definitely one on
punishment. Or, I guess, in this case, NUS's inability or refusal to give stricter punishment.

I mean, I think the whole system needs an overhaul. It's - the idea, like, the idea of having stricter
punishments or having rehabilitation kind of just overlooks the entire fact that a lot of this, like, current
attitude towards sexual assault, that like people think they can get away with it, and, or that it's not that
much of a big deal in the first place. It's a build up of a lot of things that start from childhood. So yah,
it's like just putting another bandaid on a giant gaping hole.

6.2 Interview 2:

Right obviously, I think during that - for the Monica Baey one, I think it was after the other NUS dude
got pardoned for his touching someone on the public transport. I think it happened after right, I think?
So a lot of people were like, oh, because you know NUS means like, you know, he's a, you know, he
does well in school, his grades are good, so he can get away with something like that.

6.3 Interview 5:

I feel like for NUS it's very clear cut, like the, like legal justice, or like, you know, like NUS’s rule. Like,
okay, he broke this rule, right. So we’re just going to give him the punishment, like for this rule, right?
It's not, you don’t take into account the harm he caused the survivor or like you know, like what his
actions have impacted- how it has impacted like the wider NUS community? Like I don't think like they
take that into account. So like I really remember this, like at the Town Hall, this some idiot was like –
see, I don’t know if I’m supposed to say that, but like – I remember he stood up and spoke, then he was
saying how like he doesn't think the victim should have a say in the perpetrator’s punishment and also

115
 he said, like, that we should only, like the punishment should be like equal to the amount of like
physical harm caused and I was so annoyed at that because like, then you don’t take into account all
this emotional trauma and like mental trauma which are like the main consequences like, or the main
things that survivors experience like after these kinds of like harassment or assault, right? It's like, it's
like, I've been like harassed before, and it’s like I didn’t get hurt at all, but it’s like the fear like you feel
like your own, like, you have to take that into account when you're like, committing like, your like,
punishment lah, I guess like punishment in the most, like, bare sense lah. So like NUS’s sense of justice
is quite, like, straight, like okay, you know like, he get punished, he get expelled or suspended. I also
feel like most of the public kind of thinks the same, so like a lot of people were calling for like oh,
stronger suspension or like, were like, expel him, you know that kind of thing. But it’s like – and while I
do agree, I do agree to a certain extent lah, that like his punishment should have been harsher because
from what I recall, it really was quite minimal, like to the minimal it was even lesser than like
plagiarism in NUS which is quite, um-

6.4 Interview 6:

Another narrative of the institution, I mean, of course, like, the guy is just a student, like, and there was
a whole, I – there was a whole thing like, should we treat this guy as a student and like, give him a
second chance or whatever? Or, like, we need to try this guy like an adult. I also felt that – I think
maybe it’s, it’s – I guess it was also, I remember my grandma saying, like, he, like, he's not a kid
anymore. Like he is an adult now. And I think I largely felt the same way?

6.5 Interview 8:

People were saying that the, that Monica Baey was ruining the perpetrator's life when, you know - it
was quite ironic that people that they weren't considering that the perpetrator had ruined her life, you
know, you know what kind of trauma that kind of experience can leave on somebody?

But the public kind of viewed it as you know, like, oh, the school, the school will protect you, I think
there’s, like a, there's a whole, like, culture, a meme culture now, surrounding NUS, and how, like, you
know, you can, as long as you do well, in school, as long as you go to NUS, the school will protect you,
even if you're a sexual predator. That whole idea of like, immunity.

I guess for the Jeremy Fernando case, the most prevalent one was the, the abuse of power within the
institution as well, like the fact that, you know, people of power were able to get away with it.

6.6 Interview 9:

Whether perpetrators - sorry, people who are responsible for sexual violence necessarily need to face,
like, consequences - I guess the general consensus is that people do expect that sort of thing lah, that
they believe that perpetrators should have consequences, but, but it's, but it's not something that is
homogenous.

6.7 Interview 10:

But there was, the Part Two was the more important part of this narrative. It was the main part of the
narrative, and the main part of the narrative was that the follow-up was horrible. Like, there was – the
follow-up was very not survivor-centric, and it ended in, it culminated in like, the perpetrator writing
some kind of what, like, a sorry letter? Yah, like, we’re 12 years or something? Like, yah, like he's in

116
 primary school or something? And he, I don’t know, like he was late for class, or something like that,
instead of a grown person inflicting violence on another person.

6.8 Interview 11:

You know, earlier, I mentioned a bit about compensation to the survivor. I think that as a whole, the
compensation is largely minimal. The compensation is not there, possibly because NUS does not place,
or institutions in Singapore at least don't place that much emphasis on providing compensation,
because it is not their compensation to provide, you know what I mean? It's – the onus is on the victim
to seek out the appropriate compensation from, say, the people who had wronged them. But what
NUS's role in these cases is to investigate the case, because it happened on their grounds, and they
need to maintain their reputation as a place that does not condone such, such cases from happening,
they don't condone such actions happening on their grounds. So that is why they're more focused on
the outcome, they're more focused on the consequences to the perpetrator. Right, and in order to reach
the consequences, they need to do an investigation. And so that is where NUS’s focus is now, it’s
whether they have completed the investigation sufficiently and swiftly, you know, to their best
knowledge.

6.9 Interview 13:

And then with regard to penalties, obviously, if you're survivor-centric, you definitely care about what
the survivor wants to see the – like, okay, this is a bit of a shaky ground, but yah, like it's really
important to ask survivors if, if they want to be implicated in sexual violence cases, because some of
them don't, some of them think that they want to carry it through to the end. Extremely important for
that to be, to be one of the first thing that's checked. And yah, I think we're also – at safeNUS, we’re
also learning more about how best to treat perpetrators? But it definitely does come down to – other
than the basic, oh you get suspended or whatever, the, they have – the institution has a part to play in,
in treating the perpetrator as someone who maybe can reason, who is a person, and maybe unless this
person is so far gone, that they they don't realise the error of their ways or they're just a terrible human
being then in that case then it’s out of their hands, but it's really important for them to humanise,
everybody involved, whether the survivor or the perpetrator, but not to the extent that, that some people
have been doing where they're like, oh, now their entire future is ruined, because that's a whole other
ballgame.

6.10 Interview 14:

I mean, there were genuinely people who felt that like, like, more more disciplinary, like penalties
needed to be in there, which I honestly, I knew where they were coming from, because they wanted
accountability. And they like, I think, to a lot of people, one thing I saw was that, like their difficulty
with embracing restorative justice came primarily from the fact that like, it's very difficult to jump from
the lack of justice to restorative justice simply because that like, you don't, you don't even have faith in
the institution to be – yah, you don't even have faith in the institution to be able to, like, acknowledge
that this person, like needs consequences. So that's why, yah, so that's why a lot of people were like, I
mean, they were, they were for some level, even if a small level of like, stricter penalties on the
disciplinary side. ‘cause they wanted some level of like, like clear consequence that will happen. And
not just, you know, like these people. I mean, what I saw also was that like, people were quite angry,
like people who were like trying to put forth the case for like more disciplinary stuff like they were, they
saw it as like, oh like these, I mean these predators get free, free therapy essentially, because they get
the free counselling as part of the rehabilitative side of like, what NUS was proposing like you get the,
you get like I think counselling as well as like the disciplinary penalties. So they were like, you know,

117
 UHC like takes so long, you wait like three, four months every, every time for like an appointment. And
this is for like regular people who have to wait.

Yah, it's like very different like forensic versus, forensic versus like the normal counselling, but I think
because like to a layperson, like- yah. So it's like, they were like, you know, how come like the
predators their life so good one ah, they get the free counselling, then like their disciplinary stuff is
also just like suspension only, they can just take internship, no big deal. So, and it also doesn't
necessarily go on their record all the time, depending on the offence. So that's why they felt that, you
know, there should at least be some disciplinary penalties. That’s why I totally understood where they
were coming from. They just want accountability.

6.11 Interview 18:

Well, I remember for the Monica Baey case, there was a lot of uproar over the sentencing. And the fact
that Monica herself, obviously, she took to social media to share her grievances over the light sentence,
and she felt like it was not justified, or there's still some sort of injustice there. And obviously, the
student population felt the same way and rallied behind her, which was why there was a student
petition calling for there to be not just like harsher penalties, but also to provide support for Monica
and other victims of sexual assault in NUS.

I think for the students, what counts as just is what, I suppose they look towards what the survivor feels
about the whole issue, if a victim of sexual assault or sexual violence feels that, she feels that a
particular sentence is too light, you know, the perpetrator deserves more, because that's how she feels.
And I think students tend to rally behind that as well.

So the stance when it comes to like a student who is a perpetrator of sexual assault is that maybe this
person is still young, there's a, this person has a bright future. And we should try and help this student
by not, by not penalising or punishing him too much. Whereas the stance for faculty members from the
point of view of institutions would be that, well, this person is a faculty member, he has a lot more
power, he should have known that this is wrong. And so you'll be fired.

6.12 Interview 19:

Exactly! Oh my god, then I was just like, who are you doing this for? It’s so obviously just to cover
your own backs, you're not solving any issue, you know? And that's the thing, that's why I was so fed
up, because you know, at first you are like, okay, maybe they're ju st doing this because it's an
immediate thing, they only have a couple of months to react. You, they didn't have enough time to make
like institution-wide changes or something. I'm not too sure how long the policy takes. So I was like,
fine, you know, at least they're aware this problem exists and it’s brought up to the public eye, means
that they are pressured to do something about it.

But the thing is, I think when – when they were trying to make those changes, right, they were, they, I
think I remember, or they, they did make some changes to the way they punish the perpetrator. Right?
If I'm not wrong? So because the initial concern was that he literally got away scot -free with like
nothing on his record or something. So now what they had done is that if any of this happened, then
that student will be suspended or something like that, which I thought was, okay, you know what, at
least they're doing something about it lah. And I think that was a good start, to, I guess, like going
forward lah, because you know, you are looking at it, you are seeing that there is something that's
happening, and you're trying to make something, which is fine. But the problem is, when the next
situation, like so, you know, by principle, by book, it seems fine, because you did implement new laws
to be more strict towards perpetrators. But then when the next situation comes up, you're just like,
okay, you know, there are definitely more cases happening. And the problem isn't just, I guess, it, how
to say it? I guess it's like, it's not about punishing the perpetrators only, but also, like, making sure that

118
 the survivor has enough help? And I guess I feel like that's, well, I mean, okay, maybe because in, in
the public eye, in the media, everybody's response was more towards like an anger, angered response,
like, hey, why isn't he, why isn't this person who did something wrong getting the punishment that they
deserve kind of thing, but then we kind of just don't really talk about the survivor. Which, which
translated, which translated over lah, definitely, because the next time, the next these situations are
happening, you know, you're still having survivors who are having to deal with all these processes that
are not properly put out for them. And, and you know, it comes to a point where, so what if the
perpetrator is punished if the survivor can’t get the help that they need? Kind of thing.

It really jarringly shows that they're just trying to do something so that they can tell everybody, hey
look, we’re do- you asked us to do something, we're doing something, isn't that what you wanted? But
what - the something that we want them to do, is not the something that they're doing, you know? It's
like, what is the point, you know?

Yah, yah. And this shouldn't even be the bare minimum, this, this is below that, this is below the bare
minimum. You're not even. You're not even. It's not even preventing. I don't know, there's not, it's not
preventative. It doesn't help. It's not punitive. It doesn't help the survivor, I don't know who is it fo r, you
know? It doesn't. It doesn't, I guess, demotivate the perpetrator, potential perpetrator or anything also
what, you get what I mean? It's like, what-

Yah. But I guess the way - it's like, yes, you're doing it, right? But that, I mean, yes, you're do ing the
right thing, but that doesn't mean you're doing it right.

6.13 Interview 21:

Review of the disciplinary action, the disciplinary actions taken, for the institution, I think they made
some of the changes that, I think they’ve become more stricter, in that sense. I guess it is to the, to the
best of what NUS can legally do with regards to disciplinary actions. But, and I guess, I, I partially see
it to be in a positive way, I will talk about the negative later. But at the same time, I think the issue s
with, let's say, how the law has to change to, you know, like, to make sure justice is served, is, it has not
been ideal lah. I mean, there’s – yah, of course, I mean, from recently, I think we know that new like,
for example, now, sexual harassment, I mean, there’s certain change to the law with regards to rape,
outrage of modesty, and things like that, has been incorporated, and I mean I see it as a step forward
as well. But in terms of like the punishment has been, so for things like, yah I mean like we know that
the case with the students who have good results and you know, good future, and things like that, have
been let off. I mean, that is also a point of concern lah. But it’s, I guess it's outside of the school’s kind
of like purview. However on the other hand, I do have to say also that I think, for what they have been
saying in terms of like very dichotomy between retributive justice being punishment, and things like
rehabilitative justice, giving the, giving the perpetrator time, you know, like, opportunity to like correct
himself, in a ways it’s a very perpetrator-centric kind of approach to justice, which I guess divorce it
from entirely from, let’s say, from what the victims kind of like, want as well. And then, of course, I
mean, like we talked about the idea of restorative justice, in this sense. And what are the practice that
have been, that can be applied here? In terms of I mean, the school’s very standard response is that, I
mean, like, I mean, the victims count, what do the victims – do we always act on what the victims want,
those kind of thing. And that is probably a tension that the, that the school cannot reconcile for now. In
terms of how to both focus on, on you know like, getting justice from both the victim's point of view and
from the perpetrator point of view? I think that's where I think the school still doesn’t have either the,
the, the understanding as well as the institutional, kind of like, capability to restorative justice.

Public I think there was one big, I guess the belief is that I think, I mean, the hot take that I remember
the most lah, I think, is also kind of like what I see, not just from one person, I think Charles Yeo had
this one Insta story that links what happened in NUS with I mean, the hegemony of PAP, which I guess
is quite a hot take lah. But I think that, that view, institutionally, culturally, there, uh – I mean, they link
all of these to all sorts of political questions of like, you know like, when you hav e all this culture,
whether like all these cultural norms, values that Singapore society uphold is definitely linked to like

119
 how, let's say, Singapore as a country has been governed by a single party for very long. It has
contributed to institution.

So things like its, you know like, the idea of meritocracy is, it is something that, it hinders the notion of
justice in this case? I mean, definitely, not so much applied to this case. But I think when you talk about
sexual harassment in NUS as a concept, right, I think one of the big theme that comes up is why is it
that when it goes to court, that the actions taken, I mean, the punishment, can be so lenient, in the sense
where you know like, the joke is that, if you have a degree, or get like good CAP (cumulative average
point) score or things like that, I mean, it’s a “get out of jail”, free “get out of jail” card.

So I think that was where, I think, some belief of the members of public have been shaped in that way,
where there is a, I mean, it's not just a disappointment with NUS and NUS students doing that, but it's
also, there’s a questioning of whether, you know like, the cultural norms of society in Singapore is
working, is working the normal way. But of course, like I mean, the solution to that, I think, it doesn't
really go in the same direction as well. I mean, some people say they want a more, like you know, a
more moralistic kind of like society where its government, some I think, they criticise, I mean like the,
in terms of democracy. I think it is more varied lah, in terms of belief in that sense, and what should
action look like.

6.14 Interview 22:

I think, like safety obviously is a big one – I think students but also like, everyone? Yah, pretty much all
three. Um, but I guess it felt more like, salient in, amongst the student group. Um, I’d say that concepts
of, like, future or like, success, like, it was very strong in like, public discourse. Um, I guess the future
of the perpetrator? And yah, I think – I think, from what I remember, like it was pretty – it was not
super divided. I would say most people it’s very much like, oh, like, just because s omeone has a bright
future ahead, like, doesn't mean they should get away with sexual violence? But then again, like really,
I think, my, I'm very much like in an echo chamber, so maybe not representative, but that's what I
remember. Administration/police, I suppose took on, I think tried to do a like, rehabilitative justice
thing where it's like, you know, like, this guy's future looks very bright, so it's fine. Um, and I guess the
reactive response from students and public was like, no, right like, we need more like retribution, like
he needs to be, suffer more consequences. Rehabilitation doesn't look like a slap on the wrist, right, like
rehabilitation in my opinion is a much more drawn out process?

I mean, I think for the public, it was definitely like, a lot more mixed, right? And, I mean, I'm sure some
people were very much like, you know, like, the fact that this guy like did well in exams or whatever,
like, it's like, to some degree, like sufficient, like the promise of his future and like, contribut ion to
society, or whatever. It's like, um sufficient? Um, yah. And also, like, very much necessary, right, like,
his grades and stuff. Like they wouldn't have, like, done the same, I think, or at least that was the
narrative.

6.15 Interview 23:

I mean, I touched a bit about the general public early on, so I won't spend too much time on that. But I
think the victim-blaming was very, very apparent. And I do think in a way that, like, they took it a bit
too far, you know, harassing his family and the extent of the doxxing was quite severe. But at the same
time, I don't – I think about a lot of the public fails to consider is that – okay, this might be a bit, I think
this is a bit too far. Right? I think in NUS, there is a lot of, like just because we're students, I think
people forget that we're also adults. And the status of students in Singapore society is quite, like, an
infantilizing one. We learn about – like, I’m a psychology student right, we learn this in psychology
that adolescence is like a flexible concept. Where like, in the Western world, if you told them, like, you
know, an undergrad is like 24 years old, it's considered very old already, like, you're way past like 21,
at that point, where you're very much an adult. And just because they say, oh, you know, he's just a

120
 student. It's like, people use that phrase a lot, “he's just a student”. You know, he's got, he's got good
prospects, he's got his future ahead of him. And that seems to be an excuse, or like, that hides the fact
that this is a grown man that we're talking about. He’s like 24, 25, 26, 27.

I think the recent case about like one of the architecture students, he was like, 27 or 28 already. This is
someone that’s well into their adulthood and should know very much better than, than what, what
they're doing. And instead, they're responding as if this is like a, like a juvie case, like a juvenile case.
Like, oh, you know, yah, like they're giving the kind of leniency they would give to like a 14 year old,
you know, who deserves a chance to change and to grow. But when we're talking about someone who
has, is well into their 20s, and who has gone to the army and gone through years of schooling and has
work experience, and all those kinds of things. This is someone who deserves to be treated like an adult
and to face the consequences of their actions. And it's ridiculous, right? Because as much as you have
that, like infantilizing narrative, right, where they paint the picture of, oh he’s just a poor student who
didn't know any better and who deserves to make mistakes. They don't give like the victims, or in this
case, like Monica Baey any of the same courtesy. Instead, they say, you know, like she should have
been more mature, she should have been more fair, more responsible. How can she be so pet ty? How
can she be so vindictive, you know, that it's a childish response to lash out and post things online?
Whether she should have done the responsible thing and gone to the authorities?

The ones who judge first without finding out the facts. Yah, you're absolutely right, that there's a
double standard going on, that they expected her after having suffered a trauma to act with maturity,
thoughtfulness, responsibility, none of the qualities that they expected Nicholas Lim to have exerted the
day that he made his so-called impulsive decision to go into the female bathroom and start filming
people in the shower. You know, all those things that they expect, you know, maturity, thoughtfulness,
responsibility, she was expected to have them and he was not. And that double standard was so
apparent in the general sentiments of the public. And it's quite inexcusable lah, frankly. And I think
even in the student population, I will not say it has vastly differed, in that, I think you do see a bit more
of the extremes. There are more people who are supportive of Monica Baey. I do remember that was
quite a significant turn out at the few like, public forums that NUS held in favour, in, in support of
Monica. But um, as always, it was very much the same that, you know, why did she have to go public?
All these kinds of things?

6.16 Interview 24:

But yah, I think just like annoyance of like, oh, like NUS dude equals like can get away with shitty
behaviour. And just like annoyance towards that lah.

I recall most of the student community were in support of the victims (at least sections of the school
community I was in touch with or exposed to). For the Monica Baey case quite many criticised the slow
and half-hearted response of the relevant authorities. The opinions were slightly more divided on her
“revenge” on social media but quite many defended that she was a victim and was justified in doing so.
Similarly, many NUS students were not happy how the school tried to downplay the Jeremy Fernando
case, and that they were not well informed until weeks after the prof was dismissed.

As for the general public (my sources mainly being newspapers and social media), the opinions seem
very diverse. Some comments online seem to betray that they didn’t think sexual misconduct was a
serious issue (eg. they asked whether it warrants doxxing, destroying the perpetrator’s future). Some
also had more “lenient” attitudes that since the perpetrator was only a student he should be given a
chance. However many were also (predictably) outraged and wrote in support of the student, and
voiced for changes so that such things would not happen etc. (I’m not too sure about public opinion for
the Jeremy Fernando case.)

121
6.17 Interview 26:

The general public believes that the accused should be dealt with seriously with actual consequences
such as jail or even expelled from school rather than just suspension for a semester or a year. The
effects of their acts can haunt the victims for a long period of time and hence the punishment for such
cases should be concrete as well. This also acts as a deterrence for people who attempt to make the
same mistakes in the future.

6.18 Interview 27:

NUS: "the university takes such cases seriously".

Public: For MB, there were victim blaming sentiments e.g. "it's because she's pretty", or other general
defences e.g. "why destroy his future", for JF some conflated the incident with the earlier tFreedom
incident and suggested that such incidences are unsurprising "in a sexually liberal environment".

6.19 Interview 28:

NUS: but they have such bright futures....also uwu we r trying....

Student Community: fuck you NUS do better review your policies and take more serious action.

6.20 Interview 29:

I think some from public thought Monica was making a big hoo-ha for nothing and NUS was taking it
too lightly. Police only gave a warning I think? I’m not too sure I can’t remember honestly.

For NUS/the state it’s probably the possibility that the assaulter has a future and hence there should be
some form of middle ground instead of sending him straight to jail. Institution/state maybe believes that
rehabilitation and light sentencing might change assaulter so they don’t want too much to happen. But
for Monica there should be consequences and a heavier punishments.

122
Identifying beliefs regarding what violence and justice mean

Author’s note: Please refer to the earlier excerpts for additional discussion participants
have brought up regarding conceptions of violence and justice. Some of these have been
intentionally omitted from this section due to identical duplication of content.

7.1 Interview 1:

A lot of focus was on punishment, but I think that's kind of the case in Singapore in general. Like,
there’s a lot of focus on consequences and punishment. And like – yah, its, support for victims is kind of
more of an afterthought. Like an argument to justifying harsher punishment? I think your average
Singaporean’s idea of justice is punishment. My parents were definitely like that.

For the perpetrator, in Monica Baey’s case, if I'm not wrong he was doxxed. But like it was a case of
like Internet vigilantism. So like, in general, you get this idea that like, yah, people don't agree with the
action. But other than that, I don't know.

Yah. I think it's a general thing for Singaporeans? I might be generalising here, but like a lot of them
believe in punishment as deterrence.

It comes from like the drug laws, ‘cause like, ‘cause a lot of it comes from S ingapore's continued
insistence on the death penalty. Because we have this, like, huge focus of like, if an action is really bad,
then we must have an equally harsh punishments. And that will definitely deter people. And so like, this
is like the kind of environment that you're brought up in? So I guess that translates to a lot of how our
system of justice works.

There’s this like general sentiment on, I think I saw a few like Instagram stories of like that. ‘cause like,
there was a kind of outpouring of people like giving testimony or showing support to victims on social
media after that? And so it was about like, other than the punishment idea, there was also this idea of
healing, recovering from trauma.

7.2 Interview 2:

Well, I mean, I guess, obviously, NUS defined the problem as, for Monica Baey, this, it was a student
who violated the Code of Conduct – actually, in both cases, okay, so it was the professor and the
student that just went against, like, some rule in the rulebook or something, and therefore, they must be
punished for it. But I think there was a lot of, a lot of students felt that I think the issue is definitely
with, with the person itself in terms of like, how they violated someone's consent, abused, or in the case
of the professor abused his authority. Yah, so I feel like obviously, on the, on the part of the institution,
it's really just to do with, like, on a very rule kind of level. Yah, okay, so rule was broken on both, in
both instances, without actually taking into consideration that – yah. I mean, they definitely, a lot could
be done to kind of like, a lot could have been done to, to mitigate these things from happening. But then
if you just say that people broke a rule, then you're kind of like absolving yourself from any
responsibility, because then it's like, they just committed something wrong that's on them. And that's
how we will phrase it. And then the students, yes, okay, they did something wrong, but it definitely has
to do with their own like disgusting perversion. Yah, so I don't know lah.

For Monica Baey, the students definitely wanted the perpetrator – I forgot his name already, but – to
be expelled, or to really have like, to lose his job? I think he was working somewhere or something. So

123
 I think they, they want him to lose his job, which I think he mentioned it, because a lot of people wrote
in to the employer. They wanted Monica to, I think, they wanted, people wanted this perpetrator to, of
like Monica Baey’s perpetrator to be really, really punished, like on all fronts, so like, expelled, and
like, to lose his job, so to really have like, these tangible repercussions for his, his offence, and for his,
for him by violatng her, her privacy and, and just like sexually harassing her? So, an d then in terms of
like – yah, there's the punishment side lah, it’s more of like retributive kind of punishment, not so much
like, rehabilitative? Yah.

And then for the Jeremy Fernando, I really just think they wanted him sacked and probably thrown in
jail for, for abusing his authority like that. Yah. That's probably what people wanted. And then
obviously, for more, for these victims to have greater access to like support systems. Yah, and to be
adequately supported. And to be. Yah, that’s what.

I think maybe because, for – okay, if you think about it, right. This guy, this, the Monica Baey’s
perpetrator, right, so he's a student, correct? So technically you're, you're screwing up a lot of his
future already at an academic institution as well as removing him from his current job, because you're
like, essentially kind of screwing up his reputation. Whereas this Jeremy person, yah, sure, you get him
sacked because of sexual misconduct, but um, you're not really like, kind of – how to say – unless he
gets thrown in jail for a considerable amount of time, he's still free to kind of like flock elsewhere and,
you know, be a professor elsewhere and still continue on with his life. So I think the issue is with really
ensuring that these people feel the repercussions of their actions in the long term. For me lah, that's
what I feel.

And also, I think because it happened so many times between the Monica Baey and Jeremy Fernando
I'm pretty sure there were other cases scattered here and there. So I think that it just becomes seen as
like, clearly there's something perhaps wrong with the culture of your university and just sacking
people or dismissing them when they, you know, sexually harass someone is not enough because
there's, there could be so many like, I don't know how else to put this, “latent harassers”, meaning like,
they’ve just, they’ve just yet to do, they’ve just yet to act on their urges or – for all you know, as I'm
speaking to you right now, that could be a professor and a student engaging in an inappropria te
relationship.

So I feel like more has to be done in terms of like, their like, student, like, policy, like, safety and just
incul- kind of like a culture. There has to be like, there has to be like a cultural reset. Yah. And
honestly, I feel that's why, you know, a lot more is being demanded, a lot more was demanded the
second time around, simply because the second time around – there’s so many second time around, it
was like the don't-know-how-many-th time already?

So I think there’s just a general like – people are like, okay, clearly there's something wrong with this
institution’s entire culture, yah. Because you don't see happening like, in other universities, at least as
much as it happens here. Or, it's like, I don't know lah.

7.3 Interview 3:

I definitely think that like people have definitely become a lot more sensitised to it, which is nice in a
way lah. Um, yah. Since like, I felt, at least like on my feed, what happened after the Monica Baey case
was that like, a lot of similar cases came out? There were smaller, but like, were rooted in, for
example, like, each person's JC, or like, secondary school kind of thing. Yah. So I just felt that like
people were more sensitive to it or like sensitised to it. But also at the same time, not in a negativ e way.
Yah. For Jeremy, I'm not even really sure leh. ‘cause of the, because of the initial mixed responses, it
was so, it was, I didn't have enough. I didn't have enough people that I felt comfortable talking with,
like on a personal level.

Oh gosh, before the Monica Baey case. I think like the most similar like response I might have been
able to remember from before the Monica case, Monica Baey case might have been like, just the, the

124
 orientation games, but I wasn’t in NUS at that time lah. But it was definitely a bit more – how to say –
even though it was obviously, like, some form of sexual harassment, um, it was definitely a bit more,
like, jokey? And people didn't really take it seriously. And also, I think it didn't help the fact that fo r the
orientation games case, from what I understand of it, a lot of like, actual joking harmless cases were
mixed in with like the cases where, where like, quite, where like quite serious sexual harassment took
place also lah, kind of thing. But, um, yah, so I guess like, the response was quite light hearted as well.
But I think after the Monica Baey case it was definitely like a bit more, especially since like, on my feed
lah, a lot of similar cases came out and also that people started recalling, like a lot of more similar
cases that it became quite clear that it was a trend. Yah, especially sincelike, yah. Yah. Especially since
like, there were other cases that came out around that time also, around that time also, like the Yale -
NUS case, I think. Yah.

Yah. And it was quite clear that it was an institution thing also, not just like a, these, these individuals.
Yah. Yah. ‘cause I think for the orientation stuff, it's also like, easy to blame it on like hall culture? Like
oh, people want to fit in. But yah, but you can’t really do the same thing for – yah.

Oh, gosh, the public. Uh… hmmm. Okay, (laughs), um, I can't really remember that much about like,
public discussion about the Monica Baey case specifically. I think they were mostly just like into the,
they were mostly just into like the, they were mostly just into like the fact that if I remember correctly,
the news headlines that I remembered the most were just about how Monica Baey became like, got
viral over her story and stuff like that. So I don't really know much about like the, or at the very least,
they were more fixated on like voyeurism. For Jeremy, I'm not really sure either actually. Gosh.

7.4 Interview 4:

Okay, there's, okay there's so many - okay, there's, it's hard to break down the themes. Like it’s because
it is so wide-ranging and encompassing and different natures of, you know, what was committed, like
the idea of men will be men, that is a theme, you know, like oh, men cannot be fixed. You know, this is
how men are, you know, this is how men be, you know, or how predators be, if you want to expand it
beyond the scope of single gender. Also the single gender idea that men, you know, that will commit it
against women, and especially taking advantage of that is like a very popular theme as well. Like, I
rarely see any things regarding sexual violence that talk about queer sexual violence, or you know, like
even female-initiated sexual violence, or even trans sexual violence – along those lines, you know. And
they think sexual violence is just, there's some people who are thinking sexual violence is just physical
harm, which is why some people were initially dismissive of the Monica Baey case, because nothing
physical was done. So what's the problem? And also like the theme of – yah.

Like, for students, like, they felt, why is this coming out again? You know, in terms of the Jeremy
Fernando case, like, why is this coming out again? Why hasn't, you know, why are people still, you
know, feeling, you know, not satisfied with the level of justice th ey get, why is NUS still implicated in
all this? I mean, it's a common theme, actually, that NUS is the centre of all this, you know, so, like,
that is one thing that students like to blame the immediate environment surrounding it, which has its,
you know, which obviously, has credibility, because it does, you know, does happen quite a lot, it is
exacerbated in these environments. And, you know, people were wondering, why is it continuing? Why
is it still here? And like, especially from, especially with the new dialectic of the teacher-student
violence, you know, I mean, teacher-student, professor-student, you know, there's that level of power,
of like, intersecting power relations that doesn't exactly hold in previous cases like Monica Baey,
where it’s student-student. Like, also questioning the accountability of the institution with regards to,
you know, tutor-student, that was another thing that, you know, was the case. And another thing that,
like, I kind of noticed was, you know, the idea of men that are pretending to be feminists like, because
you know, Fernando's position, yah, like the idea that, oh, you're pretending to be feminist, you are, in
actuality, just getting advantage. And it's, like, really, just damaging to overall gender equality.
Because you're talking about, you know, because you're then blaming at this higher idea, you know, the
ideology of feminism as just an entry for violence. Like instead of unpacking the individual, unpacking

125
the overarching power relations within these situations, and not you know, and narrowing it down to
single issue that is already so vilified for like, a multitude of reasons. But yah.

Okay, key themes are – okay, key themes for the institution: the need for investigation, like why can't
they just provide support, like and leave it there? You know, like, if students don't want an
investigation, like it is obviously something that most people would think it goes against their idea of
justice. Like with some students really don't want an investigation, because they don’t want to open up
trauma, they don't want to do, like, they don't want to have this stigma that surrounds them per se and
surrounds like, oh, this student, this tutor eventually got fired. You know, there are lots of people who
blame those who have suffered from sexual violence like both students and you know, tutor-wise, that
are – I mean, just students, you know, like, has that, I don't want this to blow up. I just want people to
leave it be, you know, yah. And like the, but the institution thinks, no, justice should be served by
investigation, justice should be served through one method, it’s the lack of listening to like the students
that actually want alternative methods of justice, like rehabilitative or transformative, it doesn't.

Yah, the lack of recognition of you know, what other students long termed violence, like the victims, the
overall theme of have to investigate this hard. Like, it strikes me as odd ‘cause, we're a university that
really teaches us about these kinds of things. Instead they wouldn’t teach themselves. Okay, yah. Well,
I'm sorry. But – again, I would just like to promote my sign that I wrote during the trans solidarity
thing: MOE, why don't you educate yourselves on gender? This, but NUS, educate yourself on sexual
violence. Yah, and likewise, yah.

Themes that the public has raised: it's an NUS-only problem. That's the first thing you hear, because if
it’s NUS that gets reported a lot, then it’s NUS that is apparently front and centre in the news. “Oh,
NUS students, why you all so deviant”, etc. Y'all should, you know, like, why, what – and if you want to
go down the ageist route, like, you know, you could say, oh, the youths are so, you know, apt at
behaving this way, you know, because they're youths, you know, it should be expected, but NUS isn’t
managing it. But like the idea is (a) it’s not NUS. It's literally any other educational institution. And (b)
it is not just youths, it's everyone down the line, like take that AWARE report for when in the workplace
get sexually harassed? It's, it's more than just NUS, you know, but the public are, but because the news,
you know, revolves around NUS, and NUS is such a microcosm for it, because NUS like, NUS is a
microcosm for it. And because it's a microcosm, people just focus on that microcosm, like they focus on
one thing to, you know, elaborate about issues they have with the bigger picture.

And I think right, I think, can actually rephrase public to media. Because, because honestly, it will be
the media as well, that are telling this to the public, you know, and if you want to go down that route,
you know, it's about you know, probably state-owned media that might –yah, and I, and I won't make
any comments about state-owned media, because who knows it might be just the individuals who's
writing for the media, their opinion, but also if you want to introduce the government, yah. But if you
also want to introduce stuff like governmentality into it, like how the government teaches the public,
like, oh, this is just an NUS-only problem. You know, it is every single aspect, you know. It’s also media
that intensifies it to the public that lays it on the institution that puts the students at risk.

Students in general? Again, yah, many notions is all, again, no generalisation is possible, because – I
think that's one thing you can put down, like in terms of this – no generalisation is possible even for
survivors’ justice. So but if I really wanted to describe what I've heard, punitive does exist, but it
doesn't hold as strongly as any other. Any other that you talk about.

Yah. It doesn't – like it’s much more mixed. There's lots of ideas of, I hear about, like about, like, other
forms of justice, like, like rehabilitative, like education, like people do want, you know, what people are
calling for, you know, have been, you know, like, why are the, like whenever I hear someone say, oh,
why are the consent and respect workshops so bad? It's like they, they seem actually, they actually
seem to care about respect and consent workshops, they actually seem to want it, it’s just they're
bringing up, why is it carried out in this slipshod way? So like, they all focus on – you know, how do I
say it? Like, they still want this kind of, you know, rehabilitative – yah, yah, they see value. Yah.
Because everyone, everyone, lots of people – yah. And the thing is, I know lots of people who are like,
who’re like, talking about these people who are asking why is it so bad, and saying they don't care

126
about the respect and consent workshops altogether. And I'm thinking, that's not the case. If they're
saying it's bad, they care about it, because they've attended it, and thought they would pick up
something that they wouldn't, you know, learn, you know, in terms of, you know, finding justice for
survivors, but it didn't come through.

Respect and consent workshops. We know how – I just explained how should they were, and I just have
to say, again, it was shit. Like, nothing of substance, nothing substantial was taught. And for those, as
some people thought, you know, it was just, you know, lacking substance, lacking ideas about you
know, what consent is? And like, lacking any permeability, like – how you want to put it, like – like, it
doesn't stick in your mind, like, I already forgot most of the details about it. I can't remember.

Other policies like setting up the VCU? Yah, that is one thing that I could say, was good. Up until the
point of Jeremy Fernando's case where they instituted mandatory police reporting, which is bullshit.
Like, the VCU was good at providing, you know, survivor support, from what I understand, you know,
that is something students want and students need to feel safe. And in terms of feeling safe, like,
students probably did feel safe, you know, reporting to VCU, because they felt the VCU would accede
to whatever students want, up until they didn't accede to whatever students want. But it's also
interesting to think about it on a wider governmental standpoint, because NUS felt like they were
pressured by a certain law. Like even though they you can argue it was no, like many law people have
argued that it was no right, do they still feel a pressure under a law instituted by governments? So like,
the fact that, and this law in essence, you know, breached students trust, yes. And once y ou breach
trust, you no longer feel safe. And once you no longer feel safe in one aspect of the institution, it has a
tendency to snowball to not feeling safe about multiple other aspects. Yah.

I feel lots of public discourse is around punitive. Lots of public discourse is so around, I mean,
obviously, again, not generalising, you cannot generalise it to as it's all punitive. Like this - did I just
contradict myself? Okay. But yah, like, but still the overarching idea is punitive, that people should go
to prison longer, that people should be locked up longer than say, people who hold up, you know,
signs, which obviously, like shouldn't be the case, like, what like, it all comes down to the seriousness
of your offence. That is the idea in terms of - because public only, not saying the public only knows
current justice systems, but the public is rooted in current justice systems that are punitive, and very
little on rehab, rehabilitation. So whenever a perpetrator goes through rehabilitative justice, the public
is like what?! Really?! You sure it's not that serious?! So like, they base seriousness based on level of
punishment. I think that's all I have to say about the public.

First off, institutions. I think they also have an idea, like, as I mentioned, about the investigative idea,
about needing to investigate, about needing to punish someone. It is like an inherent thing, you know, I
can see how they're trying to negotiate having use of say, rehab justice I think, by, you know,
introducing respect and consent workshops? But like it is, but because it isn't their central idea, it
doesn't really settle as well, you know, it doesn't really have as much impact. And, yah.

And like transformative is, like if I'm not getting transformative wrong, transformative is transforming
current social systems. Like, I don't see them transforming any system in the school at all. Yah, they
don't transform any idea of power imbalances, meeting students, you know, they don't transform any of
your power imbalances between students and tutors, between different levels of tutors, hierarchies are
still maintained, and likewise, any form of power relation and marginalisation as well. You know,
there's still marginalisation ongoing in those structures they set up like say, even, even to like, even
when they're trying for justice that is preventive, like security issues, like they're still marginalising
some people, it marginalises people already, you know, marginalised and in essence, when they're
trying to solve something, it just creates more violence, sexuality-based, gender-based violence. And
it's not justice if it creates more violence, just gotta put that on the record.

127
7.5 Interview 5:

One thing that really irritates me, right, the public likes to say that, oh look, they make fun of NUS
right, like, NUS is like all the sexual harassment cases happen in NUS. I don't like how they’re framing
it as like an NUS-endemic issue, like oh, these cases only happen in NUS, right? Because like, oh,
people in NTU and SMU like, you know there’s, like it doesn't get reported, right? It's like, so you don't
hear these cases. And like, I think there's like real danger in like, like, okay, it might be people who
make these jokes, and like memes for fun, right? But I also think there's real danger in kind of isolating
this to an NUS problem, because it's not an NUS problem, it’s a societal problem.

And also, I also think it's kind of stupid, because the fact that NUS has seen like an increase in
reporting means that people are not as afraid to report compared to other institutions, which is
actually a good thing. I mean, NUS’s response is still like, leaves much to desire, but I mean, it's still a
good thing that more students are coming forward rather than like, rather than like staying silent and
not reporting. So I, that’s why I think like, the whole way people have been making jokes online about
NUS problem, it’s very like, what's the word? Like, it's just, it's not conducive to the discussion.

Yes. So like – yah, so I think most of the public like, also went down that route (of calling for
punishment), but like I feel like – okay, I feel like when I was like, first, like in the year of, like,
Monica’s case, I think I also thought the same way. But I think maybe now like, especially after
working with NUS, like, I think like, justice? Or like, you know, bringing justice to the survivors is like
a very complex, is more complex than like, you know just like, okay he broke this law so like, we’re
going to just punish him like that. Because like, yah, there's like the emotional, like trauma that they go
through? Also, there's like, punishing them like, okay, like, let's say you expel them, right? And then
what happens? Like, if he doesn't know what he did was like, the person like, the perpetrator doesn't
know what they did was wrong, right? Like, nothing's going to change! Like, I think like you already
see there's so many cases where like, perpetrators reoffend so quickly, like, after being released like,
on bail or like, when they are like, on their, like parole, like, you know, you like, I feel like justice is,
shouldn't just be like – is it, is the term like, legal justice? No? Hmmm. Like it should also account fo r
like, being able to rehabilitate the perpetrator back into society? Because, yah, because I’ve, like, I
think I've said many times, it's like, not a, like, a short-term solution, like, these things take, like, long, a
long time for like the solutions to actually work and like, address the root causes of like, you know,
sexual violence. So your justice cannot just be like a, okay, he did this, or they did this, so I'm going to
do that. It has to think about, like, the future, as well, is what I'm trying to say, I guess.

I think there were like different groups? So I think there are groups like, wanted, like were like, okay,
no, his punishment has, like, like, like, for Monica’s case right, his punishment has to be harsher to
make at least an example, right? So people will be deterred from, from like, doing this, like sort of
things again, like I think there will students who felt this way? Because, like, I mean, the belief for them
will be like, oh, you know, make him an example then it will like deterence l ah, but like, but then there’s
also people who believed in like, not just purely like making like, punishment harsher, because like,
then, like the belief is like deterrence doesn't really change anything. Like it might, it might serve as a
stopgap measure lah. But like, you are not addressing like, you know, why do they feel like they can
commit like sexual violence and get away with it, right? Because like, as many studies have shown,
sexual crimes are like, they're not like about pleasure or anything, th ey’re like power play. Like it's
about the sense of power you feel, like the sense of power you get from, like enacting this sort of
violence on someone else. So like, clearly like, you know, they're not gonna be deterred by this
punishment, like these punishments. So like, yah, so I think there were like the two main ideas. There
were two, like, from what I know, there were these two main conflicting ideas? Kind of.

7.6 Interview 6:

For general public, I – for general public, I don't even know like, how deeply they had considered this
problem? I think it was just like, oh sex-, oh, this is bad, like this, like sexual – I don't know, I don't
even know what word they pinned on it, like these sexual issues happened in schools, and that's bad. I,

128
that, that is, I could be really wrong, but that is what I thought was happening. Jeremy Fernando
again. Yah. So for the students. I felt – yah, I think like I said, the main issue was that, this, that – okay,
my per– I mean, my personal question, again, was like, how could we ever have let somebody like this
into the school? Like, why? Like, is it that, like, what does it say about our selection processes that
things like that, that, that red flags like these are so, have not been noticed at all? And I feel, but I feel
like the main frame was like, why, why is the school, yah, basically, why is the school not being
transparent?

I remember – I’m so going off tangent here, but – it was in a much later case. I remember Averyn
posted like, there was something, something similar about, there was some other sexual whatever case
that had come out. And then I remember Averyn posting something about retributive justice versus
revenge. And that narrative was like, I think at Monica Baey, it, when the Monica Ba ey incident
happened, like everyone was just, because it was like probably the first time and everyone was just
really angry at first. But like, slowly, as more and more incidents started to come out, then I think
people were starting to think about revenge versus like restorative. This, that kind of idea? Uh, Jeremy
Fernando. Actually, I don't – I was, until you mentioned that, like, that's what you were examining, I
wasn't aware that, like there was a shift from misconduct to sexual, from misconduct to violence,
although I do wonder if that's because he was – like, I guess with students, they tend, like when the
perpetrator is a student, they tend to mince their words. Like, that's my just my hypothesis lah. When
there’s a student they tend to mince their words a bit more.

I think for Jeremy Fernando, like, because he wasn't a student, like people were, it was okay for people
to be a lot harder on him. But yet, I don't remember it making as many waves with the public, although
that may have just been, like, may have just been like the lack of what I was reading or not reading.

To some people, I think justice just meant like – again, I think they confuse justice with revenge, like
and just kind of taking out all their anger on this, on this person who has been let off so lightly by the
system? I think the, I don't know if, maybe I'm confusing this with, like sexual, with other similar cases
in the past but like also, protecting, like, when it comes to safety is also protecting personal details. But
I really don't know if this came up with the Monica Baey case? I know, definitely – I know, when it's a
similar thing happened in my school like, they, there was quite, there was quite like a strong – when,
yah, when these kinds of cases happened in my school, I think, maybe also, because our campus is so
small, like there's quite a strong emphasis like, the survivors’ details like need to be protected, we will
only reveal as much as like, if you, if, even if you feel like we're hiding information from you, it's also
because like, the survivor, it may also be because the survivor. This is because we need to protect the
survivors as well. But that may be on somewhat of a tension. I think that is yah, I think that is kind of
the most of what I can. Oh, I, Oh, yes, I remember now. I think like there was a bit of discussion as to
how much this incident should have been reflected on Monica Baey's perpetrator’s report? I d on't, I
think NUS, I think what NUS did was like they, it would be reflected, but like, after a while, it would be
taken out? And then, and then I think, I don't know if I'm remembering correctly. But I think my friends
may have been like, no, it should be there forever. And, like, I don't know whether I was wondering or
whether someone else was wondering like, I mean, after this whole incident, like, who is gonna forget
this guy's name. Like, even if you take it out of the record, like it's going it is goi ng to be there,
regardless of whether you take it out of your record or not. Yah, so. Yah, like, again, I think, so I guess
if I were to sort of boil it down, a large, a large proportion of very vocal students, especially because
this is the first time, like, like the first time this has gone so public, a lot of them wanted retributive
justice. And but then, like, a lot of people started that, like, slowly, slowly, as more came out, then a lot
of people started talking about restorative justice as well. Although, of course, of course, like because
this is still an issue that has not, that has not been talked about as much, like it is a bit difficult to
convince, to – I don’t know, maybe convince is the wrong word, but – it's a bit, it's still a bit difficult to
raise this issue now when it's so sensitive. And the school's version of justice is like, need to protect,
whoever is a student must protect, but it, but it seemed like they were not prioritising the survivor in
ways that, in ways that the students felt should be done lah, yah.

You know, actually, like when I got admitted into, into LKYSPP, I sort of – you remember they asked us
to write about a problem? I think I wrote on this. I remember writing about the survey specifically
because I had a look at the question, I asked somebody for the documents and I remember, I had a look

129
 at the questions. And I think basically what I wrote was that even as NUS is trying to figure out like,
what the, is it the root, or like how to deal with this problem, like you're not really getting – I felt like
they weren't really looking for what mattered lah. Let me see if I can find it. I don't know if it will be
useful to you. Oh, yes. Okay, I said, I propose that annual student climate surveys be conducted to
collect data on rates and attitudes towards sexual misconduct on campus. And then I cited an example
of what my school had done. Such climate surveys to establish a campus sexual assault data repository
are also recommended by researchers blah, blah, blah. Although NUS has already launched a scheme
to improve its sexual health resources and policy, a student climate survey is not only lower cost and
quicker to implement, but would allow NUS to adopt a more multifaceted and targeted approach.
Currently, NUS has relied on the Review Committee Safer Campus Survey, but it only looks at how
students view on, at students views on how disciplinary and support frameworks should be shaped. But
aside from the 26 reported cases there are no statistics of actual sexual misconduct on c ampus. Oh,
yah. So I think if I'm understanding what I wrote correctly, it’s that NUS was more like NUS’s current
survey was more like how students wanted, how students wanted like sexual assault, misconduct, the
whole gamut, how they wanted cases, like those to be dealt with in the future. I, if I were to be very
cynical, I would suspect that that's because they wanted – I mean, on one hand, you can say that they
wanted the students’ input on this, which is, of course, great. But you could also turn it aro und and say
that, like, if they implement it, and the students say that it's not enough, they can always say that like
hey, the students were the ones who signed off on this, and how many- yah, like, sort of to cover their
ass. But, and I think the point I was making was that, like, this survey doesn't actually understand, help
you understand the degree of the problem. And this is very sensitive information. But yes, but there are
ways for you to, but there are ways for you to like, deal with that, like PDPA encryption to hell, and if
you, and for as long as you don't understand, like, what the climate is, you're not going to know how
people's attitudes, what, like the baseline attitude is like, you're not going to know anything about like
the culture of sexual harassment, and the demographics. And that is going to hinder how you solve the
problem, you are –

Oh, one last thing on the justice point that I missed was that, that for something to be just like the
institution? Yah, the institution has to be transparent with what happened, and yah, transparency about
the right thing, about some things and, but also making sure to protect the survivors themselves. And I
mean, now like, I'm thinking as I speak, like, but one, I’m, I'm sure that there are, I'm sure that you
have to think like, you have to be careful with not confusing the two lah like, you cannot say that like,
oh, we're not gonna release anything on the pretext that you're trying to cover up for the survivors and,
and you, but you also cannot divulge, like, information that you're not supposed to? Yah.

7.7 Interview 7:

Okay, I will start with the public first. I think sometimes for the public, justice can take on a like, mob
justice kind of manifestation? So like, oh, a lot of angry comments on Facebook. Like condemning all
these perverts from NUS, blah, blah, blah, like, what's happening to our schools? That kind of thing? I
think a lot of times – yah, a lot of times, like justice to the public just means condemn then move on
already. Yah, and sometimes there's that kind of like, sensationalist undertone to it? And like, there's
some kind of, like, distance like they are removed from what's really happening inside the institution.
And then, yah. So, I mean, of course, there are like, members of the public who are genuinely
concerned, maybe they have friends or family in NUS also, and I guess like, they are upset. And they
feel like NUS needs to do more? But the kind of justice that I see, especially online, tends to just be like,
oh, spicy comments, sensationalist things, and then that's it. Yah. So that is the public. For violence, let
me think ah –

I think for the justice – uh, sorry, for the public – anything punitive seems to pass, like, oh, expel this
student, or like, uh yah, like, how's this student not expelled? Or like, how he's still able to get an
internship, that kind of thing. So I think once the school starts to take a more like, punitive stance, I
think the public is satisfied because the context of Singapore like the law, criminality is so, yah like, I
don’t really know how to say this? Yah, like, it's so part of our public consciousness, that law, we think
that law equals justice.

130
 Yah, so like, as in to add on a bit, I would see on Facebook, you know, comments on like, let's say news
of some offence in NUS, right? Then people would be like, oh, this person, should jail him like 20 years
that kind of thing, or like – yah, yah, it's very, it's very punitive, you know, people want him to be
punished, want him to be jailed and all that. So I think that is, yah, like punishment equals justice lor.
Yes. Then for violence right? Um, I think what constitutes violence, again, is very defined by the law
for the public. Yah. And criminality lor. So like, yah, if you broke the law, that is violence. You commit
some kind of offence? Yah. There is violence lah, to the public, I feel.

Okay. Yah. So students? Maybe I can talk about violence first. I think aside from the, the assault, or
like the harassment itself, like the act itself, sometimes the violence is the violation of trust within
communities. So like, for example, the Jeremy Fernando case, like, the violation of trust, for many
students, not just the victims themselves – that can be a form of violence, like, even if we don't
necessarily name it violence lah. Yah, so I think as a, like, student community – sorry, as a, as a student
of the community, and not just some, like distant member of the public, sometimes that violence is a lot
more felt. Not necessarily to the body, but like, yah, to the spirit, like, you know, that breaking of trust
lah. And, I would say –

Ah, justice. Okay. So I think justice. I mean, definitely, there are some students who feel that a more
punitive approach is good, so yah, I'm sure like there are students who feel that way. But I think for
some other students, justice also means like the institution itself, acknowledging their complicity and
responsibility. So, yah.

So for example, the Jeremy Fernando case like, just because you sacked him doesn't necessarily
translate into justice. Yah, like, because there wasn’t really, like, acknowledgement of how Tembusu
itself allowed for that environment, right, for the abuse to happen. Yah, so that would – yah, I think
justice in that sense would – yah.

Oh yah, okay. So institution, I would say is quite similar to the public? So what constitutes violence is, I
guess, like, the breaking of Student Code of Conduct. Yah, or a criminal offence, that kind of thing lah.
Then, justice would probably be, again, like tightening those punitive frameworks? Yah. I think, I feel
like that's, that's all.

7.8 Interview 8:

Yah, I think for the violence part, the institution, NUS, they didn't really find the Monica Baey case to
be violent, I suppose. It was an intrusion of her privacy, which was, in a sense, violence, right? An
attack, it’s an attack on privacy, it’s an attack on her mental well-being, her right to, to her body. But
because there was no physical assault, I think the school made it very clear that, that you know, that
there had not been any, like physical assault, which was – I don't agree with it, I don't agree with the
way that they framed it to be a non-violent act. But I appreciate that, you know, a lot of the student
population recognised it to be a violent act, recognised it to be an intrusion of her privacy, recognised
it to be harmful. And that, that in itself is violent. That any kind of, any case of, you know, sexual
harassment or rather sexual assault, physical or not, is violent.

So adding on to that, I feel that like, you know, it's, it's flawed to distinguish between, to define violence
as only physical violence, because these kinds of acts damage people, psychologically, and it's been
proven that these kind, this kind of psychological damage has impacts on the body as well. So I mean,
if it's – just because it's not a physical, like a physically, like I'm touching you, I’m punching you, that
kind of thing, it doesn't mean it has, it doesn't have real, tangible damage upon the other person.

And I guess, again, like you know, people were upset because of the fact that, you know, the institution
themselves decided that they should be the ones in authority to decide what is violent and what is not ,
and it should – people were thinking that, and I agree like, you know, that, shouldn't it be the victim to
decide whether they felt that there had been violence inflicted upon them?

131
 The general public was quite, like, appalled at how the institution framed it? It is something that is
unfortunately rooted in, you know, the semantics and an effort to be as technical, and processes to
make things as fair as possible – in quotation marks of course, you know – because institutions view
that you know what, whatever is justice is as long as they've done what is expected of them in the, in the
policies that they have set out? It’s so circular! It's basically like they get to justify how, how they
handle a case, because even if it's not something that is, even if they don't handle it in a way t hat is just
to the victim, they can still technically say that they have handled it justly, because they followed the
protocol that they've set out. Which is all very, yah, very circular.

7.9 Interview 9:

Student-wise, of course, like, again, majority of the student responses, they don't know what is violence
as well. You only generally know what violence entails if you are in the humanities, you're doing like,
and specifically if you’re probably doing like literature, or sociology, social work, that kind of thing,
you know? Where there are theories about violence,

That’s the thing, right? Like, I would, I would think that most people and this includes the students, the
institution, and the public, general public, for them, acts that constitute violence are quite obviously,
like, physical kind of violence, like hitting people or like killing someone, you know, causing gri evous
injury, something that can be seen, definitely. Something that, something that you know, the person has
to bleed, or what, like even in terms of like, like, like, mental health right, and, and like the kind of like,
negative effects on mental health, like that is not seen as, like, like, whatever that caused it is not seen
as an act of violence necessarily. Violence is usually seen, it’s something that can be seen in broad
daylight. You see someone bleeding after getting hit, or you see someone getting scolded, which – and
again, there are nuances to this lah, right? Like of course, most people would say that, oh yah, you
know, the person deserves a scolding, right? And, yah lah, you know, it’s not something that is violent,
there's a lot justification for physical violent acts, physically violent acts. Anyway. But in general it’s
not seen as something that has a social effect, or like a traumatic effect on people. So, so conception of
violence on a very, extremely vulgar ideological level.

I mean a lot of people, a lot of people support the death penalty. That's one thing. I’m sure some people
also still believe in that marital rape is not rape, that they have the right to, right to like, forcibly have
sex with their partners.

Justice ah. Wah! Student just - on the public side, justice is very black and white. Justice is clear-cut.
Justice is connected to law and order, justice is connected to – I want to say divine but, I mean, I know
it's a bit, it’s not a divine but it's like this universal, this universal sort of moral standpoint, that moral
assumption, like there’s an assumption that the ethical standpoint of law and order is universally
moral, it’s something that holds true. People forget that laws can change. People forget that. But, but
the problem is Singapore is that you have an entire, an entire population that bases their morality on
what is, what constitutes law and order. Their morality, their morality is constituted in what the law
says – if it’s legal it’s moral. And this again ties back to State ideology. And, and, and like the sort of
cultural knowledge that is being passed on in Singapore. On the institutional side, justice is – I don't
even think there's a talk about justice for NUS, it's just procedure, and wha t gets them, what gets them
out of trouble lah.

Yah, very bureaucratic. But also I do think that they’re more interested in like saving their ass lah.
They’re not interested in justice for like the survivors. They’re just interested in resolving –

What counts as just to them? Something that makes them look good, I’m thinking – I don't have a
concrete answer for them, but I'm guessing that it's something that makes them look good lah. Like they
will generally, follow, they will generally do something that helps them look better, yah, and helps them
to like solidify or retain their reputation as a world-class institution. Or something that makes them
look good in terms of economics.

132
 Again, a lot of students also follows the public in the sense that their conception of justice is based on
what is legal. Like it is very much tied to the to a belief in the judicial processes, and the police, but
also a lot of it is changing. Some of us, I mean, a minority lah. We are interested in transformative
forms of justice. I think we are in a very, many of us are in a very rudimentary stage given that we still
don’t know how to, we still don’t know how to differentiate retributive, rehabilitative, restorative, and
transformative justices. And they're very very different.

Restoration and transformation can also be very different from each other. But to restore something is
to say that there is something that has been, that was there, that you need to restore, something prior
that worked? (For transformation) you have to, you have to change a lot of things. And, but these,
again, these are very minority conceptions, there’s barely a discourse on this, but there is a burgeoning
and – I can’t find that word – burgeoning and like it’s, it’s starting to come up. But it's not even
realised. It's not – it’s emergent, it’s very emergent, it’s extremely emergent. And, again, like, some
people, they don’t even want justice, many survivors, they don't feel the need for any form of justice,
they’re just interested in healing. Perhaps lah, but, but I'm not going to say that, you know, it
necessarily counts as a form of justice.

Yah, or - I mean, healing can be for a very simple reason that is not, not, not remotely related to
justice. People are bound, in the sense that they have work to do, they have other things to think about,
they don't want to think about their trauma, they just want to move on with things. And healing is
something that is not, it’s not say something that brings them justice, it’s just something that they need
to concentrate on the things that they actually care about. And I’m supposing that for some of the
survivors for Jeremy Fernando,, that's actually the case. They do not want to escalate thi s, they don't
want to be re-traumatised and, they just want to move on with their lives as well, you know, they don't
necessarily want something being done to Jeremy.

7.10 Interview 10:

I think for the students – in this particular case right, for the students, students cannot be considered a
monolith in this particular case, because of, their idea of, because of what their idea of violence, that
everyone agreed that this was violence, that's okay. That's something that students agree on , that this
was very heinous. Although, to be frank, there's a very worrying trend of like, some students
sympathising more and more with the perpetrator? Yah, which was, yah, like, like and that, which is
very worrying, because I do hear quite a lot of students who, at least the students who seem to
sympathise a bit too much with the perpetrator often cite false things like things like, oh, what about
false? You know, what about like, false reports and things like that? And oh, they will, they will say
things like, do you know a lot of false reports happen, when that's just objectively wrong according to
the numbers. Yah. Which did worry me because this is outrightly, like factually incorrect, like
according to the numbers by, where any kind of like, any kind of data collected can tell you that the
number of false reports is like, many – it’s like, it's like, at least one or two orders of magnitude lower
than – yah, yah, about two orders of magnitude lower than like, the number of reports that never
happen, because the survivors, yah, does not want to report. And a lot of – yah, anyway, like so, so
there's a lot of, so – so there's some, there’s reason why the students cannot be considered monolith it’s
because there, there seems to be a discr– yah, there seems to be a discrepancy. Yah. It is a discrepancy
in awareness also with regards to what, things like for example, what actually happens when you
report incidents of sexual violence? What do you have to go through for, for this report to be
legitimate, that kind of thing? And discrepancy and understanding the, in knowledge of the statistics,
and things like that? So yah, so, so in terms of – yah, so, so there is a discrepancy in terms of that.

And for the justice side? Yah, there are students, there's a range of students who propose more
transformative or restorative justice, where like, the idea is to change the culture, change the system.
And like yah, so to change the culture from inside, from, from the very roots and ensure that these
problems don't, you know, like, like that the systemic mechanisms that allow these instances of violence
to occur, and for people to get away with it, to change that using education, using more awareness,
more talk about it generally. So there was a lot of students who think that, I think that's quite a lot of

133
 people, it was just like, yah, why you never talk about this ah? And like, along those lines of like, we
need to talk about this more, we need to stop being so silent about this, we need more education on
these things. Why do we not know, why is there so much like, I don't know, around so many of these
things? And then on the other hand, people who are just like, you know, ah, punish them harder, who
are very focused on the more punitive forms of punishment? And yah, but the students who are more
focused on that seem to always, like you know, how unfair it is that the punishment is so light in
comparison to other things, so it bring back like what we talked about just now.

So that – in terms of violence and justice for the institution? To be very honest, these are not words that
I feel have been considered enough, by the institution.

Yah. Like the thing about this is, these two words should be thought of more. What does it mean that
this is an incident of violence? The idea that sexual violence is something that happens to a person, or
to people, that there has to, like it, that there has to be people who commit it and people who are,
whose bodies are affected by it, whose minds and bodies are affected by it.

Because that's the idea of violence. It’s very embodied. It's not some theory, it is like, people commit it
and people suffer from it. That’s the idea of violence that has not been very present from the, from,
from, yah, what the institution says. Oh, yah. So in terms of justice for the institution. Yah, just just
about the same, like, it seems, it seems like justice is too big a word for them to consider. To be frank, it
seems like they think, because when you think of, because the thing is that you think of justice when you
think of violence, and if you’re speaking of misconduct, all you're thinking of is, how to – I don't know
– how to, like, it wouldn't be such a big word. It wouldn't be such a heavy, like reformative word. Yah,
it would be like consequences. Oh, it's like, because when you use the word misconduct, it’s for things
like temperature declaration, you don't declare your temperature, what should we do? Let's have you
write 100 lines. Let’s have you write an apology letter. That's what comes of, like, not thinking of the
word violence. You don't get justice.

7.11 Interview 11:

Yah. Okay. So I guess we start with the students, right? Yah. So for them, I suppose the concept of
justice would be one where the survivor has been provided the, like sufficient support, you know, to
deal with the aftermath of the situation that they go through. And also that, the assurance that their
safety and well-being will be prioritised, at least for the rest of their stay at the institution, NUS in this
situation. For students, I think they would consider any form of sexual misconduct to be sexual
violence, I would think. Well, like minded students anyways, there will always be a bunch who won’t
feel that way. But as far as the general majority of students that I myself, am friends with, interact with,
or am in social circles with – that would apply. So, for example, things like taking upskirt videos, they
will consider it to be a form of sexual violence, even if like by law, it's just considered an outrage of
modesty. And they will consider it to be sexual violence because of the consequences on the victims’
mental health, as well as the victims’ safety, safety being that you know, you can exist in any, like, any
place without the fear that you're – how to say that – basically, you should be able to exist in any
location without being afraid that someone is going to like, take upskirt photos of you or going to do
anything that would constitute an outrage of modesty, like molesting or anything like that. And so
because that safety is now compromised, that reassurance is now compromised, it's now a very unsafe
environment. You're subjected to such risks of violence, and I suppose that would be what, what
students consider sexual violence. So definitely, in both cases, both cases count as sexual violence to
the students.

Yah, then for the public, I think it's very different. At least for what I understand, yah, justice would be
more about, like I mentioned earlier, very much about the outcome. So what happens to the
perpetrator? Like how is the perpetrator punished? Then, based, it's based entirely on how the
perpetrator is punished, and that constitutes justice for them. So if the perpetrator, like in Fernando's
case, has been fired from NUS, some would consider it adequate justice, because he's now removed
from his position of power in the institution he had exploited previously. Some may not consider it

134
 sufficient, justice just because he was not charged or has not yet been charged for his actions, besides
the consequence of being fired. So, so it's very much tied to the consequences that the perpetrator
faces. And their notion of violence will be similarly different. In that I guess, for most laypeople, they
look at the severity of the consequences to the victim. So say, if the victim landed in hospital or suffered
grievous injury, then yes, it will constitute violence, right? But if say, the, the, the victim suffered from
PTSD from the assault situation, case, what, whatever you call it, that may not always constitute
violence, because it's just, you know, a mental response, like a psychological response to what
happened.

Right, like if you take the example – no, I mean, I totally agree, like if you take the example of the
dental, the dental student case, I can't remember the name of the case already, but it was like sometime
early last year. Yah. So anybody if you ask them like, hey, what do you think about that case, they will
consider it to be a form of violence because the victim had herself suffered grievous bodily harm. And
that resulted in her being hospitalised. And so yes, that case would be considered violent. But if you ask
somebody, you know, if you consider the Monica Baey case, a case of being filmed without your
knowledge in the shower, as something violent, they wouldn't automatically associate it with that. They
would consider it, you know, sexual misconduct, yes. Sexual assault, no. Yah. So that's for the public.

I suppose it's always the hard part, right? To comment about the institution. For, I suppose for the – I
have no idea actually, I'm, I'm, to be honest with you. I'm not actually sure what their conceptions of
justice and/or violence might be. I suppose for justice, I guess their concept of justice is, have I
provided compensation to the victim from the situation, have I given the perpetrator due punishment?
Which, I'm sure they will somehow evaluate whether it's sufficient or not given the case. Yah so, so I
think, as far as where the, where the consequences have been, like how to say, whether they've, like
committed to the consequences for the perpetrator, as well as provided sufficient compensation to the
victim, that will constitute their idea of justice. They probably don't consider justice to be anything
beyond this aspect, just because we don't really see any form of um, like, yah. Yah, NUS does it in a
very procedural way, and once they have, once they've reached a point where they feel that their
responsibilities, where it's like the limit of their responsibility as an institution, they don't go beyond
that. Whether the student body agrees that that is the limit of the responsibility of the institution is a
completely separate matter. Usually, it's not, it’s not the same. Yah.

I suppose the same goes with violence, I suppose. NUS would take more of a view that is similar to that
of the general public. So violence would be physical. If not, then, you know, this, it's not considered
violence, and hence, the consequences for the perpetrator, are less severe. Like I suppose if in the very
unfortunate event that somebody was, was grievously harmed on campus, and that resulted in them
being admitted into the hospital for a period of time, the perpetrator of that incident would be, would
be suffering much more severe consequences, I would think, compared to say, somebody who had taken
upskirt videos at a stairwell in NUS. Yah.

Yah, so I suppose justice in that, in that sense, would be very much linked to the severity of the incident,
the severity of the harm caused? Yah. At least from the institution's point of view.

7.12 Interview 12:

For the Monica and J. Fernando cases, for students. I believe, the justice was, like, repair, reparatory -
I never know how to say that name. Yah, the offender has some sort of bad outcome. So whether it was
like for the student, things like expulsion, for Jeremy Fernando, be fired. So from, like I feel like
because that's what most students conceive to be like, oh, they are in a position of somewhat power or
privilege. Let's take that. away from them, there’s like a– yah, yah. Ah yes, the just world – what’s that
– the just world mechanic, where if you do something bad you should get something bad also.

The thing is, I don't know what NUS perceives as justice. I'm obviously not someone who is a staff or
an admin. But for them, I think – I would like to think they share that same idea of, oh let’s, like, fire
the prof, ‘cause he’s clearly not, he’s a threat to the student body. Or let's get rid of th is student so he

135
 doesn't take more pictures of people. But in a weird way, their sense of justice is probably more image -
based rather than moral-based. So like people will perceive like oh, NUS is a just institution because
they have gotten rid of the problem in a good way. But to them, they're only doing it because they're
like, oh, this is the right thing to do in the society's eyes.

For the public, I would assume roughly that same retributive thing. So for them, I'm not sure what they
would assume lah. For students, because their, their proximity is like the system that NUS operates on.
So removing the student or the prof from campus, and their job makes sense. But to the, but to the
general public, they might think, oh, tested against the law. So things like jail sentence, fines, different
form of punishment, because they aren’t, like, here. Yah. And I also realised that, as I just said this,
that for all three players, their sense of justice is, on the perpetrator side, because they are the one
causing the harm, but not a lot of people put thought into what is justice for the victim? Like, what does
the victim want? Do they necessarily want, like, the person to be expelled or fired? Do they want the
person to go to therapy? I don't know what the options are available, because we're always focused on,
that person does bad thing, make bad thing happen to them?

I think because of the word violence, people always assume that it's like the more severe forms of
sexual harm. So things like whether it's, you know, the really more severe things, the R-word, the, you
know, but I think, for both cases, for the Monica and Fernando cases, people were realising that the,
like violence can pertain to anything, it is just an umbrella term, whether it's small things like crossing
a personal boundary, or something like taking photos or sexual harassment. So I feel like that is the
shift from the two cases where they were like, oh, violence can be an overall term.

Then general public’s conception of violence. Yah, they will probably also think like the more severe
forms, like, definitely involving, like physical harm. Yah, that's, that's the term I was looking for,
violence always implies physical harm. But I mean, taking a photo is not like physically the same as
bashing someone on the head. Right. But yah, it can have similar traumatic effects that are emotional.
Yah, yes. Yes. Yes. Yah. So I guess that's the, that is the probably the problem of using the term
violence, but that's why probably NUS also wants to use misconduct, because it seems like a, like an
easier term, and then can cover everything in a more broad sense.

7.13 Interview 13:

I think what is justice, if you, if students, the general public, or the institution, they, they wish to express
that they don't condone sexual violence. Okay, I’ll elaborate more on that later. But anything that is
commonly agreed upon to be sexual violence, then they generally do take quite a firm stance in that
they think more is better in terms of their penalties. And that's obviously a very slippery slope, because
then we don't consider rehabilitation, we don't consider, like, the effectiveness of the penalties that
we're using, and also whether, whether that even translates to, to prevention, in the first place. And
then there's a bit of a middle ground, there’s a nuance where people might understand that there is,
there are dues to be paid, if you do commit this act against someone, but it doesn't mean that your
entire life has to be defined by either you being harassed, or you having experienced sexual violence,
or you conduct, you committing it. And I think that the middle ground can obviously be seen in the way
safeNUS, for example, conducts our little, I don't even know what to call this, but the way – yah the
way we do things, we prefer to, to think about transformative justice and, and stuff like that. And, yah, I
mean, among my peers, I definitely see more of this middle ground because people recognise that it's
not a matter of, oh, you, you put out this penalty then confirm people won’t do it, or you, now this
person has committed this act, then you must like punish him until he die. So, yah, obviously, that's,
that's where we want to operate in, where we're trying to hold our discussions in?

And then we have the other side of the camp, which would be people who don't necessarily see sexual
violence as sexual violence, so that means people who think that Monica Baey’s incident was, you
know, unwarranted and she shouldn't have made such a big deal about it. And so, maybe the guy got
more than he deserved, because all he did was, kind of, peep at her or, or do whatever shit that he did.
People who maybe think that this guy should have been let off with a much more lighter verdict?

136
So yah, I've honestly seen all three, but I would say people are more like the, okay, this guy deserves to
be punished, but at the same time Monica Baey, it's a bit much, so it's not even at the middle ground,
kind of area. It's like a strange, while I think the aggressor should be punished because that's expected
and that's what's socially appropriate, that's the kind of view that most people think it's appropriate to
have, but also I kind of am uncomfortable with Monica Baey’s actions because she's like, too loud, or
whatever. Yah, yah so in their head they’re also like lowkey punishing the survivor as well.

And with, with JF, I don't think anyone really finds it necessary to deliberate on what is just in his case,
because I think most people understand that, first of all, he's a professor, he's a much older individual,
and he was in position of power. So whatever that he got, he deserved. And, and maybe more, I think
some people definitely were of the view that they, they should have done something else? Because the
way he was relieved was so quiet and all and despite it being talked about in the papers, obviously, in
the news, I think when people do kind of feel unsettled, that he's probably just out there living his life?
You know, even though he was relieved, he was, yah, relieved from his position. And I don't know if
that's necessarily like a, oh, he made a mistake, we need to punish him, but it's more of a, I don't feel
safe because I know that someone of his status is able to simply go off just like that. And, and without,
insufficient recompense or or care for the survivor. Yah, and with regard to the institution, this is a
whole different ballgame. Their definition of justice is, again, I definitely think it skews toward the, the
more is better, at least for students, but there's a bit more immunity for a member of staff because of
reputation probably and who knows what else JF did to, I don’t know, cover his ass?

They're afraid of misrepresentation in their words. It ties into the thinking that the students/survivor
has more of a say than they actually do as well. Because they're saying, oh, it's these two grown
consenting adults in relation to – which obviously isn't the case. Yah.

Alright. So what I have observed is, students generally see justice as something that’s reactionary, so
kind of an eye for an eye, something that’s very clearly delineated, like you do this wrong thing then
you get this punishment. So they, they see it as kind of a balancing, like a balance sheet, a ledger. Yah.
And meanwhile the public, they see justice as some, like a warning like, like preventive action. So, this
one, this guy do already, he got punished, then make sure that he's the last one because his punishment
is scary or like, it's like the death penalty almost, like they want to make sure it’s so serious that then
no one ever dares to even go near that offence? And for the institution, if they understand justice at all.
It – they definitely do see it as kind of preventive, but there's also that angle of something that appeases
public sentiment, so something that makes them look like they are concerned about the welfare of
students while hopefully stopping future cases from cropping up.

Then with regard to violence, this is a bit more blended. I think students and public kind of have a
similar view? When, when they talk about violence, they tend to use this angle of empathy. So it has to
be something very graphic and extreme to them that they are, they are, they will recoil from, I think?
So they see it as no opportunity whatsoever to consent, like something so vile that they will, they will
immediately be disgusted because if it’s, if it’s not in that realm, then maybe it's not violence, it is just
something less intense to them. I mean, obviously, there's no, there's no scale, but they, they just, they
can easily, they can dismiss it more easily if it's not something – if they don't see there being an obvious
like a person kicking a dog kind of situation. Yah.

Mmm, that is true. The physical thing is very true, that's why image-based sexual violence and so many
other cases, people are just like, ah, you can just get on with your life.

Oh, yah, I, they actually don't, the way that they frame sexual violence is as misconduct. It’s so off -
putting because it's almost like a faux pas to them, like someone was like digging their nose in public
or, or they never tuck in their school uniform shirt, instead of a problem of people causing harm to
other people? To them it’s like um, aiyoh, this thing happened, ah, now you need to be disciplined. It's
not like oh, you hurt this person, you, you de-, you should get some, I don't know, you have to, to
compensate for, for the harm you did to someone else. Like they don't humanise the issue, which is, has
been so evident in, in the way they've treated survivors.

137
7.14 Interview 14:

Yah, I mean, to me, the most obvious one was like how the public had a conception of justice? So
because of how, like, I saw all those general public's like, reaction on Facebook, and like the news
article comments and shit, like, I mean, it seemed to me quite clearly that they were looking for
retributive justice? Like, they were just like, you know, lock up these people, etc. Like that, rhat was
clear enough to me lah, I don't think that there were many, like in the general public who are looking
for like, rehabilitative or restorative justice, really? Yah. Um, among students, it was really a mix. So I
can't say for sure. But like, the thing is, I think students, I can't say evenly also because I'm sure it
depends on the faculty, but like, at least the students I knew, like, I, we knew of the existence of more
than like punitive, like, punitive justice. Like we knew that, like, we knew rehabilitative justice was a
thing. We knew that, like restorative justice was a thing. But it was just not like, we were exposed to it
very quickly because of the situation. So I think we didn't have time to even like, think about what
restorative justice truly entail. So the most, the most familiar ones were just what was already
instituted to some extent, so the retributive and rehabilitative lah, since that's, like, technically
practised in, in weird ways or bad ways, like in Singapore? Yah, yah, I, it was really a mix lah.

7.15 Interview 15:

For both cases, students are just outraged, and I think like for the Fernando case, there was also a
sense of like, this again? Like how have we not learned. And I have very conflicted ideas about what
the public says about this. Because okay, on one hand, I very much disagree with the point that it's an
NUS-only problem. And I don't, I don't like that framing, because then it just responsibilises one
institution, but, and it doesn't see all these acts of sexual violence as like a systemic consequence of
inadequate sex ed, not enough conversations on what healthy boundaries and relationships look like.
It's an amalgamation of like all these factors that people fail to see. And they are like, yah, the
perpetrators are always inside of NUS, so everyone outside of it is safe. So I don't like that framing.

That being said, I feel like the media has been a very key impetus as well as vehicle for the kind of
pressures that you do see in the universities. And it’s unfortunate lah that the university only responds,
only, only responds to like, media pressure and like, public scrutiny. And in this case, that's why it
works? But you know, like, I think like, the media also shouldn't go scot-free on this? Like, there's also
like, what does it mean to responsibly report on these things? And like, how do we also make sure that
we are respecting the survivors, their privacy, their concerns, their dignity, right? Prioritising that. I
think these are also questions to be considered when it comes to like media portrayals of sexual
violence. As for the institution? I don’t know, I think at first it wa s just – for Monica Baey I think they
were very like surprised, taken aback by the fact that students were so angry? And, I feel like for – I
don't know what to feel about the Fernando case, ‘cause, I can’t, I actually can't remember what
NUS’s thing was, like I think NUS was just trying to like explain its way out of it. I think like for the
Monica Baey incident did show like a lot of glaring holes that they could understand, whereas for the
Fernando case, they were just like, oh no, but we are restricted by this, oh no, but like this happened.
So I don't know. I feel like as these cases emerged, they just find – it's just become like a, like a PR
crisis, right?

I also have to acknowledge that all three of this players aren’t monoliths or homogeneous by any
chance, by any way. And I mean, as much as the institution itself is very violent, it's also disingenous
for me to not acknowledge the solidarity and allyship that we’ve found in the university, from
professors, from like people within, you know, the Victim Care Unit, within certain members of the
administration. And so, I think so it's like, yah, there are individuals within the institution who have
showed solidarity and allyship. I think that also doesn't take away from the fact that the institution
itself does hold a superficial and also very harmful understanding of – so about like, what sexual, what
constitutes, like sexual violence. And also what are its causes and origins and how to go about
addressing them. As I said, to them, it's like, there's a bad guy, and then there's a good guy, and we
have to punish the bad guy as much as we can, and it has to be very public so that people know that
we're doing something? When actually that doesn't do anything, right? Like if it did, then like, there

138
wouldn't have been any other cases after the Monica Baey incident, because we already amped up the
punishment. But no, like what we’ve seen is that, it’s like, people don't – ultimately I believe that people
don’t respond to the stick, right, in the carrot and stick situations they don't respond to the stick. And
even if they do, it's a very short-term kind of solution. I think like students itself, like students
themselves, it's, it's quite hard to put a finger on like what people want, as in, I think like, there are
various groups of this, right? So there's like the people who, yah, who are same as institution, they
want more punishment. They think that like punishing more people, we can move towards like a culture
where some, like, things like this aren't tolerated. And I understand where that comes from lah, it’s
very, it’s from anger. And I think, yah, and especially when you aren't offered any alternatives to what
justice might look like? That is the very natural course of thinking. So I can't blame them as well. And,
I don’t know, especially growing up in like a society like ours, and seeing the way that justice is, like
served right in this country? So I don't, I don't necessarily – I mean, like speaking from my own
experience, that's what I wanted from the Monica Baey incident. I wanted, like, harsher punishments
for the perpetrators. And I realised that, yah, when I, when I was offered these alternative modes of
thinking, then I'm like, yah, what would that look like? So yah, that's for students.

And then like, for the public – I don’t know, I feel like Singaporean public is like a mix of both support,
but I also get like the sense that sometimes they also just like seeing powerful educat– powerful
institutions being exposed. I don't know. As in I feel like I don't know, some people, I really, I just feel
like a lot of people who are like, oh, haha, it's like the NUS people at it again.

I mean, but I still get like the, oh, like, your elites are getting what they deserve. Because I do believe
that our legal system is very elitist. But I think like it becomes harmful when we do see it as like an
NUS-only problem. It's not. It's just simply not. And we cannot evade responsibility and accountability
as a society just because we see these problems more pronounced in another institution. So yah, as in
like I think public support always helps? But we must also be critical of like, what this support is
couched in terms of, right? Because if they’re like, oh yah, we want to support NUS because it’s like
such an epidemic, without like, the critical, I mean, like the critical underst– self awareness and
understanding that, but this is also happening in our wider society. Like it's, it's only symptomatic of
like, what is happening in the wider Singaporean society. Yah. As in like, I feel like for students and
public it’s, it's a bit more heterogeneous, to be, to tell you like, what exactly are their beliefs? Because
different groups, like, different groups have very different ways of thinking about this.

Yah. So as in for, I guess, for the public right, that, that moral outrage nowadays, oh, how can such a
‘cause I think like, for the past few years NUS has been in the media a lot, you know, like yah, for
topping the charts, that Asia’s best university, I think like the jarring impact of, of seeing that
alongside, juxtaposed alongside like, oh, this university also being the epicentre of like a sexual
violence epidemic. I think maybe that was, was part of the reason why the public consciousness was so
agitated and also animated into action. And, I mean, we are shaped by, I think, in Singapore, especially
we're very influenced by like, authority and institution. I'm not saying that we don't have agency, but I
think a lot of our ideas of justice does get informed by you know, like, what does it mean to seek out
justice through legal means. And I don't blame themselves, because I myself was like that for a very
very long time until I was introduced to like alternatives. And so I think in the public was like, oh yah,
okay, longer jail sentences, like we want to, we want to, I guess, punish this person as much, as much
as we can. Because that’s our idea of revenge– uh, idea of justice, which is conflicted with the idea of
revenge,

I mean, then, then like, the more radical students lah, who will also see that yah, this is like, punitive
justice isn't the way to go about doing it. We need like more radical and systemic re forms that start at
the root of the problem. And so, yah, that's when you have concepts like transformative justice coming
in, more like literacy and education-based reforms? So yah, so, and I think like that’s the group of
students that I'm primarily more acquainted with, which has been like also a very new experience for
me, because I was also part of like, the group of students that was just so angry, and didn't see any
other option than to, like punish the perpetrator. Because that's what justice, justi ce looked like to me,
and that's what it meant to be protected by an institution. You know, until we realise that, actually,
institutions are often the source of violence. And that it's just, it's not a solution, if it was a solution, or
this would have been eradicated, is my point. So the results, I guess, speak for themselves.

139
7.16 Interview 16:

Okay. First of all, students, based on my circles, and I need to specify it’s my circles, because I really
don't know, I feel like most people probably don't care, honestly. Like, it's just a thing that happens.
And they gossip about it, and it's scandalous, end of story. In my specific circles, very much, um, trying
to shift the narrative towards the victim lah, like, prioritize the victim at all costs. Didn't safeNUS
emerge out of one of these?

Yah, so students, my, my activist friends students, people think definitely, like justice is prioritizing the
victim lah. But also the violence is very much like, obvious to us, right? Like, verbal violation,
boundary, consent, everything violation, trust violation, that's all violence to students, I feel. Like, I'm
sure that students would be willing to address issues of like, how far is just, how much is, how much
justice do like people like Nicholas and like, how much redemption and justice? What's the boundaries
for like Nicholas and Jeremy, I'm sure, like students would be willing to addres s that. But that should
come secondary, like how can that even be like? How can you have restorative justice before
transformative justice? Sorry, no, how can you have transformative justice before restorative justice?
Am I getting it right? One of them basically centres more like, like, you know, like getting the
perpetrator to recognise his wrongs and then reintegrating him back to society, right? That's obviously
gonna be something that people want to talk about at some point or another, but how can you even
start talking about that when you are not even like looking after the victim to begin with?

I think like a lot of the general public seem to view these two, these two things, like looking after
Monica Baey and being fair to, to Nicholas as like binary opposites, as if they cannot be in
conversation simultaneously. Like so they end up displacing the Monica Baey conversations because
they want to focus on talking about Nicholas but it shouldn't be that, right now, like not, like Nicholas
won't get neglected. Like he won't like – we recogn– I think, I feel like students, or at least people I
know, generally recognise that a lot of the times when you're doing, when you're creating harm, it's an
outcome of a lot of like, societal conditions right? And that one – and that’s definitely something
people want to start talking about more. But how can Singapore even start talking about that more
when they're at such baby phases of even acknowledging, looking after victims?

General public seemed divided on the violence, a lot of like questions and grey areas, um – again,
probably a lot of underplaying the violence committed? And simultaneously, over empathising with
Nicholas, rather than Monica? Because people probably feel as though it's harder for them to
recognise harm they caused, than when harm is done to them? That's why they end up over
empathising with Nicholas. It’s harder for them to picture themselves as someone who does harm
rather than someone who has harm done to them. Or maybe they – or more like they haven't processed
it properly. Because, like, the reason why you end up, like general public ends up questioning, like,
how fair are we being to Nicholas is because if they mess up, like, they don't have the accountability for
it. Yah. And that's who they view Nicholas as, somebody who has messed up. But, you know, like,
because they don't know how to take accountability for it, they also sympathise with his, with his
predicament. Yah, so violence becomes undermined in the process.

Maybe my statement earlier isn’t– maybe my statement earlier should be reversed. I'm not really sure.
Maybe they do see themselves more so in the position of someone accidentally, or mistakenly, or
regrettably creating harm. Yah, maybe. Maybe they know they are at risk of it, and then they would
want forgiveness or like, gentleness or you know, not to have to deal with the guilt that comes with
being accountable for that. That's why they end up over-empathising because they're like, maybe they
will think of it as like, I could have accidentally done that, I could have mistakenly done that, you know,
it could have been you, it could have been me.

For the institution, I think they just view violence and justice as protocol. So criteria -based, right. It's
really just rule-based and guidelines-based and framework-based. I guess it's because protocol gives
clarity to them – I guess it's because they think that protocol gives them clarity with these like tricky
situations. Kind of convenient, right, to have protocol to follow? And probably why they are so
resistant to protocol change also because there's so much effort.

140
7.17 Interview 17:

The institution, I don't think, it’s very, very obvious that they don't see sexual violence as violence. If
they can call it misconduct, I don't think – if they can call assault misconduct, it’s very obvious that
they're not going to go one step further and call it violence.

I don't – the fact that they can – I think it links together to the fact that they euphemized it so much,
they euphemized it to the point where they don't even believe that it deserves justice because they don't
see the need for – they really, they don't see the need of justice because to them it's just, oh , discipline,
misconduct, not even punishment. The word justice might be a bit too strong for them to even consider.

Yah, so naughty. Ma’am, it’s a crime! Oh, that's a bit of a stretch, justice is a bit of a stretch. Yah.
There’s no need for justice, because there wasn’t that injustice.

Oh my goodness. I think that links to how the student body and general public actually frames justice,
because though, I don't know why right, maybe, maybe it's a Singaporean mindset. Maybe it's the lack
of sex ed, maybe it's the lack of any ed, but the word justice triggers something in them, right, and
they're like, why you so SJW? Yah, like they get so triggered the moment they hear justice. Do you, do
you not want justice? Do you want to be oppressed?

It's not quirky to not want justice! It's not quirky at all! It's very traditional. Like honey, you’re
oppressing yourself! You rather oppress yourself than, you rather oppress yourself and join society
than be like a little bit outspoken. Stop! It’s okay to speak up, it's okay. No one's gonna shun you,
you're shunning people. For speaking up for you leh. It's like when women say I'm not a feminist. Do
you want to be oppressed? Oh my god, yah, this is so irritating. Like every time I talk about it, it’s like
eh, don't you think he deserves some sort of punishment? They’re like, eeyer, why you so SJW?

They very irritating leh. Like you know, I'm doing a double major in sociology, right? And then some
people say, wah, I heard those sociology students ah, they’re very SJW. Do you not want to know about
the society? Just say you live in your own personal bubble and go on with it.

We live in a society! Ahhhhh!

It's - oh my god. Oh my god, no! Oh my god. Yah. I think, yah, the lack of education in any way right, it
also doesn't – people don't realise, people think that oh, violent is just like attacking or like, beating,
but it really isn’t leh. Violence could be emotional, violence could be mental. It could be like verbal
violence also. Yah. But people just associate, they think violence is a synonym for action movies. For
action, for action movies. They think violence is a synonym for anything that happens in an action
movie. Yah, like, a girl doesn't have to get Mortal Kombat level pounded for it to be called sexual
violence.

Remember the case where the guy went into the girls room? And just, like, squeezed out her eyes? If
you want to about like justice and violence, right, even though it's not part of the two cases. I
remember, and I was so heartbroken when I heard this honestly. Because my own parents were like:
but it’s her boyfriend what! Who ask her date him? He got the key to her house what. Who ask her give
the key?

I remember telling my parents this story and at first they were like, wow, that's messed up. Wow, he
squished out her eyes. That's messed up. I’m like, yah, it’s her ex-boyfriend, and tbey were like
“orhhhh”, and I’m like, what is that response? What is that “orhhhh”? What is that? And they were
like, did he have access to her house? I’m like, “yah, so?” If as long as it’s in the house it become
family problem already ah? I’m like – oh my god. Oh my god, they're, just because a partner doesn't
mean it's okay leh. This is why domestic abuse is going on leh. That doesn't make a difference!

Oh my god, dude, you know that, you know that the police, right? They don't care about domestic
abuse? They don't care about domestic abuse at all, because to them, oh that’s a family problem. The
moment they're in a relationship, it’s a family matter. What the hell? What the hell? It doesn't make a

141
 difference. This is why – oh my god. “It’s okay what, it's a relationship.” It's not okay leh. It's not okay
at all leh. Like, it’s violence leh. It's assault leh. Whether or no t you're in a relationship, it’s still
assault leh. Wah, it’s really messed up leh, it’s really really messed up. Yah! They really, they really
overlook it, they invalidate it so much. Like if a relationship also you take it so lightly, right? What if
it's a marriage, marriage you don't even touch it all lah? Scary, man.

7.18 Interview 18:

I think for the students, what counts is just is what, I suppose they look towards what the survivor feels
about the whole issue? If a victim of sexual assault or sexual violence feels that, she feels that a
particular sentence is too light, you know, the perpetrator deserves more, because that's how she feels.
And I think students tend to rally behind that as well. For the schools and general public, I think it's
more of like what the courts decide like, whatever, whatever the judge decides, then that has to be just
because that's the law. That's how it works, open close quotation. Yah. So if, like, you know, you
shouldn't intervene in the, in matters of the court, you know. Yah. So, I think that's, but um, but I do
think that some members of the public do kind of feel that, that, like, similar to the students, they feel
that it's only just if perpetrators of sexual assault receive harsher sentences. Yah. So I think there's a
bit of overlap in terms of how they perceive things to be? Whether it's just or not just.

I feel like they all have kind of similar conceptions of violence. I mean, I think everyone, be it, whether
you're a student, within the student body, you're an institution, or you're a member of the public. I think
everyone can agree in both the Monica Baey case and the Jeremy Fernando case that they're both acts
of violence, sexual assault is an act of violence. I think everyone can kind of agree on that. Yah.

I suppose in terms of – I'll talk about the student community first, ‘cause I think that's like, much easier
since I can relate to them a lot. I think in terms of belief, it's probably the fact that – how do I put this –
like, sexual assault is a crime, it's wrong. And perpetrators should never get away with it. So
perpetrators of sexual assault should be penalised for their actions. But at the same time, it's not just
about like punitive, punishment, right? It's also about rehabilitation. I think the r ehab part is something
that not a lot of people look towards in Singapore? I think everyone is very focused on punitive
measures, but I think rehab is something that's important as well, and I think some members of the
student body brought up in the statement that they, that they published.

For the institution. I think their belief is really that every student, like, the voices of every single student
is important? And the, the future of every student is important as well, which is why I think they kind of
weighed the problem and, and tried to, or wanted to make sure that the guy's life isn't ruined as much.
Do I feel that this kind of stance shifts when the perpetrator isn't a student, but is a faculty member like
Jeremy Fernando? Yah.

For members of the public, honestly, there's a lot of different people who make up members of the
public and I feel like they have different interests and beliefs. You do have people who obviously side
with Monica Baey, but you also have people who are, who kind of dismiss the severity of this whole
thing. In a sense, they're always like, oh, he apologised, what more does she want, you know what I
mean? But what we want is for people to take these cases seriously, and to have mechanisms in place
to ensure that, to decrease such instances of sexual assault and violence among students. I think the,
the whole issue with regards to like sexual assault and sexual violence in school kind of boils down to
the lack of knowledge about what respect and what consent constitutes. And I think there’s like roots in
like this whole patriarchal society we live in, but, but like, people need to understand that and I don't
necessarily think that they do. Yah.

142
7.19 Interview 19:

Okay, I feel like the public's one was definitely, justice is you need to make sure that the perpetrator
gets, gets what they deserve basically, they get their punishment lah. That was their form of justice.
Exactly to what extent I'm not too sure. But there was definitely like, talk about, oh, this isn't fair,
because the perpetrator got always scot-free, which, of course, I do agree with too lah because, you
know, there is no – I can't think of a word there – but basically, there's no sense of like, this is not on
his permanent record. It's not staying there.

Yah, yah, exactly. So I feel like that was, that was the general public's reaction. As for the students, I
feel like it was more, it was a, it was a mixture of – justice, justice, let me think about it. It was
definitely like, punitive measures, like oh, you know, he needs to be punished. And I think there was
also this aspect of what's going to happen going forward. Like, I'm not sure whether this fits exactly is
the definition of like justice, but more of – yah, yah, I mean, in more of like, you know, it’s how, what
are we going to do to make sure that it doesn't happen again? So I guess for the public side, they are
more of like, this particular case, he needs to get punished. But for the students’ side, it was a mix of,
he needs to get punished, and there was also some students going, what's gonna happen next, you
know, are we gonna make sure that this doesn't happen again, and stuff like that. And obviously there’s
like – yah, and I think, I think those were both important trains of thoughts, but I feel like that second
train of thought I didn't really see it much in the public eye, it was more of just, he needs to get
punished, which is honestly, all media for literally every sexual harassment case I've seen anywhere in
the world. They’re – every, every person's, like every general public's reaction is, this person needs to
get punished. But no one ever really talks about survivor or like how do you make sure it doesn't get
repeated and stuff like that? But there was definitely that aspect in the students’ situation lah , because,
you know, we are literally the people who are going to get affected.

For the institution, I don’t know. I don't even know. I was gonna say I have no idea. I feel like they,
their conception of justice comes from the reaction of the media. You know, if people say this is wrong,
then they do something about it. But if people never say that this is wrong, then they don't really do
anything about it. Does that make sense? You know, they, they think okay, yah, you know, they say this
is wrong. So I'm going to make sure that I don't do it again. And then when the next situation happens,
they do something but then they don't properly think through it. They just wait to see if it’s –

Yah, exactly! They're like, they're literally a, like a, like a kid, you know?

It's just like, oh, you know, you're not supposed, you know, if you – like the students are the adult
saying this is wrong, and then the kid is, okay, this is wrong, I won't do it again. Then the kid just,
instead of doing that one wrong thing, goes, you know, it’s like, oh, don't touch the pot while it's still
hot, then the kid’s like, okay, fine, I'm gonna go and stick my hand into the fire in the – you know,
basically? It's like they don't understand the problem isn't the kettle that's hot. The problem is, it's hot!
The problem is, be it the kettle or the fire, it’s gonna burn your hand.

Okay, violence – I'm not too sure. I do, I do know that for the institution's case, they were, there was
definitely that discussion about if it's, you know, downright assault, then the case is handled differently,
if it's harassment then it’s differently, that kind of thing. So, you know, they did try to section off, I
guess, in a sense, a bit more concretely, what kind of violence constitutes to how long or how severe
the punishment should be. And I don't know whether that's a good thing because I think when I did,
when they did show us that, that information, it seemed vague still?

143
(In reference to Regulation 10 from the University’s Statutes and Regulations, which states that:)

REGULATION 10
DISCIPLINE WITH RESPECT TO STUDENTS

(A) CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES GIVING RISE TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AND

PROCEDURES FOR INITIATING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

1. Offences giving rise to disciplinary proceedings shall be classified as:

(a) Minor and Moderate Offences; or
(b) Serious Offences.

2. Minor and Moderate Offences are offences which may disturb, create a nuisance to others, disrupt or improperly interfere
with aca demic, administrative, sporting, social or other activities of the University to a minor or limited extent.

3. Serious Offences are offences of substantial or significant gravity which may materially or seriously affect and damage th e
interests and/or proper functioning of the University, including but not limited to:
(a) any serious breach of academic integrity in connection with the conferment of any
degree, diploma, certificate or other academic assessment;
(b) any offence that involves or results in criminal a ctivity;
(c) any offence that involves or results in ragging; and
(d) any act or behaviour that is or may be materially or seriously detrimental to the
reputation, dignity, interest or welfare of the University.

(There is a Regulation 10A which classifies any complaints or allegations of Sexual Misconduct Offences as “possible
Serious Offences” which was not present in the AY2017/2018 Bulletin and only introduced from AY2018/2019 onwards.)

What do they define as the functioning of the university then?

“But not limited to any serious breach of academic integrity”. Okay, fine. Whatever. Any offence that
involves – huh? That’s so vague. I did not know this, and now that I do, I don't know how to respond.
Are you serious? So basically their definition of violence is a violence against their reputation lah.

That's my answer. That's, that's all I can – the only understanding they have of violence is damage to
their, their reputation, full stop. Any other, any, anything else, if it can be covere d up, I'm assuming it's
not considered serious for them.

The thing is, that's part D. Part A is academic integrity, which means that if I cheat on an exam, that's
higher up the list than if I – than sexual assault. What the hell. I don't understand. Like, I'm not saying
that people need to plagiarise. But the thing is, the severity, serious offences? How the hell is copying
off of Wikipedia more serious than sexually assaulting someone? I don't understand. I don't
understand. I seriously don't understand it.

Who came up with it? And who came up with Part A, Part C, Part B, and then Part D and decided to
put them in that arrangement? They think that minor, serious, the, the Part D itself is only if it damages
the university. Oh my god! And this is after Monica Baey’s, like, incident and the whole issue of like,
people screaming at them for change.

144
(In reference to Appendix A from the University’s Code of Student Conduct, which states that:)

EXAMPLES OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT

6. Sexual Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following examples of prohibited conduct:

Sexual Discrimination
7. Sexual Discrimination means unequal or unfair treatment of an individual based on sex, gender, identity and/or sexual
orientation, in relation to various aspects of that individual’s educational and student life activities and/or employment (as the
case may be).

Sexual Harassment
8. Sexual Harassment refers to harassment of a sexual nature. It means any unwelcome, non -consensual acts of a sexual
nature, including but not limited to, sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, or other verbal, non -verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature on or off the premises of NUS.

9. Sexual Harassment may be found in a single incident or as an elem ent of persistent behaviour.

Sexual Exploitation – Sexual Misconduct not involving physical contact

10. Sexual exploitation refers to taking advantage of another individual in a sexual, or sexually -related way for the benefit of
anybody other than the individual being exploited.

Sexual Contact – Sexual Misconduct involving physical contact

12. Sexual Contact refers to any deliberate physical contact with another person in a sexual manner, however slight or brief,
whether that touching is direct or indirect, without that person’s Consent, or at a point when that person is incapable of giving
Consent.

Okay, as a person of minority, I have a lot of red flags. Oh, my god, these are the same people that say
that Chinese privilege doesn't exist in Singapore, because we all have same equal opportunities. That's
not the point. Hello? Yah! Oh my god.

Oh my god. It really is the same people that like, you know, you know, you know, when someone talks
about Chinese privilege on social media or something, there's always that one or two comments that
are like, oh, Chinese privilege doesn't exist because you have equal opportunity. That's not the point!
It’s not about the opportunities. It’s about the background, it's about the lifestyle or the – Exactly!
There's no point in you giving the same opportunity for the, for different people if their starting point is
already below the next person, you know? I don’t even know how to explain this because it's so
fundamental. Okay, yah, but that's my response, I guess, for NUS, for the institutions.

I don't know about, but I don't know about public. I'm not too sure about the public, but I feel like – I'm
not sure. Because I feel like everyone's very busy discussing about the justice aspect of it, that people
don't really discuss so much about the violence aspect of it, like what they define as violent. And like,
do they consider this to be violent? And stuff like that. There's definitely like nuances to it, you know,
there's like –

I think it's the idea of, it's wrong, you know. Be it, is it violent or not, it's not the, it's not the main topic
of discussion? But it's the fact that it's wrong. That, that makes it, that makes people like want to
discuss about it, make sure that, that something happened lah. And I, I think that's fine. I think that's
not bad. Yah, you know, because I feel like the discussing maybe, maybe a lot of people might not be
able to discuss the, you know, whether is this violence or not? Because it could also be, for some
people triggering potentially? And for some people, they might not know, how to discuss violence
properly, in a sense that – you know, because technically, there can – I'm not saying that I've seen it,
but I feel like there could definitely be people who are like, oh, but he didn't touch her. You know, so
therefore, is it considered violence? So I feel like that entire discussion can happen. But th e baseline is,
whether it is violent or not, it's wrong.

Students, I feel like students also have a similar mindset as the general public because, again, like the
idea is, it’s wrong, you know? And, and – yah, so I guess that, that aspect of it wise, students are
generally just like, this is wrong. This shouldn't be happening. That's it. Full stop. End of sentence.
Yah.

145
7.20 Interview 20:

I can answer for social media first lah, but in terms of students then, that one, it gonna be a bit difficult.
But okay, for social media, the only – I cannot give a definite answer, because it's too varied, and the
salient themes across both ends of the spectrum of just and unjust and what people perceive or what
just and unjust is or even what violence is.

Hmm. So. What is just, is in accordance to the generational beliefs that they stand by. So why do I say
that? Because that in itself provides an answer on all spectrums. Because we have many different
generations of Singaporeans on maybe perhaps on Facebook, on Instagram, and they have their own
idea of what is just. And on, and then on a broader scale, what are the values that a Singaporean
should have. Right? So it's just like how our generation has a little, has a little different approach
towards what is Singaporean, to maybe perhaps an older one, right? So, yup – so that's one answer
about just.

I mean, of course, in the context of, um – I mean in the context of this particular thesis, right, I would
say, what is just is, of course, the common answer will always be, the sexual, the sexual, the sexual
crime perpetrator, will get the full face, will get the full force of the law, face the full music of the law.
And I think that's one commonality that we have, you know, due to the, due to the very pragmatic
approach that we take towards law and the fact that we value the sanctity of life, or something that's
common across almost everyone. The only variation therein lies in like, the agency. The older folks will
tend to lie towards, yes, these perpetrators should be blamed, but the victims must also be. Why is she,
why he's, whatever the pronouns is, why is, or actually whatever this fella is inviting to do it lah.
Mostly a she lah, all the time it’s mostly a she lah, because –

Another big theme? I guess, you could say it will be a converse thing when it comes to like unjust lah,
like you know, whatever is unjust is whatever that denounces our Singaporean-ness. Like anything–
yah, because. Because, again, the answer to what is unjust and whatever is the, whatever is the idea of
denouncing our Singaporean-ness. That’s why it’s like, you know, anything that – the commonality
would be anything that affects our sovereignty, anything that affects our security, anything that affects
our, the integrity of our social fabric, right? So, these are the big three, big things that will, that will
constantly be a big question for all of us.

The variation therein lies, again, in what is the, what do they perceive as a threat to any of these three.
So – no, and more importantly also, is a threat to their values that they hold, right? And, and then, of
course, at the, to zoom out again it’s like, you know, these values, where do they come from? Most of
us, you know, are conservative, most of us, you know, we always stand by a very Asian-centric values,
Confucian, with a strong, with a strong belief in our religious beliefs. And that guides our, that guides
our politics, that guides our policies, that guides a lot of things lah basically lah. I mean, that's, that's
the reality of it now. So what denounces that will then be constituted as like, you know what denounces
our Singaporean-ness lah, you know, which is why again like, for example things like – I don’t know.
Okay lah, maybe like the recent case of, the guy wanted to plant a bomb. And you know, yah, that one
is, received widespread condemnation, only some of them say that it is good because apparently
Muslims are terrorists but that kind is a bunch of jokers lah. The more contentious one will include
like, you know, rights to – housing, perhaps, you know, why are non-nuclear families, and not just
LGBTQ, but why non-nuclear families having to face these kind of, like, problems of housing lah,
because of this and that, something to talk about in CAPTISS.

Okay, sorry ah, let me think about it properly. Bringing it back to the concept of just and unjust, justice
or injustice and violence, right? How do we define it – wah, this is, heavy question ah, honestly.

Justice would then be generally anything that perhaps – in the most objective of ways lah hor, I’ll put
this in the most objective of ways – promote equality, right. amongst our, amongst our community. I
think this is the general idea lah that we are looking at lah in Singapore mostly. That’s something that I
think like even the institution also believes in. But I mean, again, I put – I want to use that term equality
very subjectively. Because different people have different ideas of what equality is, some people don’t
even believe in equality, some people believe in equity. Right, so – that’s a buzzword lah – injustice

146
 would then be anything that infringes on that lah, basically, you know, just like, which is basically, the
hot topic right now is mostly like income inequality lah, that kind of thing.

Yah, yah, ‘cause I – ‘cause I'm thinking verbally, I’m like I’m thinking as we speak. So now that we're
going to try to link it back to the three parties and all that, if we were to, what do people see as just for
all cases, right, is the, that the criminal will face the full force of the law. That will be just. Why?
Because laws are there, you infringe the law, you get it. No ifs, no buts.

If you want to talk about the general public, or rather at least on social media, nuances are varied, but
unfortunately, at the same time, non-existent. So, because people tend to make a lot of judgments based
on the extreme, and that, and the problem is that it becomes – you know, yah, so it's a zero-sum game
basically on, on the, on the public side or rather at least the social media side.

Then the variations also, but from the students, the just, is quite clear. For the, what is just is very clear
that the student, that this particular criminal faces the full force of the law, and gets his consequences,
and at the same time, what is just is a victim-centric response. However, that is parked as unjust
because the response is not victim-centric, especially for the Monica Baey case.

Or coming from the perspective of the case in CAPT, also not so victim-centric. Right? More
bureaucratic, more bureaucracy and less direct contact with the thing lah. But the Dr Jeremy
Fernando case was a lot more victim-centric with a lot more direct contact with the affected students,
or rather survivors lah, we will call it. So yah, and violence in itself is the action lah, like, you know,
the fact that there are still this kind of infringements to the right of privacy, to the right, to the right to
security, or secure living in campus. Especially for the girls unfortunately.

For the public? Sexual violence ah? Physical violence lor. I think that one is a straightforward answer
I can give lah. For the institution, I guess violence is, I, violence is more, it’s more of physical violence
lah, I think, again, that’s to them, that’s what violence is lah. Just and unjust. I cannot say I have a
proper answer to that. Yah. Because I don't know whether they have it, if they have it, it’s very different
from mine, or is it similar to mine? I don't know. Because their responses thus far, based on the things
that have been going on, to me is not as transparent as I thought it would be. So I cannot give a proper
answer.

7.21 Interview 21:

Right. I think there's a general similarities, or rather agreement between the three stakeholders, that I
guess the act, the act of, you know like, violating on someone else's body is, is unjust. And what I mean
really, if this action is not, did not result in any, some sort of corrective action from, I mean like, either
from the school or from the legal institutions, then it will be unjust in a way. I think there was quite a
few confusion, in a sense regarding what can be considered as, as an act of sexual harassment. I think
more, those that, you know like, doing more – I mean, there's the question regarding, oh, how much, is
it a physical contact thing, is it a, needs to be sexual thing, or is it, can be in verbal, and you know like,
so on lah. I think there was this, more discrepancy here.

I say that I do see in the student body there is also that, that, that mismatch of what it means as well, I
think that, to that it’s more on the act itself. I think, maybe I think, to relate to, I guess, the idea of
violence, whether that constitute of violence against the, I mean, the victims, I think the conception of it
as a, as a violence is a bit unclear. I guess also I think in general, I think the idea of, you know,
violence needs to be something that is very explosive, very physical. I mean, it can be like a verbal,
violent, kind of thing. I mean in general, I mean in general, I mean, most probably even in the
institution as well, I think when we refer to them as a violent thing, I think there's this preconception
there where, I mean, it needs to be something that is either physical. So it's like assault.

I think most generally agree that you know, it’s like sexual harassment, like in terms of, let’s say it’s a
physical one. So it's rape. So it's like, some, like you know, like, forceful penetrations, groping, it’s like,

147
can be, can be violent, although I think people don't usually use that in that sense, use ‘violent’ in that
sense. But I think there was no, so it's more on the act itself, but not so much on the victim, and how it
can spill into some of the trauma, in terms of, you know like, things that you would associate, like you
know, like the experience of victim of violence. There is, there's a similarity between that and you
know, like, those that have experienced sexual harassment itself.

And I mean, that is a very key idea where people who, you know, like come to understand that sexual
harassment is a form of sexual violence, when you start looking from the point of view, at, of the victim,
right, it starts to make sense to them. I think that kind of things did not come intuitively to people
because of their preconceived notion of what violence is, which is on the act itself, rather than on the
experience of the one who received that act. So I think there was more of that language of violence. Of
course for the institution, I think they try to – I mean themselves now cannot accept, like to use the
word sexual harassment in, in their, their lingo, right, to describe things. It’s still very much like sexual
misconduct and things like that. So I don't think that they have any conception of violence. Or rathe r,
usage of this idea of violence in this way.

So, this is why I feel that in student body, I think a small growing group of students have come to
realise, actually conceive of this idea of violence in relation to sexual harassment, sexual violence. But
the public and the institution itself is quite resistant to that, I think, which brings me to the main point
again, what is just and the idea of justice here? Okay, there's quite a bit to unpack. So, as before I think
I mentioned that, I think everyone seems to agree that I mean, like, just, justice is achieved when you
know, a certain unjust act has been corrected. So it is, in this sense, I think, most of the public view, or
rather view the only unjust action here is the act of the perpetrator being, like, you know, the one who
acts on their sexual harass and violate, and cause violence on the victims. But not necessarily on the
idea of unjust relate to unaccountability.

I think that was where, I think there is also this divergence between the student body and the school
and the public itself. I think, this is why I think that there is this wedge. I think the students generally, I
think, of like, all – especially those who have very close relation with the institution. Although, okay,
they – because they, they, let’s say, let's take an example of Jeremy Fernando, because of students they
live in the building, the same building as you know like, and some of them are students of his, of
Jeremy, and friends with the victim. And you know like, being a part of that environment where such
unjust act has occurred, they also view that, I mean like, it’s not just the action of one person that is
unjust, but also the factors that result in this environment, that is u njust. And, of course, also the, the
injustice arise from, you know like, students, the victims being denied of like, you know like, the care
that they receive, or the student body being denied of you know like the, that transparency that they
expect from the institution. So I think they also view justice in, in that sense as well.

Justice from like, a very institutional point of view is a bit more, they, they do see that, I do think that
they, it's not that they are avoiding responsibility in a way to act on this injustice. Yah, so especially I
think, I feel that here, I think the student and the public actually have a more aligned idea of what
justice can be achieved, in a way that I think, the students want the school to take more actions and,
you know, like, in a way that, it needs to be accountable, accountable to each stakeholders being the
student. The public, I think, either right or wrongly assume that the school already has certain
disciplinary power to act, so I think that was probably a – both, I mean either similar to the students’
belief that the school should take more action, or, like that they wrongly assume that the schools
already have certain power that they do not act on. So I think that is one, that is where I think they both
align in a certain way compared to the institution? It’s like when they see its hands are tied, because of
certain boundaries that they have with regards to what they can, can or cannot do.

And I mean, that also leads to I mean, the school itself, I mean, being like, it has certain inactions. And
I actually, I talked to the Master of the College lah - probably should not be ad verbatim lah - but from
the conversation it is very, it seems very clear that I mean, like the, there is a lot of bureaucratic layers
that prevent any, any one of them to take action. So things like, so the injustice arise from inaction, or
refusal, refusal to take actions from let's say, the teacher. It's a direct result, or, or I guess, is less of,
more of like, one of the big factors that effect that inaction is actually the bureaucratic layer of people
not willing to take responsibility, and don't know what is the boundary. Like, how much they can take

148
 on? And I guess that's where it results in students experience very unjust in a way that because of all
these students are not cared for, and you know, and transparency cannot be achieved.

I think the public just want punishment. They – in general, I think people want to see the wrong being
right. I think that is just a general idea, but I think different people have a very different idea of what is,
I mean, the perception, the notion of justice, how can it be achieved, right?

7.22 Interview 22:

I personally am very interested, or I'm very invested in like, the concepts of like, transformative justice.
I think that's not really something that came up very much in like, public discourse, in my experience?
It was very much like, yah, more jail time and whatnot. Um, yah, so that's the justice part.
But I think for the student body, and also like, some parts of the general population, I think it was very
much more like, the idea of like, revenge or like jail, more jail time was, like, necessary. And I think in
terms of like, what is sufficient, I don't know. I think clearly some people, like, were a little bit more
extreme? And I think there came, like, the doxxing, and the, like, revealing his, like, identity and, or,
like, sort of tracking him down. I don't know to what extent but I think it was a little bit vigilante in that
sense? But, I don't know.

I mean, I think definitely, like transformative justice is something that, that come up, in my personal
conversations, as well as like, I don't know, and maybe more, I didn't get a sense that it was like, a
dominant narrative lah.

Um, yah, I think. Or not even like, specifically for like any case, right, but in general, like, the idea that,
like, we need to be able to do more aside from like, putting someone in jail, but also consider how to,
like, truly, rehabilitate someone in a way that like, allows them to, like, come to terms with what they
have done, and like truly understand it and like, make amends, and I think also like prioritising the
survivors’ needs. How do I balance that? And I think that came up especially so like, in the Ya le-NUS
context, because it's such a small, like, residential college community that – yah, like, if, if someone
like, you know, is suspended and they come back to school, like, chances are, they will still be in the
same space for a very long time. Or even if someone's not like suspended, like you’ll very much have to
like face, like, all parties involved will, like, be in the same space. And so there's a strong, I think, call
to like, consider. Yah.

I mean I do sense that, like, across all three, um, generally like, I think the dominant perception is like,
it's not really about violence, right? It's about like, um, yah, like misconduct or - yah, or like it's wrong
and stuff for like, moral reasons or what not. But I don't think the idea of like, violence wa s very, very
strong. It was not language that I saw in like dominant narratives.

Yah. And I guess like – yah, I was going to say that I think, it like definitely came up in like, maybe
more like fringe student discussions, but again, like, I don't know, how much of that is specific to like–

I mean I would say again, like I do, I feel like the messaging that I got from administration was very
much more like neutral and like not wanting to make a value judgement of like, violence, because they
were concerned that like, yah, about like, student's ability to, I don’t know, study or like, the reputation
of the school or– yah, like conduct as well as safety, but I think it was like more of a violation of like,
respect or like, conduct rather than like, violence per se.

I think, again, like perception, I don't know how accurate– I get the sense that students were like more
likely to see sexual misconduct as like violence, like sexual violence, especially within again, like my
circles. I think the public was a bit more like, maybe less likely to see this as violence, especially for the
Monica Baey incident where it was like, photos, right? It wasn't like, I guess, like, a physical, like,
aggression, as they would think of as in like, very conventional ideas of violence is about.

149
7.23 Interview 23:

I think that - and this goes for all three levels I think, like students, public and institutions - I don't think
that is a deep and robust understanding of the level of violence that gets inflicted on students or victims
lah, when, when something like this happened. And, I think that you will see that in some of, like, the
newer crimes, like the voyeurism or like the spy cam stuff, where it's like, like, like, say like,
trespassing, you know, into, like, entering into another student room. I think people h ave a harder time
grasping the extent of the violence that, that these kinds of behaviours entail as compared to something
that is more like, obvious or familiar, so like something like rape or like molest is is quite familiar to
the public. And it's something that okay, yah, he touched you, then that's, that is like a, almost like a
measurable, quantifiable kind of like, okay, yah, there has been a definitive violence has occurred here.
But there's something like say, like the voyeurism, and they'll say like, okay lah, the police got the video
already, already delete already, what's the big deal right? Or like you know, someone trespasses into
your room and they'll say like, okay lah. But you also not there right, she come in then go out already
lah! Yah. And there's very little understanding of like, why is, is an action like this so harmful?

It’s very clear as well. It’s very that even when they announced their new disciplinary guidelines, there
was very little on like, what are their measures towards rehabilitation going to be? It was all like okay,
they introduced clear guidelines on exactly what would be the corresponding punishment for a
particular crime. But they didn't actually go then further to say like, okay, so now we have introduced
these new sanctions. But what are we going to do like to actually do the rehabilitation afterwards? Are
we going to mandate counselling? Like, are we going to require community service, like any of those
kinds of things are not present, are very, very lightly touched on only in their, even their new guidelines
that they introduced, and so like, it very much feels like they're using this idea of rehabilitation as just
like, a smokescreen pretty much to excuse like leniency because they're trying to say like, it's not our
duty to punish, it's our duty to rehabilitate, but there isn't actually any rehabilitation going on. There's
just an absence of a crime. Right. And if you look at our wider justice system, right, we do, like we do
look at rehabilitation as well. And I think that's like a core tenet of, of our justice system, definitely.
But the point is that you, you go to prison, and you do your time, and you, like, you make your
repayment to society. And after that, like you go, or like, throughout that process lah, is y our
rehabilitation, and then you re-enter into society, the re-entry is not impossible, but you can't have like,
there needs to be, there needs to be a consequence first. I think learning, like, part of rehabilitation is
facing the consequences of your actions, understanding the harm that you have caused to others, and
wanting to like, rectify the pain that you've caused. And I think without forcing, like, perpetrators to
face up to their mistakes, not just mistakes but to face up to like their victims, and really the, the pain
and hurt and violence that they have, like, inflicted onto others, then you can't achieve proper
rehabilitation. Because all that it is action without consequence. No motivation to change.

7.24 Interview 24:

Students: their safety in school settings, what rights and obligations they have

NUS: extent/purview of school rules and discipline system, their reputation (?)

Public: norms and values of society, what is fair

I believe there is generally consensus on the most basic things: almost no one would say taking naked
videos of or making sexual advances towards the victims were right things to do; they were certainly
considered violent.

I think there is more divergence when it comes to the appropriate level of supervision and/or
punishment by school or other authorities. For students clearly their safety is a primary concern, and
ought to be protected by societal institutions (though a potentially conflicting concern is their
privacy/freedom). To them justice could mean some method/arrangement of balancing and maximising
their respective safety, rights and freedoms.

150
 The school might have a more legal and by-the-book definition of justice, where law and order must be
upheld, and should they be violated, the perpetrators be brought to “justice”. (It might not be as
involved, however, if the alleged injustice/violence does not meet a certain legal definition or outside
the school’s purview.)

I’m not too sure about society’s standard of justice as there is a range of views on the cases . One
concern is that the deserved punishment against violations need to be proportionate (which can vary
depends on how severely one thinks of sexual misconduct). There are also divided views on who should
be held accountable to uphold said justice, such as whether “revenge” by the victims themselves are
warranted. Furthermore there is quite a bit of apathy and/or stigma about sexual violence in certain
sections of society, which might even discourage victims from seeking help (in this case justice/violence
is completely ignored).

7.25 Interview 25:

Students: NUS is not doing enough to ensure a safe environment for its students

NUS: I think they were trying to frame both cases - especially the MB one - as an "oversight" of sorts?
And that they would take the necessary actions to correct it

Public: For some reason the public likes to harp on the "NUS image" theme, then they say stuff like
"NUS doesn't teach its students the right values" or even use it as an excuse to criticise our generation.

Generally for all three parties, justice is defined when the perpetrators are given the punishments that
they deserve? Although for the students, they also ask for greater accountability and transparency (as
seen in the JF case)

7.26 Interview 26:

The lack of consent, infringement of one’s privacy, where to draw the line between harassment
especially with words. When people are not sure where is the line between harassment with words,
people tend to not realised when they are actually harassing someone. They will probably mask it as a
joke and when the victim is uncomfortable and voice out, the accuse might end up accusing them of
taking the joke too seriously and how they are not fun etc. This makes victims less willing to speak up
and overtime, the accuse might think this behaviour is acceptable and hence resulting in a vicious
cycle.

In general, all 3 players do think that once the accuse is proven guilty, due punishment should be
given. Both the student community and the general public believes that the accused should be heavily
punished so that they can learn their lesson whereas NUS tends to give the accuse a much lenient
punishment in hopes that they can learn their ways and change for the better.

The student community: Harassment in any forms be it words or physical as long as the victim feels
that they are violated.

The institution: Mostly physical violations and outrage of modesty

The general public: Harassment in any forms be it words or physical as long as the victim feels that
they are violated.

151
7.27 Interview 27:

Basically NUS would not act on a 'victim' empowering approach (in quotes because they should in the
alternative be called survivors instead) and therefore not handle the issue with enough sensitivity -
'just' could be following through a SOP rigidly, or reporting the issue to the police whether the victim
wanted to or not. Public: takes the most conservative approach, violence defined narrowly as physical
violence, 'just' in a narrow sense of so long as as the institution has dealt with the particular issue i.e.
less thought on systemic responses

Differing conception of sexual violence. If they define it narrowly the type of responses can be specific
to the case which is often some sort of punishment or removal of the perpetrator, and may generally
steer towards justifying the sexual offence. NUS probably thinks they have done what they can. If
defined more broadly as a problem rooted deeply in power imbalance and sexism, failure of sex ed,
then people will think NUS should mete out proportionate punishment, handle victim care delicately,
and be transparent about the whole process.

7.28 Interview 28:

I remember NUS being much more lenient than students or the general public were happy with. I recall
that prosecution via the state hardly registered as violence to anyone, and instead state enacted
violence was seen as justice. If anything though I think I remember that in both instances the
perpetrators’ actions were widely regarded as reprehensible and violent.

7.29 Interview 29:

I think what just is for Monica is having these predators accountable and to prosecute them. For
NUS/the state it’s probably the possibility that the assaulter has a future and hence there should be
some form of middle ground instead of sending him straight to jail.

Institution/state maybe believes that rehabilitation and light sentencing might change assaulter so they
don’t want too much to happen. But Monica there should be consequences and a heavier punishments.

7.30 Interview 30:

Public: I think justice for the public is really about whether the punishments levied on perpetrators are
‘justified’ based on the severity of the perpetrator’s actions (i.e. how much harm has been caused). I
think too, based on my observations, that harm is perceived to be greater when the misconduct actually
involves some type of physical assault. Violence, in this sense, then goes both ways. For the
perpetrator, violence comes from the system based on the punishment they receive. For the survivor,
violence is the degree to which they have been harmed by the perpetrator. Belief that harm should be
proportional to punitive measures (i.e. “justice”).

NUS: From what I understand, the survivor is usually involved in deliberations on what types of
remediation they would like to receive from the perpetrator. So to NUS, I think justice means that the
perpetrator has received some sort of disciplinary action, and fulfilled their obligations to the survivor.
Violence, I think in this case, is similar to that of the public: how much harm has been done to the
survivor? If so, is it physical, emotional, psychological? How severe is it? Belief that, in some cases,
sexual misconduct reports may be exaggerated or false. I think NUS adopts an “innocent until proven
guilty” standpoint. This means that survivors are often burdened with having to gather evidence to
prove that something has happened before the institution takes action. I think NUS also believes that
they have done well in mandatory consent lessons (e.g. mandatory online LumiNUS mo dule), so they

152
 have fulfilled their institutional duty. Ideally, I think that NUS would like to do the least amount of
work possible to keep cases low, and low-profile, and to take the least responsibility for the actions of
perpetrators.

Students: I think that justice means different things to different communities. In general, I think
students also seem to care about what harm was done, and whether or not NUS’ punitive measures
reflects the severity of the act. However, in smaller conversations with others at Yale-NUS, ‘justice’
can also be restorative in nature— this means not just punishing the perpetrator, but also
rehabilitating them and ensuring that they understand why their actions were wrong and how to
remedy the harm caused. Violence, in this case, usually refers to (again) how much harm was done to
the survivor, but also, how much harm was done to the community (e,g. Trust, community relations).
Belief that all students should feel safe on campus, regardless of gender or sexual identity. So stude nts
want to see that the institution does take sexual misconduct cases seriously, and that they understand it
is a serious issue that undermines safety on campus. In practice, students want to see more
preventative measures (consent education), and more robust and transparent systems of how punitive
measures are rolled out.

Identifying actions taken by each coalition towards their wants

Author’s note: Please refer to the earlier excerpts for additional discussion participants
have brought up regarding actions which were taken towards wants. Some of these have
been intentionally omitted from this section due to identical duplication of content.

8.1 Interview 1:

Hmm. I recall for the Monica Baey case, the first thing would have been the Town Hall. And then after
that would be the announcement of the Victim Care Unit. During the Town Hall there was this like one
really, really powerful testimony of like, this other student that had been sexually assault ed? Yah. And I
think that really set the tone for it, 'cause I think that's kind of where the idea for the Victim Care Unit
came up? 'cause previously it was just Monica Baey herself talking and then, like, hypotheticals.

In the Jeremy Fernando case, the first thing they released was a timeline. And then also the Code of
Conduct. I’m still not entirely sure what to think of that, because like, okay, we know the Code of
Conduct. But we also know that like, sexual assault is still bad. Doesn't matter if you c odified it or not.
I'm sure they were trying to prove something but I’m not sure what they were trying to prove here?

It was like, two cases in a row. That really, like, I guess, made the investigation a bigger deal? Yah.
Yah, definitely, ‘cause the timeline also said that, like, they didn't really do much after the first case,
like they concluded the investigation it, and that was, and then the second case came in and they had to
reopen everything.

153
Yah, I mean, I think that NUS in general sees all this sort of issue as, like, a HR problem, like a PR
problem. They’re scared that they’ll get in the newspapers, or they’re scared that l ike, there's going to
be huge, like horrible publicity or something? So it's a lot on, like, making sure that the PR is good.
And, yah – um, I think that it's very corporate, if not like, it’s not what you would expect of an
educational institute. But also that’s, like, every school. Yah, it’s like, every school is like, any issue of
misconduct is usually about how they look like to the public.

I'm not good at remembering details, so this is going to be a general idea. For Monica Baey, it seems
like, at first, it was kind of a, like, we will take your actions into advice, like this kind of like, very vague
statement, that could really mean anything? And then, it kind of turned into a, look at what we’ve done
to take your questions into, like, take – yah, take up your idea. Then meanwhile, for Jeremy Fernando it
was um, this is this Code of Conduct. And this is what happened. So look at us being transparent.

I think there was like some kind of reaffirming on like, how the Student Code of Conduct says that
sexual assault is bad? But it doesn't seem to affect anything. Because I think as much as they want to
have it on the books and all that, no one really cares about the Student Code of Conduct. People only
really read it, if, like, if they think they've done something wrong. It's not even like part of that, stupid
like, “do you know the rules” e-module that you have to answer MCQ questions to?

Okay, this is like, from before Monica Baey. So, do you remember, like, a few years ago, I think it was
like, right before I was year one. There was, like this controversy over school camps? So, yah, I went to
the life science camp in year one, and they kind of just blamed every, like every part of the camp that
was not fun, on OSA? It’s like, yah, they won't let us do anything interesting. So we're just stuck with
this. ‘cause apparently, like, having situations close to sexual assault, or like, weird shit like that, is
fun? So I think that reflects a lot on the attitudes of, like, students? Like even when they were like doing
all the disclaimers and all that, like, it was always with this kind of tone of like, yah, ‘cause OSA
mandates that. I can only imagine it's like, increased so much after Monica Baey? The school
bureaucracy is a very easy enemy to create.

The camps thing, I think, seem to be very much of – the blame was put on the organising committees. I
mean, I don't know. I think like some of those stuff is like, quote unquote, traditional, in student camps?
But also I wouldn't really know, ‘cause um – yah, ‘cause, like, they always recruit from the previous
camp.

And then with the Monica Baey incident, the school kind of just, like, went as bureaucratic or legalistic
as possible, like, this is what our rules were like, and so we have done this, this, this, according to our
rules. Sorry, like can I add one more? Yah. So like, I think part of this difference could also be like just
‘cause the organising committee of camps is, at least in theory, approved by the school. So, um – yah,
Monica Baey, had like, no one involved was like, officially sanctioned by the school t o do things? So
they could pass it off as an individual case.

I think like it seems to be their default PR move to like, look to the rules. I mean, if they really wanted
to solve the “students do not read the rules” problem, just like, put in a book and give it to everyone?
Yah, ‘cause like, yah, on one hand, it's available online if you really want it, but I guess it comes to
like, primary school, secondary school, everyone had a handbook with all those in there, and that's
how you knew the rules?

As for the Review Committee, I don't even remember anything of it. I just know it existed. There's
always this general idea that like, it's kind of like the SMRT ads, you know, like we're working on it.
But I don't see anything happening? Part of it is just like 'cause, they don't really want to admit that the
Review Committee is probably like, one hour of people sitting in a room like, hurr, should we do
something? No one said anything about the Review Committee, other than the fact that it exists. It's
probably 'cause, like that's just this general idea that, like, something's happening in the bureaucracy,
but no one really wants to poke. Yah, in general, no one knows what the NUS bureaucracy is other
than, like, the fact that you all have to answer to it. They all, like, exist as this, like, shadowy cabal
above us? I mean, like, as far as the average NUS student is concerned, we could be ruled by lizard

154
 people in the bureaucracy and nothing will change, right? We could be ruled by actual lizards and it
probably won't change a thing.

I kind of get the feeling that safeNUS has mostly been VCU part two? Like, it's very, like, emergency
first aid. Like, on one hand we're trying for, like a, entire structure change? But on the other hand,
we're kind of just stuck patching up everything because NUS can push it to us. And it's very frustrating.
I think especially the Jeremy Fernando case has shwon that, they don't regard us publicly? Like, yah,
they always answer to the Straits Times, NUSSU, but not to us.

8.2 Interview 2:

Oh my god, they really – ugh. Okay.

Okay, so honestly they’re severely ill-equipped, like literally?

Right? Okay. So, I mean, we're talking about upping the security? Once again, I do not understand
how any of these things address the root cause of the problem. Yah, and then for Monica Baey, did they
change anything? Just more security right?

Once again, I just don't feel like it's addressing like the root cause of the problem. Because all these
like, what, changing the door lah, like changing the lock, or like whatever. These are all things that are
like very much, just preventing, like the action, but then, like, what is causing this action is really just
perverse individuals who do not respect the idea of consent. Right? So, I really feel like it's really just
about tackling that. So more resources should be devoted to really ingraining in all the students the
importance of consent and the importance of like, like really just a more sex positive, like, university
environment lah. Right now, it's just like, very like, “ah, like don’t bring people over” that kind of
thing. Like, I mean, once again, it doesn't address the root cause of the problem. I just think that these
are all like nonsense, nonsense, nonsense, like, implementation, because they don't do anything like so
what? If perpetrators are wired such that they will always find a way to do things that they want to do,
right? Right or not? Just because the door is higher, doesn't mean that they cannot harass these people
in other ways, right? So I don't understand exactly, it should be – it should be targeted at really
changing these people's mindsets and these people's sick inclinations, I mean, doing as much as they
can to kind of change the culture and not letting these people kn ow, or letting these people think that
it's okay to behave the way that they're behaving. So there should be like, once again, there should be
more, like, resources devoted to like, a cultural shift, not so much just like these infrastructural
changes that honestly do nothing to address, like, the root cause of the problem, which is that sick
individuals - sick individuals are not going to stop just because the door is higher, or because there's
not a lock or something, like, there will always be a way one, they will always find a way. It's really
just about ensuring that they themselves are educated on the matter, so that they change, they hopefully
change, there needs to be like, some education on that front. So yah, I think it's lao sai. And then for the
Jeremy Fernando one, what did they do ah? They just gave the Staff Code of Conduct, right? And then
now they change that Victim to NUS Care Unit, right?

Okay. I mean, yah, transparency is what you owe us so that shouldn't even be like, a thing that we had
to ask for, honestly. And then in terms of like, firing the person, as they should, obviously
compromising the safety of students, abusing authority. Um, yah, I think, I don't know what they're
doing on the side of professors to kind of – or how exactly they are letting their students know that
they're always going to be there to support them, in case these instances of sexual harassment on the
part of the professors happen lah. So once again, I think more needs to be done on that front. We need
to just let students know that they are there to support.

155
8.3 Interview 3:

Oh god, I mean, for one thing, I think the existence of safeNUS means so much already, because like
um, I think whenever like these cases happen, right, people do, do look to like, like a bit more of an
authoritarial voice to like, figure out something to say or something to do, or like, at the very least just
something else to think, if that makes sense. Yah, so I think, like, the fact that safeNUS has been so
consistent with like, outreach and with statements, and so timely also, I think that means a lot already.
‘cause sometimes people just need, um – as in, at the very least, sometimes people just need something
to like, share. Something else, yah, that's not necessarily fr– that's like just from a, from a better source
lah. or like, sometimes people are just doing the same thing at the same time lor, I guess. Yah. So at the
very least it’s that lah.

From NUS, I just remember the VCU. Yah, they set up the VCU, then – let me think – nah, I can’t
really remember much after that. Yah. Um, for Jeremy, I remember that they changed it to like a police
reporting, like a, or at least like the police reporting clause lah, whatever, whatever they wanted to call
it. Yah.

8.4 Interview 4:

Their goals? Oh – woah, okay. First of all, I can say institution's goals, more police reporting, you
know, like, like, because if this is the problem, apparently, the belief is that the police will solve it. And
if the police cannot solve it, at the very least, we have to deal with it ourselves in a very punitive sort of
way. Like, we have to get rid of the, you know, we have to get rid of this, we have to make sure, we
have to increase security as well, to prevent, you know, the cases actually happening on our campus?
Which is stupid, because, cases happen off campus as well – anyway, it's, you know, it's really an idea
of, for an institution, like, to push the blame away from them. Because as obviously, I think, because as
I mentioned earlier, the public intensifies scrutiny around them. They just, their first step is not control
the issue, but control the damage done to themselves. Yah.

I’m trying to picture it, but they're like trying to establish authority on it, too. Like, they're trying to
establish a form of authority. Okay, I'm unsure in saying this, because even I don't know if this is
exactly what is going on. Like, like, they want to, like, establish that they set the rules around, you
know, sexual violence, that they, that they will, you know, that they have already done this because they
are putting it into force. But I understand the impacts of you know, saying that because, like, sometimes
it could just be, you know, what people do in this heat of the moment. Like, it co uld be a social context
thing that, that, you know, people in power want to do, you know, like, it's just a context that, they're in
power, they should do this, but like, they probably, they probably didn't even think about, oh, we should
establish power, because I bet that's already baked into, you know, their mindsets, you know, of how to,
you know, lead a school.

Students, beliefs and goals. Many people hate the security bit. Many people don't like it. Many people
think it is like, like, they have, like, their obvious belief is it's not our fault, so why are you like securing
us, you know? Because it affects, like, those who aren't perpetrators, it affects those who feel like
they're being punished for something they didn't do. Like they should have to, like, put an extra lock
into, you know, to enter their bathroom, you know, they should, you know, always be wary on the
lookout, you know, for these kinds of things, in their educational, in their environments, like in places,
like lots of responsibility on them for something that they really, you know, shouldn't be blamed for.

And yah, and I say this like, for both, like, you know, I say this, like even on a perpetrator standpoint,
they weren't educated about it. Like their idea of consent is going to be s o different because people
have different ideas of consent. And like the friend thing I was mentioning earlier about, you know,
about how it only spreads between a friend network? If you don't teach consent or consent isn't, you
know, taught, you know, before a certain age, you know, where they already solidify it. Yes, I can
reject, you know, any consent and respect courses – that's a direct hit at the consent and respect
courses, put that on the record – but like, yah, if they're not taught about that, they get ideas of consent

156
from their own, yah, from their own circles. So to feel punished by an institution for something that
they've been taught, you know, in their own circles? It's, it feels, you know, really restrictive to them.
Well, well, while – while I won't, you know, while I won't, you know, say, I agree with that. Because,
you know, if you're, if you're a perpetrator, you're trash. But like, I can understand why they feel that
way.

I don't know if there's more to this feeling apart from just feeling, they already feel unsafe. Yah. It's just
unsafe to be here. No matter. Yah. Partly because agency is removed, who knows, I don't know the
overall, underlying reasons why they feel unsafe. well enough, but it's just a common thing.

This is the hardest one because as someone who's negotiating with, with like the institution and
students, but not a lot public wise, I cannot tell per se what their beliefs are, because I can't generalise
it, right? Because there'll be so many different public groups that will have different issues. Like there
will be some who say, sex is rampant, let's cut down on sex altogether between students, why aren't you
teaching them abstinence, etc, etc. That’ll be one section of the public, another section will be like,
what about women's rights? Where's the equality? Where's, you know, where's this equality, where's
the equality in gender relations, or just gender equality altogether? And there will obviously be other
groups, like queer groups, which will be like, understand that this isn't just an issue for – and likewise,
there's – it's basically the public is everyone and you cannot cover everyone when you say public.
There's no prevailing belief. Like, beliefs will be– like the only things I can say about those beliefs is
that – okay, even then, I can't say for sure. But like, if you want to say the “popular” public, it's
targeted at the institution. That's the only belief I have because if they believe that NUS is in the wrong,
but that's just the popular public, there's obviously other publics that recognise this problem as a social
issue. There will be other publics that you know, that even, that may have experienced, you know,
encounters of sexual violence before. And just, you know, going, thank god, kind of belief like this is
actually coming out.

And I think there's one final thing to say about belief like, it’s, it's, it's unusual, but promising to see
public beliefs divided about it, because there's no hivemind. There's no crowd. Everyone's talking
about it. Everyone is talking about within their own circles, and I bet that relates to you know, people
in power as well who are talking, talking about it in their own circles. And when this disagreement in
public comes, you know, that's the perfect idea or that’s the perfect situation where progressive policy
can flow because then you know, co-constructed ideas, when you don't have a power relation, when
you don't have any idea – because most people don't have an idea of gender equality. So they won't
have any authority on what's right or what's wrong. But yah, if they, yah, if they don't have this
prevailing power relation on this idea, or this identity, on this notion, no dominant discourse can
happen. It'll just be what is, oddly enough, mostly egalitarian. Obviously, there'll be power relations,
but when you’re focusing is on the single issue, it's fairly, you know, egalitarian discourse.

Okay. actions from the – I think I could start public first. The most I can see public is the, because
public action itself is pretty limited. Like we all know, you know, how limited public action is in
Singapore in terms of doing stuff like, you see any other country there are public actions of like
women's marches, or university sit-ins or university protests?

And likewise, you know, there's so many avenues of public action, but it is like, but because public
action is restricted, you know, the most visible kinds of public action you see elsewhere, doesn't happen
in Singapore. And that sounds like the most generic statement. But like, the thing that I like, like about
it, or no, I don't like it, but like, a thing that I noticed about it was, like, I, to quote a famous musician,
like, Jack White, like, who like played in a two-piece band with just guitar and drums, like, “creativity
comes from restriction”. Like, if you restrict yourself to limited instruments, we can still make lots of
noise from those instruments. So even when restricted to social media, even when shifted to just family
gatherings, or even when just restricted to talking amongst friends and peers, th ere's so many ways
that I’ve seen the public engage each other about it, they might not even know they're participating in
say, action or discourse, but like, they are doing so. Like, you know.

Because, because in terms of public, like, because it's also like, Singapore is so family centric, many
discussions, like I feel, happens in the family where you get probably like – because friends, you tend to

157
be kind of one note most of the time? With family is diverse. And that's where I often like hear the most
diverse discussions on it. And that's where people actually gather action, you know, to talk about it to
family, to convince family members to do stuff like from, from the most basic shit like, oh, join my
church, etc, to oh, you know, celebrating, let's celebrate National Day together, to ideas of like, you
know, have you heard about this case, you know, in NUS, and you’re a student, right? What have you
heard about it? What have you talked about? Okay, I realize I'm saying there's something very
impressive central to like, those kind of family discourse is, is a platform enough to spread it across
your network. But while the leverage is limited, because every family is its own family, which has its
own different – so obviously, some families are homogenous, some are heterogenous and you know,
have lots of different identities that each of them carry, but they will create discourse in that regard
and thism and this discourse is the action that public are taking. And I haven't even gone into social
media, but I know that it's something a lot of people will talk about. And I feel it is like the popularised
idea that social media is a driving force. But, you know, it's, it, I feel social media somehow doesn't get
as much reach as it does, you know, as people imagine it to.

Students, obviously, action has been social media, like that is obvious student action. I mean, we have
talked about like, discursive, you know, kind of ideas that, that you can actually kind of relate to public
as well. But this is about students, you know. But let's focus on social media for this one, because that's
what I see students most often doing, because like, because again, like, okay, safeNUS like, if you want
to bring us up now, like safeNUS as a whole has been like, kind of, like tal king about it on social
media, like, that's been our most like, prominent platform. Like, again, we had six pillars. We had six
pillars, one of them is literally entitled partnerships, yet the most prevalent one is social media. Yes.
Like, like any other, any other thing we have, like literacy like that, unfortunately, cannot get off the
ground due to further limitations. Research, you know, we are confined by research boundaries, you
know. Yah, and like, and also because social media has the immediacy that, that most discourses lack,
you know, like, most other discourse, if you say, like, just bringing up by official channels they'll take
two to three months. In two to three months, more people will be subject to sexual violence and won't
be, no one will know about the underlying issues that–

And in Singapore especially, social media, in and of itself, overcomes the other barrier of lack of
physical discourse, you know, lack of, you know, like, lack of, you know, physical public discourse of
going out to the streets and, you know, holding signs and talking to people, you know, like, that's the
discourse we obviously lack, so social media is the obvious avenue for strategic inefficiency. And
obviously, like, another thing that I kinda not however, like in terms of student action, there's also like
student inaction. Like I think, yah, I think there's something that should like bear notice of, there’s
actually people who mock you know, the course of action institutions take which is, you know, the
consent and respect courses. I bet they have their own ideas of action, but it is, but it's still like,
entrenched in the ideas of inefficiency, like oh, we should all go through official channels, we should
all, you know, take time to see what the results of it actually is. And like that, like, like there is student
inaction, and it's something that should, you know, like, as much as you know, there have been ideas
where the students are, obviously, against institutions, like there are some students who agree to the
hegemony that, you know, institutions and instructors place on them that, “let's not go to action”, you
know, because action will be apprehensive, action is not right to do, action won't get us far in life. So,
it is, like, unfortunate, as– yah, so while there is lots of student action that I already know exists, and
there is a, somehow case of student inaction that people have to get over that barrier, you know, to
action, I feel.

And I think one of those things like, this is where safeNUS also comes in, I fee l because I noticed, like,
again, like when we initially like, formed a group, it was just the four of us, like – only up until we got a
proper Instagram page up and running, and only up until we got a proper registration thing up and
running, you know, it was exhausting and tiring to carry on, like, just a general discussion, basically.
Like, yah, up until we actually got, you know, a structure that people feel safe to commit action
towards. Because they recognise, yes, it is a group set up, yes, we can co me together collectively. Like,
yah, people feel, students feel unsafe doing action. And if people feel, and students feel have unsafe
doing action to against the thing that they feel unsafe towards, you know, it's a cycle of non-safety.

158
 One thing that I can say? I think you don't see, here's the thing, like, even when I've been thinking
about the past year at safeNUS and thinking about, like, all the successes we have done, like the first
responder workshop, the climate survey, our social media page, our statements, you know, it has all
been fine and dandy, but on the ground like, like, unless, like, there are few people who acknowledge
what safeNUS is, you know, like, at least to my face. Yah. Because like, they will obviously hear, oh,
some students have released a statement, and I agree with it, but no one has kind of said, you know, it's
safeNUS, no one has said it is a group of NUS students, that is a organisation together, which I, which,
you know, I find odd like, even though we are like on the news, etc, it still feels a bit stifling in that
regard. Yes. But even then, like, I feel safeNUS has like actually initiated something where students no
longer feel a need to restrict themselves in terms of forming organisations, in terms of advocating for
injustices, like, there have been multiple other groups set up since safeNUS. And actually, like, there
are other student groups that have also started, like SG Climate Rally was kind of student -based as
well, as far as I can remember? But like, you know, the idea of student groups, you know, being
registered, having to follow within the lines, you know, that has kind of disappeared, and we see more
groups like the divest groups that exist, and even QueerNUS and transNUS, like, yah. And if, I think
the, actually public knowledge of those groups came after, because they're thinking, oh –

Yah. And like people realise, other people exist through this group that has, you know, hinged on, you
know, public support. Because, because safeNUS is lucky in that regard, that has the public's backing.
Like most other groups like QueerNUS and transNUS, obviously, if we put it to a public support,
there's going to be lots of divisions, but safeNUS’s general message was one that everyone – public,
student, institution – could get behind. Which, you know, obviously make you wonder why the
institution still like, you know, trying to restrict us, even if they say they can get behind what we have
done. But, you know, if the general message is something we can get, everyone can get behind, and
everyone is calling out and everyone is finding out what's wrong, it opens so many avenues like as to
what other, what other groups can do in terms of advocacy, what other groups can do in terms of
providing alternative solutions, alternative modes of justice, alternative modes of support, alternative
anything. Like, you know, like I feel, like I'm not sure if the idea of critical mass applies here. But yah,
but like we got enough critical mass to, you know, at least be kind of like asked by news about our
issues. We got enough critical mass to be presented in, you know, what is a positive light instead of a
negative one. It's, yah..

I don't want to say safeNUS got lucky because like, our efforts have been, you know, like, constantly
against, you know, like, overall hegemonic ideas. And like what we promote, you know, like inclusivity
is not something I know everyone has in terms of idea for sexual justice. But because we are the only
group – I don't want to say that students somehow follow a hegemony of inclusivity, which feels weird
to say, but like – you know, because we're the only group, yah, we set the tone. And because our tone is
so, and because like our tone, like, as a student body is so different from other student bodies, that it
feels revolutionary, even though we're just trying to-

8.5 Interview 5:

One thing would be like the way we frame our statements, like I think we take care to not, like when we
respond to something, we kind of take care to not like, frame it as like an isolated incident. I think we
always try to frame the problem as a systemic problem. The response has to be, like, an institutional
response, it can't be like a, like a one-time, like, response to like the problem, right? It has to be like
because, like, the problem, sexual violence is a systemic issue. So I think definitely one, like, one
strategy is the way we craft our statements. Because also I think when like, because I think nor – not say
“normal people” – but like the community might not see it like, as like, I mean some people in the
community might see it already as a systemic problem, right, but I think there are also people who still
see it as like isolated incidents. So like, I do think when they read our statements, they do start to get
the gist of like, how sexual violence is actually, like, a systemic issue and not, and this isn’t just like,
one-off incidents lah.

159
Like more work has to be done to, like, actually tackle these issues, and it's not just like, oh, I'm gonna,
you know, install cameras and that’s it, I’m gonna give you a consent module and like, we can move
on, that kind of thing. I think another thing would also be – I guess this one is more of like my old
capacity but it’s also like a safeNUS, like, initiative, like, we try to, like, educate students on different
aspects of sexual violence? So not just like what is assault, what is harassment, right? Like, we've done
posts on like, power imbalances in, like, relationships, like you know things like domestic abuse, or like
things like, what red flags you should look out for because like, sexual violence isn't just like about,
like, rape, or like, you know, getting filmed, like, without your consent, right? It's like, very complex,
and it's like, each situation is different. And there's always so many things to take into consideration.
So I think, through, hopefully, through the posts we put out, like, people are more educated and
understand, like, the nuances in each, in every incident that gets reported or doesn't get reported or
like, you know, things that their friends tell them, like, they'll be more understanding and like, what
behaviour is inappropriate, not inappropriate, but also like to teach them to practice consent in
everyday life? Because, like, you know, consent isn't just something that happens in sex, right? It's like
a, it’s something you should practice every day!

So I think that is another strategy lah, through hopefully, like educating people more about like,
consent, you know, where it is applied to and like, yah, like not just like in cases of sexual violence, but
like, you know, everyday life. So I mean that’s one of the main things safeNUS has done? Yah, okay, I
guess the freshman orientation booklet also comes underneath that, like the education part. So yah, I
guess that's the two main strategies I can think of.

Okay, so after Monica’s case, I feel like their policies were so ineffective, like, oh yah, I think I totally,
I mentioned this before, but it was forced, like clearly, it was just to make people, like, think, oh, NUS is
doing something and then move on. But like NUS actually wasn't doing anything. They implemented the
consent module that took so little time to come out and was so bare-bones about what consent is. Then
they had the focus groups and like, you know, to get feedback from the student community, but they
didn’t really implement anything after that. And then I remember they had, like, new rules for hall lah,
like basically more like, oh if you don’t stay there, you cannot, like, invite them to your rooms and
things like that. But like – yah lah, these all don’t really address the issue of like, the root causes of,
like, of sexual violence, right? They're just like, deterrence measures. Yah, they don't address anything.
Yes, so my evaluation is that it was really bad.

And I was very annoyed, I was quite annoyed and angry that NUS wasn't doing anything more, because
like, they have the capacity to, it's not like, they don't have the capacity to do more? But like, it kind of
felt like why weren’t they, like it, then also I guess to me it felt like, as in to some of my friends it felt
like, like, if they can do more, like, why aren’t they doing more? It's like, do they not care enough, like
about their students? Like, it kind of felt like that. Because, like, um, like, not only was the response,
like, not, like disrespectful and just not accountable to the survivors and like, Monica, it also kind of
like, you're not addressing the implications this has on the wider NUS community, because like, then I
had friends who will tell me like, oh, I feel more unsafe now staying in hall.

And then it’s like, your policies don’t address that, right? Like I mean yes, they're not directly affected
by like, like they didn't get filmed without their consent like what happened to Monica, right, but then
like this case clearly had repercussions not just on Monica, but like that on the wider student body.
Because your, your response shows that, you know, you're not going to care about it, about them if it
happens to them. So, yes, give NUS minus point. (sigh)

But I, like, it’s – yah, okay, I thought it was so, (sigh), yah, I felt so because like, I don't stay at hall
personally, but it's like, I have a lot of friends who do. So it was something that they brought up to me
like, now they feel unsafe, or like the parents will tell them like, oh, do you want to cancel your hall,
come back home because clearly like it isn't, it doesn't feel safe to stay there lah, and like, I can, like,
while I don't think that's also an answer, like leaving hall, right, like because you shouldn't be forced to
do so, but like, I can understand where their parents are coming from also right, like asking them to
like come home to stay instead. Yah, ugh.

160
8.6 Interview 6:

Core beliefs ah. I mean, I, like I'm pretty sure gender equality is one of them, among the students. I
mean, I would say the need to feel safe lah, but I mean, you think the school doesn't want you to feel
safe? But
Sorry, this might take me some time to think about. I think for NUS, like, I guess the need to, the need to
protect all students regardless. Yah, the need to protect all students regardless. Because like, as a
school, it's their job. And like, even if you tell them that this guy is an adult, it may be a bit difficult for
them to see it that way.

Oh, I thought of one that should have been blindingly obvious: that sexual, any form of sexual
harassment or violence is like the worst of all crimes. And like there is basically no turning back from
it. Yah, I think that is a very, that is quite a big one.

For the Jeremy Fernando case, I think the power differential? Like, when a teacher preys on, when
somebody that the inst– that people trust, that represents a part of the institution that they want to trust.
When somebody turns around and violates that, and especially when he's using his power to like, when
he's abusing his power. That is bad. And again, like that very deep distrust of the system.

And also, there was an, there was a sentiment, like, why is– I feel like the recurring sentiment is like,
why are we only hearing from the newspapers and not from our own, and not from our own, like,
College?

So I guess, like a sort of, like, I guess, I feel like what is kind of surfacing from what I'm saying is like,
to a degree students, like, yah I mean, well, like at least for the residential college, like, it's somewhere
like, they can call, it’s somewhere that they can call home. And they are, and like, they want to f eel
close to it. But then, but then, like, sort of everything has been undermined after this instance. Yah.

Yah, like sexual harassment is the worst of all crimes lor, I feel like, like to the point where like, people
feel that no matter what this guy does, like there is no coming back. And that is why this black mark has
to be on the record. Like it’s very irredeemable, yes, yes, yes, yah.

Um, I mean, well, the students I mean, safeNUS came about because of this, right? Yah. Like there was
a, there was a sort of rise in student movements – is that the right word? Like it spawned a lot of
community organising around this issue that like, like, sort of to help, to help like, address what the
institutions could not. And of course we were talking about Dawn and Girl, Talk! just now. Yah.
Actions that they took, I guess attending the Town Hall, trying to make their voices heard. speaking up
more? I mean, even participating in the survey. Like I mean, technically, if your idea, if your core
belief is that sexual harassment is irredeemable, and is a very serious crime, and that justice is
enacting your own anger on people then I suppose doxxing would also be considered an action?
Although not – yah. Yah, definitely a rise in community organising among students.
For the institution, oh yah, so there was a – there was a survey that NUS did, there were all the stupid
facility-level things that they were doing. They introduced that module that I actually haven't attended.
I don't know if I'm supposed to. I am so sure that someone must have, that there must have been quite a
few talks, other talks about this other than Town Hall? I don't remember any of them though. Yah, so
that was for Monica Baey. Was there a Town Hall in the Jeremy Fernando case? Hey, Jeremy
Fernando was – oh, it was, oh right, it was during COVID. Okay, yah.

I mean, like, there were a lot of statements that were coming up during the Jeremy Fernando case
again, like this wave of needing to speak up? Oh, another thing I remember, I remember like all the,
suddenly all the, like after Monica Baey, like suddenly all the institutions were like, public, very
publicly stating in the news like oh, we have updated our, our policies on whatev er whatever. And I
remember I think NTU did it before NUS? Yah, they were, there was a little bit of a competition in the
news there. Yah, Jeremy Fernando – did NTU do it before NUS? Like made any public statements I –
but I remember, I think NTU and SMU said stuff in the news. Yah. Jeremy Fernando, of course like
NUS had the statement that was not very, that, that was not great. I cannot remember there being as

161
much action around Jeremy Fernando, quite honestly, apart from like, apart from the statements b eing
issued.
I remember, I remember it actually started, it seemed to have started, because NUS had issued that
statement. No, no, no, they, they heard – no, it started because they heard in the news, then NUS
released the statement, and then everyone was responding to the statement and what it left out. Like
safeNUS responded, there were, I'm sure, I think G-Spot probably responded along with – did G-Spot
write with you guys? Did you all submit a joint thing? Or did everyone? Yah, I don't remember that
much of the Jeremy Fernando case. I mean, I assume if the school hasn't even replied your statement, I
don't know what else they have done lah, yah.

I have to say like, I am just not very updated on a lot of issues. So it's probably more a reflection of me
than it is of anything. I think I vaguely– did you guys help to, did you guys help to like make the – there
seem to be a lot more emphasis on like, help, letting people know like, what they could do in that
instance of sexual, in the instance of like sexual violence? Did you guys like help to like make that
clearer to students through something?

Oh, another thing I remember NUS doing was like setting up the committee like, there were a lot of
questions like, why doesn't NUS like, have a committee to specifically address sexual violence? And
then they set up that centre or whatever? Did you guys help to – I think it was VCU. Yah, the Victim
Care Unit. Did you guys help to tell them to do that? Or was it just something they did?

The VCU, I– I didn't know that much about it when I was paying attention to it being set up, like when I
was paying attention to the issue like that was when the VCU I think was first being set up. I don't – so
I'm not very sure about how effective it is, except for the statement, I think that, for the thing I think you
shared, like one of your friends who got, who was on the receiving end of violence, went through the
VCU. And I, and I remember he said that, I remember he said that he wasn't, he wasn't very happy with
how the VCU handled it.

Oh, yah. Oh, and one more. Yah. And the sexual harassment module, I imagined for the online
modules, it’s like, was, I do remember, I do remember like, on paper, like, when we were talking, I
think, when I was talking to my friends, I was like, oh, I mean, it's good to at least, like h ave a module.
But then someone else also pointed out like, it’s like yah, how much do you even pay attention to online
modules? Your goal is to just get it over and done with especially if it's just one of those requirements
lah. And how much is it actually going to address like, the deeper underlying issues that come with
sexual violence? So yah.

Oh, yes. Like about the VCU? I think I mentioned this earlier, like, again, generally, I think it is just
because NUS is a really big campus. And the bureaucracy is just so bad, and you get shunted from one
place to another and you don’t even know what is happening, but I don't know how, I don't know, I feel
like that is probably one of the big underlying issues of why sexual harassment, why sexual violence
and stuff is not being dealt with very well. Because it is such an, because it can be a very intimate
issue, and you need, and you need, like a lot of investment to deal with it. And I mean, I don't, like I
guess if I were to use of policy challenges, whatever framework, I feel like, if you want to deal with it,
you really need to make this a, if you see it as important enough, you really need to make this a priority
at the, at the expense of everything else. And understand like that a large part of the culture ha s to
change lah, it's not just like, you need this. Because I know at least my school like it is quite, even when
they, even when students were not very satisfied with how it was being handled, and there was, and of
course there are still cases, but you can tell that Yale-NUS takes it seriously. Probably also because we
are quite small lah, and Yale-NUS is that kind of place that will attract people who are very, very
vocal, or who will push it hard enough. And it is so small that you cannot escape it. Whereas in NUS
like even if you're very vocal, like the school is so big, there are so many other things that are
bombarding you. You don't know how far it will go lah. So that's my perspective.

162
8.7 Interview 7:

Okay, so I think I will start with the public first, I kind of like talked about this earlier, but so I think
there's a very strong belief in the public that the law is, is everything right? So if, if it means tightening
punishments, and recognising the criminality of these offences, then the so -called goal of justice is
achieved already. And it's like, then that is how we restore a stable society. Like that is how we correct
deviance lah, so to speak. Yah, I think that's, yah, the public?

For the institution, I think, so I think the institution and the public, they do share some overlap. So the
institution probably also believes in, you know, law, criminality, because I mean, the institution is
influenced by the public, right? But I think another very big thing for the institution is this idea of
reputation? So a lot of its responses and actions are driven by this desire to protect reputation. So like,
NUS’s, their own reputation.

Yah. Because I think for NUS, and a lot of institutions, it's reputation that ensures your legitimacy mah.
Like wah, ranking, you know, all these. And I think, in a way, like the public feels that also? That
because NUS is a reputable National University, like all these deviants need to be get rid of so that
they don't ruin, like, the reputation of our universities. So I think there's a lot of overlap between the
public and the institution itself. Yah. And they want to like cover all this up, because it will ruin their
reputation mah.

I think like, I struggle to answer this question, because it's – sometimes it's a bit difficult to separate the
groups because like, the students can also be part of the public. Yah, so, let me think ah. Okay, okay. So
for public, I think there was, it sparked a lot of discourse, definitely. I think just talking about it is a
form of action? And I think students themselves also play a very big role in that, like the public
discourse. I can't remember, was Monica Baey discussed in Parliament? Right. So, yah, having
discussions in the public sphere and bringing it to national attention, to the government's attention. I
think that is, that is something? Yah.

And so, oh, so students, right. So this was about actions, right? Right. So okay, so definitely, I think
there was quite a lot of organising and mobilising among the student community. So I think the Town
Hall was one. And then after that, the founding of safeNUS. And I think even, like informal efforts that
we may not even be aware of, like maybe in Colleges, people just came together to extend support to
their friends. I'm pretty sure there were things like that. Yah, like so organising and like trying to talk
with the administration? Yes.
Right. Yah, then for NUS’s action, so I think the, sort of, basic response was to like, either, like, oh,
expel the offender, you know, sack them, that kind of very, like first, like baseline response? I think the
other actions was like trying to communicate that to students? Yah, so like, I think – eh, Jeremy
Fernando, did they email us ah? Like, even before expelling it’s a Board of Inquiry first. Yah.

But I think on a more macro level, I would say the setting up of VCU, or it’s called NCU now, right?
Yes. Yah, I think that is, I guess, one concrete step. And also the, the module thing, the compulsory,
what, sexual respect module? Yah. And I guess like responding to students, you know, like doing the
Town Hall, that kind of thing or like the, the Tembusu meeting with, was it Florence Ling? It's very,
kind of like, immediate kind of thing lah.

So I think safeNUS’s role was more fleshed out during the Jeremy case? Because when Monica Baey
happened, yah, so I think, like, incrementally after it was founded, safeNUS tried to play a role in
sparking that public discourse? So, you know, releasing statements, even just like, yah, posting our
resources on social media. Yah. But also, like, on the ground, organising. So when, when the Jeremy
Fernando thing came together, I think some of us who were from Tembu, or like knew the Tembu
people, I think, they tried to like also support and like, you know, relay information, that kind of thing?
So, yah like, organising together with survivors. I think that is, that is another thing that we have been
doing? But also I think, importantly, like, trying to work with the institution. Because we recognise
that, in a way I see it as, so students are the bridge right, with the public, through public discourse, but
also with the institution, ‘cause we, we do acknowledge we have to work with them. Yah. Because the
institution has the power to change the structure. Yah, yah. So yah, like in a sense, then safeNUS is like
a bridge lor. Yah.

163
 Okay. Actually, I think it is easier if I talk about each lah. So I think VCU/NCU is definitely a good
thing, like it’s much needed. It's a bit too late, but okay, that's a step in the right direction, that we have
a proper office to address this. And I think the personnel running NCU are mostly competent. I mea n,
although not perfect, but yah. But I think that has also created a situation where a lot of things just end
up getting diverted to NCU?
And like, maybe that wasn't intentional, but I guess bureau– bureaucratically that just became the case.
Yah, so it's, it's the right step, sorry, it's a step in the right direction, but we have yet to really see its
effectiveness yet? Yah, and also because it's so, it's so new also. And we don't really have a lot of, like
statistics or data yet, like how many cases are referred to NCU? How many victims are satisfied with
the way NCU handles things? We don't know yet? So very hard to say. Yah.
Then for – oh, the module like, actually is it, it’s still offered right, every year? Like, do you know if
there have been any, like, changes to the syllabus? So, assuming it was still the same content as the
time that I took it, which was AY 19/20 I think?

Okay, firstly I think ‘cause it was compulsory, then. I think that, that just turned off a lot of students
already? Like it was just another compulsory thing to go through? So ironically, I think not a lot of
people took it very seriously? From what I observed. Yah, like, we were all just made to go to a lecture
hall and listen to the CAPT Master talk about stuff. And then everyone has to go to a seminar room and
listen to your RF. Yah.

Yah. So like, I'm speaking from the perspective of the residential one lah, like I don't know about the
other, the other version, which is like you take the online quiz is it or something? Oh, okay. Yah. So,
but yes, it's like didactic lah. And I, my understanding was that it was up to the discretion of like, the
individual Colleges and Halls like how they want to conduct it? Like the content is the same, but it's up
to the RF who is teaching the class, like, how they want to go about it, right? Yah. So I think there was
quite a variation? Yah.

And I don't – yah lor, I don't think it was very helpful? And the scenarios that they provided like, okay,
I can't really remember what exactly was that, but it was, how to say, like, you see, I can’t even
remember what was taught, that’s how insignificant it was. Like, yah, like, I think they tried to be
inclusive and include a, like, same gender kind of scenario? But I don't know. Like, I don't know
whether that was really the way to go about it. And from what I heard, right, like, this may not be
accurate, but for that, you know, the same gender scenario? I think some conservative profs, like they
just didn't talk about that entirely. Like they just ignored it. Like it didn't exist. Yah. So, so that's
problematic lah. Like, we’re being exclusionary also?

8.8 Interview 8:

I guess, straight off the bat for the institution, you know, like I said, it seems to be that, you know, that
maybe it happened under their institution, but it wasn't really like their responsibility, you know? That
it was just unfortunate that someone within the institution did it, but they were acting as an individual
entity. And it's just like, unfortunate, then it just so happens that they are in NUS and therefore it
reflects badly on them. Yah, and I guess it's also the belief that, you know, they, they had to handle it a
certain way, because, you know, it’s policy! I think obviously, it seems like, you know, they want to
handle it in a way that is being just by themselves? But like the under– it seems that their subconscious,
you know, beliefs, and their subconscious want is to to protect themselves, to protect their image,
which is why they, you know, decided to handle it in a way that pandered to the public instead of that
on the, instead of the students themselves. So I'm pretty sure they're aware of it themselves, they just
don't want to talk about it. Again, like I say, you know, they're behaving very much like a corporate
business. So their beliefs are, you know, that the image and the reputation of the school should be
protected at all costs. It’s again that disconnect between taking responsibility and recognising it to be a
deeper issue than it is at the surface? The fact that they don't believe it to be something that is an issue
within the school, you know, there's an underlying like, institutional or ideological problem that's being
perpetuated within the school that allows these things to take place.

164
So I guess, the students, the main thing was that the students felt kind of betrayed? We didn't, we felt
that our interests were being, we felt that we weren’t being taken care of, basically, We felt that the
institution had failed us? The fact that they were so willing to ignore what the victims wanted, kind of
like showed us that like we didn’t matter? Which I think was like quite shocking, I know a lot of us were
like, wow, this can’t be happening right? Like a lot of us were quite like, shocked, at like, how poorly
they handled the situation. And a lot of us didn't think that it was handled justly at all, we all felt that
there was a great injustice that had been done. Because they, because of like, the very skewed concepts
of justice that the institution had held, and the fact that they were willing, so willing to pander to the
public instead. Obviously, what we wanted was for the school to take, to be accountable, to take
responsibility for what had happened, and to change the system. And listen, listen to us! I think that
was the main thing that we wanted for our voices to be heard, and to know that our wants, our welfare,
will be respected and taken care of by the school.

The public was outraged on the behalf of the victim, but because, obviously, you know, these people
weren’t there, and they ignored what the victim wanted, they had their own ideas of what justice should
be. And that was to, you know, bring the perpetrators to court, have them be dealt with in the most
aggressive way possible, you know, and that didn't always match up with what the victims wanted. At
the same time, there were also people who were saying, you know, who, in the general public, who also
agreed with the institution in the sense that, they felt that, especially with the Monica Baey case, th at
she shouldn't have made such a big deal out of it because she, she was ruining this poor boy's life.
Which I guess also like hints to the whole, like, the ignorance of the general public regarding these
kinds of issues about sexual assault and like, you know, victim blaming.
Obviously, the institution just followed their own protocol. They handled things very technically, they
were very cold? I know that a lot of the internal proceedings and how they've proceeded with the
investigations were kept quiet from the victims, and they weren't very involved, which is quite shocking.
It was all very clinical. And, yah. So, you know, once they decided that they have you know, followed
protocol, they felt that, you know, it was done and dusted and they could, you k now, wipe their hands
off it, I guess? Like we've discussed already, you know, like, how they responded to people questioning
their actions, it’s that, oh, we’re following protocol. And, as if like that should be enough.

So then for the students, and you know, including Monica Baey, we felt that since you know, taking to
official, through official means to, to raise our concerns wasn't amounting to any, anything. Taking to
social media was another way that we could do something about it, you know, utilising bottom-up
media, which has, you know, which allows it to, you know, go viral, you know, adding the pressure
onto them to, or at least, you know, showing that hey, that there's, there's a problem in NUS that the
outside public doesn't know about, but probably should know about. So I guess like you know, because
we didn't want this to happen again, because we wanted people to know that there was an institutional
problem and for NUS to change, this is what you know, the student population decided to do to go
around it, that NUS couldn't stop and couldn't ignore. At least not without repercussions because they
had ignored the students already. They have done so through official means, because they could get
away with ignoring.

And then I guess like for the general public, like I’ve said before, they kind of wanted like a witch-hunt,
they were out for blood basically. There were people who felt that the school didn't handle it properly,
because they didn't take severe enough action, particularly with the Monica Baey case. And again, you
know, in a similar way to the students, there was a lot of like, social media discourse, a lot of people
took to social media to comment about the case. Particularly on, you know, forums, or social media
platforms, sharing among themselves.

For safeNUS, I think it was kind of a balancing act? Because like, you know, we understand that, as
students, we, our voices deserve to be heard. And it's important for us, for our voices to be heard. And,
you know, this organisation was created, because we felt that there was a need for some group to
actually like, represent the voices of the victims of these kinds of cases. And so while you know, there
was a lot of effort to be as direct about our concerns and our disappointment with how the sit uation
had been handled, because of our position as students, and because of like the possible repercussions,
we had to be very careful.

165
 Every single time something like that had happened, I think like, there was a lot of effort made to
release at least a statement about it to acknowledge that something, that it had happened, and express
our – mostly disappointment with how the situation had been handled. And what we hope NUS would
do to rectify the situation. I think, we also had to be careful not to like step on any toes. And be
prepared that you know, it might fall on deaf ears, I suppose.
I know they really tried to like say that, hey we’re doing, we’re pumping in a lot more investment in the
Victim Care Unit. But it's still very flawed. The VCU was still like, you know, not incredibly adequate
at the current point in time. Even though like you know, I think there was a lot of fanfare on NUS’s part
saying that, oh, hey, we have a VCU, that's enough, right? We've, we've heard you, now we have VCU,
that's good enough.
Yah, I just found that it was like quite ironic because having worked with VCU myself, they're not
equipped with like, you know, any, any, with much knowledge about legal proceedings. And they’re
still only under NUS policy, they can only operate within NUS policy, which like kind of defeats the
purpose. So it just felt that you know, they were doing it to placate us. The fact that they had so much
fanfare about you know, the fact that, this is what we get, this is the proof that they have l istened to us,
when it was still not very adequate.

8.9 Interview 9:

Like, the general public has a belief in law and order, and a belief in the state, and a belief in
institutions, like there is this trust, like I'm not, I don't know how to distinguish whether it’s trust or
belief. But it's definitely all tied up together.

Um, I mean, I guess a lot of the students believe in listening to survivors, that’s one thing, and taking
the word of survivors and not doubting them. And also on support, the students definitely believe that
survivors need support. Whether perpetrators – sorry, people who are responsible for sexual violence,
necessarily need to face, like, consequences. I guess the general consensus is that people do expect that
sort of thing lah, that they believe that perpetrators should have consequences but, but it’s a, but, but
it's not something that is so homogenous.

For the institution, I think they believe that they are, that they care for students when they don’t lah. I
think they believe in their reputation and are willing to uphold their reputation in their belief that they
are a world-class institution and that they are an institution that can provide a lot of services. They just
think that they are, they just have a belief in themselves lah, that they are a very, a very well run-
institution, that they are world-class, they are top-notch, whatever lah, world-ready, don’t know what
other corporate terms they use on this.

And they believe that students are aligned to their institutional goals, when they’re not. Yah.
The public just want someone to get punished, very simple. They just want someone to get punished and
then they can forget about it. And they just want to see someone kena. That’s the most colloquial I can
put it. Like, there's something very sadistic happening lah, with regards to that. It makes them happy to
see someone get punished, and for someone to go to jail, or someone to get, I don’t know lah, yah.

The institution just wants to get their ass out of the way, as soon as possible, as cleanly as possible.
They just want to preserve their reputation as a world-class institution.

Students want so much more. Students want accountability. Students want support. Students want
people to recognise survivors and their stories. Some students want security. Some students don't even
want anything because they don't think that, that, that sexual violence matters to them anyway. Yah.
But students want a lot of things. Definitely accountability from institutions and support from
institutions. And yah lah. They want trust. Trust from the institution. They want the institution to trust
them. And they want to trust the institution also. But you failed. You consistently failed. That’s the key
point.

166
The public ah. Does the public want, does the public do anything? Aside from, just call for people to
get arrested, or to get justice. I mean, I don't think the public really did anything lah.
Institution-wise? Well, at least by, in Monica Baey they did a lot of things lah, like I said earlier.
Infrastructure changes, policy changes, penal changes, at least internally. Jeremy Fernando's case,
there was the Town– there was the internal College Town Hall. That was the CSWG (Community
Support Working Group). And it’s just, they fired Jeremy. They fired him, they basically just fire their
staff lah. And, or they suspend, like, students who were responsible for sexual violence, like basically
they’re just doing according, their actions are according to procedure or whatever kind of top decision
that is not made to the students. Yah. And we consult ourselves lah, of course. In terms of action, they
consult themselves lah. They only talk to students to talk to them only, to tell them what they’re going to
do. They’re not actually consulting students or bringing them into the decision-making process.
Students are not at the table. They’re only performing, they’re only acting in that sense, they’re
performing when they are in conversation with students.
And students also. Oh, students, a lot! I mean, even supporting the survivors directly is already a kind
of action? Some students have demanded more transparency from the College. Whether via email or if
it means like directly talking to the College Master. A lot. Yah. Like at least Monica Baey, you know
like, you know, the Student Union did some stuff, and of course Jeremy Fernando the Student Union
has wrote statements lah. Community groups have put out statements, safeNUS was founded as a,
safeNUS was founded as a direct response to Monica Baey. safeNUS did our own stuff during the
Jeremy Fernando case. We issued demands to the administration, the school administration, and to the
point where they managed to release the Staff Code of Conduct lah. And now it's public, in the public
domain.

Students have done a lot of things. And it's a lot more work than what the institution has done, what the
public has done. That’s all I can say. We had also tried to set up the Community Support Working
Group, and all these, like, communities and statements and interviewed with the media on various
accounts, you know, taking a stake in the discourse. And in our own time, outside the case, like you
know, we are creating resources. We are creating, we are talking, we are trying to bring in like First
Responder Trainings, we, we educate each other, we educate each other lah, as well, on our social
media platforms.
Also like, in conjunction with the administration, students and the Tembusu administration set up
something called the Community Support Working Group. And they were considering on getting Kokila
to do, do some, like, workshops on like, healing and justice frameworks. But of course, Kokila has said
that Tembusu hasn’t gotten back to her, even before the protests and after the protests. Well, I don't
think, yah, I don't know if that's actually going to happen lah. I mean, as you know, Kokila is a
freelancer too. But, and the thing about CSWG, was that it ran into a lot of problems regarding trust
and autonomy, because it wasn't entirely run by students. There were directions from above. And some,
I would, I would say more of guidance. Because then, there are parts of the Community Support
Working Group, which technically can be autonomous structure-wise, but yah, like, I think, yah, that’s
the thing, it’s a mess lah, in terms of autonomy it’s a mess. Like it's possible to make it autonomous, but
it was very hard to gain the trust of students.
And especially during COVID period, and this was the first semester of the new academic year, a lot of
people didn't sign up for our focus group discussions. And we ended up interviewing each other mostly.
And a lot of this just flopped on our part lah. Community engagement, like, didn't even take off. And it
was due, and there were a lot of complex factors to this, either that people weren't actually affected by
Jeremy's, the Jeremy case, you know, they, it’s something very distant to them even if they’re Tembusu
students, or there weren’t enough people being affected. I mean, there are also a lot of year ones, right,
so, many of them don't know who he is. But also many are not exactly aware of what sexual violence
entails lah, and – oh, and also a lot of it is, like, the, like trust issues between the student community
and the Community Support Working Group, like, because of its ties to the College administration.

And in that sense, the CSWG couldn't take off as much as it wanted to. I was part of the Community
Support Working Group, and it was to my dismay lah, that it could not happen, like, I tried to figure
out something to make it an autonomous thing, but it was very hard to, to assert that? And

167
 administration-wise, it’s difficult to pull it off as well, because it was still a Zoom semester, it was the
first Zoom semester, fully Zoom semester, in that sense, and a lot of year ones went not in the College.
There generally wasn't much of a community lah. And there are too many new students who didn't
know who Jeremy was. So a lot of that effort just broke down. And I don’t know where is it going.

The only other thing is that, I think we were being deployed for some kind of training, some of us, I
can’t remember what was it but I can find it, I guess. Like, oh no, I don't even know what's it called?
Yah, there’s this – the only other thing is, we were supposed to have CSWG respect and consent
advocates. And we are getting, some of them were nominated from tFreedom lah, so I'm one of them
lah. It's like a training lah, basically. It's like a two-part workshop training, where the first part, we
have, like, first responder training, the second part, we have half-day workshops on how to roll out the
advocate programme in the college. Yah like, basically, it's supposed to be in, like these advocates, as
advocates, we're supposed to implement some kind of programme to strengthen respect and consent
within the College. And it's supposed to take place annually.
safeNUS’s strategy ah. I mean our strategy was always to, we are always there for students, we are
composed of students ourselves, and we are always there to do, like, grassroots work in te rms of sexual
violence. So we are in constant conversation with the school administration, and especially the Victim
Care or the NUS Care Unit. And in a sense, we serve as the student voice, at least the current, the main
student voice at the moment with regards to dealing with the institution and critiquing the institution
and keeping them in check. But thankfully, not tied to the institution, we are autonomous. So we
function as an honest student voice that keeps the institution in check, to demand for th e institution to
change policies when needed. We also want to serve as a support base, for students, by students. We
want to create discourses as well, we want to deepen the research into, into the nature of sexual
violence on campus, perhaps to the rest of society, We want to ensure that our students are safe. We
are constantly reaching out to other organisations, to partner with other organisations to, to basically,
basically to build connections and strategies to combat like sexual violence. Yah. So all of this is really
just, many of us are survivors on our own, survivors of sexual violence of our own. Many of us are
acquainted with sexual violence in one way or the other. We have our own interests in mind. And our
interest lies with the interests of the students. For the student population and the safety of the student
population.

8.10 Interview 10:

So for now, I’ll only speak about the students and the school, because, like, from the public's
perspective, I feel like their beliefs are centred around the idea that, this arises because students have it
too good, and the reason is students have it too good. And I feel like that is the, or the reason why that
is the idea that they centre around is because they’re thinking of the perpetrator and not the survivor.
Yah, if we have it so good, why are the students here being like, suffering from this kind of thing? And
the reason why I don't want to focus on that, is because I want this to be a survivor -centric
conversation.

So along those lines, for the students’ part, there is a very – I can’t tell if this is conscious or
unconscious because it's just a very like, present belief that the system right now does not work. And
this is not even a belief, okay, so this is not a belief but rather a sense. A lot of students do not feel safe.
They don't feel safe in school because they keep hearing things happen to people who are just like
them. And when you see violence happening to people who are like you, you're always thinking, well,
first of all, you’re thinking that, that's horrible for them. And like a part of you also thinks, there's no
reason why it can't be me. So that's, that's a belief that students have lah, like, a lack of safety. And that
things must change. And on the other hand, on the institution side, there does not seem to be the same
sense of urgency, the same sense of danger that students feel. There does not seem to be like this
present belief that the system is not working? And this is the biggest disconnect. I think, between the
institution and the students. The students think that it's obvious something is wrong, and the institution
thinks that that's not true.

168
To achieve their wants. Okay, I just say the public one first, just to get it out of the way. Because I
think, because the public, like uh – well, there are a lot of people who, I must not discount that there
are a lot of people who genuinely want to help, who genuinely have good intentions, I think that a lot of
the public also have this idea that like, you know, this, this looks a bit l ike a, just, just a scandal. So
like, so in terms of the public, there has been some amount of doxxing, I think? And there has been
some amount of like, just going on social media and like spamming people like whether survivor or
perpetrator, which is obviously distressing for the survivor. And unhelpful. That side is unhelpful. But
like on the public side, like just generally the more people know, like the more awareness raised lah. So
there’s that.

On the student side, of course, there's safeNUS who has been, to be frank, working nonstop. Yah, like
ever since the Monica Baey case, which can be said to be like the sparking, like the, the the start of
safeNUS, I would say because the thing about the Monica Baey case is that it sparked a lot of students
just genuinely thinking I never want something like that to happen again, I want to be part of like,
preventing things like this from happening ever again. And that's how the group, you know, like your
Students Against Sexual Violence (SASV) started, and then after that, safeNUS. Yah, so that's how it
started. And like, the entirety of safeNUS has always been driven by this idea that, that you know, that
something is very wrong for, like, these things to be happening. And this can be stopped by, you know,
just the, just the little, both the little and the more urgent things that we've done, like the build-up of,
like, the media, the social media that our group has been putting out, like, education for, like the
general public, in little bite-size, accessible pieces. Like, our, our literacy group has been out there
with doing focus group discussions and things like that, finding out how to have more, I would say like,
in-depth discussions. We have partnerships, who has been looking around, you know, who has been
like, working with institutions like, like, AWARE, organisations like AWARE for like, for example, we
had First Responder Training to have more students in NUS be trained to, to help any survivors as first
responders, and just you know, there are like those those kinds of consistent things to build up a safer
culture that add up bit by bit.

Then there are the more urgent things like, when a case happens, and for example, when the Jeremy
Fernando case happened, and like, there was no statement by NUS for longe r than I would say, it was
acceptable. safeNUS would reach out, would email NUS and then ask them, and, like, ask them what
the situation is, is there a statement for like, students, because these kind of cases can cause like, you
know, like, can, can really degrade our sense of safety? Yah, there was the dentistry case also, and like,
so there's that. And then there's the public statements that we make whenever this would happen, and
every time a case would happen, we would be approached by many, many other students who are
saying okay, we understand that there’s this case happening, it’s making us feel unsafe, first of all, so
is there any way you can help in that? And then also, we ourselves want to help and be part of the
movement to have a safer campus. So what can we do in our own, like um, for example, in our own
RCs, Tembu, for example, reached out, many people from Tembu reached out to safeNUS, and these,
and all of these were very, like, student-initiated movements. How do we educate ourselves and the
people around us? How do we talk about this more? What can we ask from the institution? What can
we, how do we keep the institution accountable? And so these are just the many, many ranges of things
that students have done, there’s that.
From the institution? There has been some change in policy like, like, for example that, for example for
the Jeremy Fernando case, the Staff Code of Conduct used to not be available. I think even before
safeNUS, I'm not sure if it was – yah, even before safeNUS. No, it was never available. But I know I'm
aware, I'm aware of this because of other, yah, like, I'm aware of this that like, not only was it not
available, but students had requested it for sexual violence related reasons, and were not, and the Staff
Code of Conduct was not accessible to students all the way until this particular case. There have been
previous cases that were not as high-profile. And really the only difference is that they are not as high -
profile, not in the media. Still as heinous. So there’s that?
Yah, you know, like, yah, like there, there was – I'm aware that there was this group of both NUS and
YNC students, it was a bit more of an informal group that were concerned because, concerned is too
light a word, they themselves and their friends, people they knew, were, had ex perienced sexual
violence in NUS labs. And, and there was this whole, like they were, they were, it was very hush hush,

169
 they were literally told not to tell anyone. And being a student, you know, your grades, and if they were
being harassed, sexually harassed by professors, and like, and they were told to, you know, don't, don't
speak up about it. And the professor obviously controls their grades.

And I know for a fact that they were asked for, to release the Staff Code of Conduct. That was not done.
None of this, and like this is definitely not the first time they've been pressed for the Staff Code of
Conduct from students who, for specifically, sexual violence related reasons. But it was not until this
high-profile case that it was released.

And, and the problem with this is that this shows really the trend of actions that have been taken by the
institution, that it takes a lot, a lot of, not just – it would be okay if all it took was a lot of effort from
students. But even with a lot of effort from students, without being in the spotlight of the media, under
scrutiny from the public, it seems like action only occurs with both of those hand-in-hand. And so these,
and so action from the institution is student and public initiated.

Yah, so like, even just, I am sure I'm, like unaware of many of the other instances I, and I already know,
three instances, three separate instances, and like these three groups have asked more than once for
the Staff Code of Conduct. And, and yah, even, even then, even with all this effort from the students.
That's how much it took just for the Code of Conduct. And also, I want to, I want to bring up that
there's a huge sense of unfairness because the Student Code of Conduct is open for all to see. I can
Google it right now. Yes, the Student Code of Conduct is open to the public, which is frankly a huge,
we do feel the unfairness.

It’s telling that the institution sees this as misconduct rather than violence. Because – because if the
institution saw this as an act of violence, an act of, like, taking away agency from a person, if they saw
this case in that light, they would understand, I think, just on a fundamental level, that the worst thing
you can do to someone who has had their bodily autonomy taken away from them is to rob them, is to
do it again, by robbing them of the choice of what to do with regards to – yah, because it's very clear!

Like if, because the, the violence that has been enacted is very, is fundamentally tied to the, to having
your choice and your agency, like, violently forced away from you. That is what it is to, like, experience
sexual violence. And –and if you see that, you would not do that again, to someone who has
experienced that. You wouldn't, that's the, that's the very last thing you would do. The focus will be on
what do they want, what, and respecting what, their choices, and their autonomy, and reassuring them
that that experience is over and now they have agency. But if you do it again, the experience is not over
for them. So that's what you would do if you saw it as violence, as an institution.

But what has been done is telling of seeing this as misconduct, which is like rule-breaking. When a rule
is broken, when you see as like, when you, when you see, when you think of it as a rule being broken,
you think of it as a wrong that someone has done on the institution, because the institution is the one
with these rules, right? And if you think that's the case, you think the institution has like the, the right to
decide. And so this is very important in terms of framing. Yah, that.

8.11 Interview 11:

So I guess for students, what kind of values or beliefs that they hold. Okay, maybe I shall start with the
public first, just because I have more of an immediate thought to that. So I suppose it might just
reinforce a lot of the things that you may or may not have read about or also personally believe in with
regards to how laypeople view cases of sexual violence and/or misconduct. A lot of the times the
general prevailing thought is that the victims are at fault, or the victim had done something at a certain
point in time, that triggered the situation, and that the fault does not lie entirely on the perpetrator
alone. So that, that seems to be a belief that is held by a lot of laypeople, which I'm sure probably
needs more, like evidence-based corroboration to back that up? But that's just my general sensing. It’s
usually the case for sexual violence cases, unfortunately. Yah, so, so that, I suppose would therefore
inform how they view justice in a particular situation?

170
Seems to me that they want to see consequences for the perpetrator. Right? Then the consequences for
the victim, or as in like, say, whatever the victim has to deal with in the aftermath, are like secondary.
They may or may not give it much thought, but it's usually more or less focused on say, what has the
perpetrator, like, what has the perpetrator done? And therefore, what kind of legal consequences do
they have? What kind of institutional consequences do they have? You know, are they now barred from,
if it's like, say, a medical practitioner, are they barred from practising now? If they're a faculty
member? Are they barred from being in a teaching position in a public institution? Yah. The end
justifies the means.
I guess, for the institution, in line with their more detached way of handling the situation, I suppose.
Okay, let's talk about wants first, what they want at the end of the day is probably to maintain their
reputation as a reliable, like reliable, responsible institution that, you kno w, takes care of the people
that depend on them. Right, who would, I’m assuming in this case be the student body, but they would
consider it on their own terms exclusively, and not so much whether or not the student body really
agrees with that or not. So, for them, maintaining that reputation is key. Right? And in order to
maintain their reputation, they have to enact some kind of consequences to the perpetrator in any of
such cases. Right? So that, I suppose, that would inform their, their actions against the perpetrator,
whether or not the – well, then there's another issue, right? Like, like not, it doesn't, it's not equal all
the time. Like, it's always, almost always dependent on how severe the cases and also how much public
attention the case receives, that, that kind of, sort of, like, negotiates how fast NUS responds to each of
the case, each of the cases. Yah. So. So I guess that's, that's probably the difficult part to comment on,
like, what drives them to do that? Probably the path of least resistance, I guess? Like, even if, I mean,
since their end goal is just to maintain their reputation. The next question is, what is the bare minimum
amount of things that we can do, to do, to you know, attain that goal, and they'll just do that bare
minimum amount of things. Yah.
Yah, I suppose I would lean more towards belief in their own, in protocol and procedure? So I suppose
from an institutional point of view, if you follow the procedure, for any particular situation, you would
be able to attain whatever goals that the procedure would lead to. Right? And I suppose for them, those
goals are sufficient, in all cases, until say, a particularly challenging case appears and challenges that
notion of whether the goals that, or the results that the procedure leads to are sufficient as outcomes
for any particular situation, for any particular case. And then I suppose, then they will have to review
the procedure and turn it into a different procedure that leads to different outcomes. So I think that that
probably drives NUS’s procedural approach and also a detached approach? Because if you follow
procedure, you're not supposed to also be emotionally attached to any of the steps, or any of the people
involved in the case. And that can also explain why it takes so long for them to even do anything, you
know, from the time that a student comes and reports anything to them, to the time where they, say in
Fernando's case, expel or rather, how to say, fire.

I guess for NUS, if I can go in the not-normal order, for NUS, for them to achieve what they want to do,
which is to complete the procedure and to, you know, attain whatever outcomes were desirable for that
situation for them. They would then, you know, follow the procedure strictly. Right? And then they
would also try to give some amount of transparency to their procedure by releasing whatever details
that they are comfortable releasing to the general public and the student body, mostly the student body,
just because we receive those circulars. I suppose NUS didn't have to do that. Like they didn't have to
release timeline of investigation. They didn't. But that they did is probably, hopefully, a sign in the right
direction.

For the public, I don't actually know whether the public does much in that situation, I mean, t he
general public not counting say, activist groups, VWOs, people who do advocate for such survivors,
you know, people, like, from AWARE, Sayoni, and so on, like, I believe, for them, it's going to be a very
different situation altogether. But for the general lay public, who may or may not have a stake in any of
such sexual violence cases, whenever it comes up. Usually, the ones who don't have a stake in these
cases, they probably don't do very much then to achieve their wants or not, I suppose the, the bare
minimum that they would do is to discuss it with people around them whether or not the perpetrator
has received sufficient punishment, you know. Like, let's say you had a case of, of rape, and the
perpetrator got off without being punished, like, just paid a $300 fine, and that was it. You know, there

171
 may be a lot of, there'll be more public outcry being like, that's insufficient punishment for the
perpetrators’ actions. And then, you know, that will result in a lot of like, social discussion about that.
Right? So that may be more, so whether they perceive the justice to be sufficient.

I suppose, what they would want to do, I think students are more active in seeking out the outcomes
that they want? So students would then turn to platforms like petitions, events to raise awareness,
online campaigns, social campaigns, and similar things, to raise awareness about the situation and the
injustices at play? And they would probably launch things like, lobby for town halls, or for
conversations with people at the top in NUS with regards to how certain situations can be better
handled in the future. So I think that they take a much more active role in seeking out the justice that
they hope to find, you know, enacted.
I probably will end up having a more skeptical view about the situation. Which I apologise in advance
just because, you know, we're both part of the organisation and, like, I know what, what amount of
effort we've done to achieve what we are right now. And it's been a lot of work to get to this point. Bu t I
feel that okay, we start with the positives. So I think for safeNUS’s role in the situation with regards to
sexual violence/misconduct cases on NUS campus as a whole would be one for student support. And
hopefully, potentially, to give that student feedback to the institution so that the institution can
implement whatever that they need to implement, in order to better serve the student population,
because now they have a source of collated student feedback. So then that can inform their actions. So
I think generally safeNUS’s role is in those two boxes, the support for the students would be to provide
a safe and accessible space for, and also affirming space for any student who wishes to come forward
to seek help or support with regards to any sexual violence cases that they may be facing, whether it's
them facing the violence, or if it's somebody that they know, who's facing something like that, and they
wish to, you know, help their friend, or they wish to find recourse and what to do, or how to naviga te
the situation. So I think safeNUS plays that role. You know, it's a very general support role in the sense
that we can't do very targeted support, you know, but we are there to provide that first line of support,
if it's necessary to as broad of an audience as possible.
Yah, and I think that's very good. And we need that, you know, in any institution or any organisation or
big place, because it's often very challenging to navigate, whatever resources that the institution
themselves have, for people who need support, you know? Yah, and going through UCS is probably
going to be a lot more challenging than to, you know, approach students who are just like you, you
know, so at least when you're talking to somebody about your situation, you're, it’s like you'r e talking
to a friend. Yah. So I think that's important. Then the other role was one that I said that, hopefully, then
they can, we can act as like, potentially a stakeholder with whom NUS could consult in the event that
they wish to receive, in the, in the event that they wish to better inform whatever institutional changes
that they wish to implement, in response to safeguarding the security and the wel- being of future
students by preventing such sexual violence cases from happening.

That is a potential role we could play, but it's probably not very likely, unfortunately, just because I
don't think that well, first of all, we are a student group, right? Or should I be neutral and say,
safeNUS is a student group, and not use the word “we”. So safeNUS is a student group. And it's not
organisation-affiliated in any way, not under the purview of OSA either, perhaps under the purview of
the VCU and its associated faculty and staff, but otherwise, more or less independent. As an
independent entity, therefore, NUS does not have the vested interest in, in getting this independent
entity on board as a potential stakeholder in discussing any future plans with regards to student affairs.
So, so I think that is why it may be unlikely for NUS to do that.

I don't know what the NUS policies are. About which one? Like, which, which, I don't know what
policies they have, maybe they have them in relation to student housing? But like, because I'm not part
of that, I probably won’t know.

8.12 Interview 12:

For both cases, I will say that it's probably the the assumption that sexual violence happens to women
most of the time, because in both cases, like Monica spoke out, and then for J. Fernando, I assume it

172
was – so it probably, like, solidified their belief that oh, it mainly happens to women, protect women,
etc. But what did they want out of it?
It’s kind of a weird term to use, but maybe the students’ perspective is more “progressive”? Like, they
believe like, they are more ready to take action to be like, hey, let's sign petitions and speak up about
these things. For comparison, NUS as an institution and the general public are more “conservative”,
big question mark? Like they seem to oppose each other where the students understand the, how the
violence played out, and they want a say in how things carry out from then on. And the public feels
more like shying away from the whole situation. And so does NUS. So one side is more proactive, one
side is more reactive.

Vaguely pacifist. Yah, I think that's probably the clearest way to put it, like the degree of action. I know
the next question is about action. But, this is what fuels the action.

Students want what they perceive as justice, so like, oh, perpetrator gets sentence. Yah, that's the word
I’m looking for. Then NUS, I assume, they want to protect their image as much as possible? Ego-
driven, I don't know what's the right term to use. Public, what do they want from these cases? Depends.
Some people probably just want another reason to shit on NUS, which I greatly welcome. So like a jab
at the NUS image. And then if they are more concerned about the victim/survivor at hand, they'll
probably also want perpetrator-based sentence.

Let me think about it a bit more. What do they want from, like–

Oh, another thing! Sorry. I assume on at least some degree students and the public want a change in
how NUS deals with these cases. Yah. So whether it's more like a strict sentence, I know that's probably
dictated by both NUS and however the person is charged in court. But they will probably want a more
robust way of, hey, this has clearly happened, we are going to do something about it.

I would say, for students, they would probably want like a stronger internal system like NUS enforce
sentence / take areas of improvement, but for the public, they would assume that it's both how NUS
enforces that sentence and how they bring it up to court or whichever legal body enforces.

Students probably did what students can, like regular things like speaking up about it online? I don't
know if people wrote in to NUS about these issues? Probably like obviously bodies like safeNUS did.
For, for USP, our our, like, response to the USP admin was not, was not catalysed by either of the two
cases, but the showering peeping tom case. Yah. So me and some seniors above me, so Qiyun who runs
the – she also helped, she was part of a bunch of seniors who wrote into the USP admin to ask like,
hey, now that that perpetrator for our peeping tom case has been caught and has been charged in
court, what are you all gonna update the USP body on? Are you all gonna be more explicit about the
help, the resources, and the process of reporting, etc. So I feel like at least within the student capacity,
they can propose changes to NUS systemic changes. Because it is still within their realm.

NUS actions to achieve what they want? Hmmm. I would say theirs is more driven by public perception
of NUS? Like we talked about before, they are more reactionary like, ah, this has happened, we'll deal
with it as a problem and not as a like, person’s actual emotional vulnerability. So it's a mechanic
process of: problem, here are some solutions, wait for the outcome, deal with more solutions, let it die
out. And I think it's the same with the public? Because their idea of justice is, oh, report to police, go to
court. So they assume that the action to achieve what they want is always through… corporal
punishment? That’s the term?

I'll also say one more thing, that the, for NUS and the public – okay, not NUS – for the public, it seems
like their idea of action is also a violent one, where it seems like the only satisfactory outcome to us is
there's violence that’s equally done unto the perpetrator. So whether it's like take away their status,
their job, wealth, put them in jail. It’s supposed to be like a, on a scale lah, it balances, how they
perceive how hurt the victim is to how hurt the perpetrator will be.

Then, for the J Fernando case, it was, we're gonna release updates on the case as it unfolds. So the
report, what happened, when it was lodged, actions taken. So that was the most, like, apparent policy

173
 of like the timeline of events. Because if you – I think for them, they were also doing it as like, oh, let's
find out exact concrete evidence so that we can present to everybody who's watching u s.
And I guess, I don't know if they did more things like security patrols or whatever. Maybe they started
one. Oh wait, wait, did they start Victim Care Unit after Monica or was that always before? Okay, then
yes. Yah. So like a in-house reporting facility/support area? Yah, so I – now that that is there, I would
say like, that is definitely the direction to continue in. If it happens on campus, then there is a space on
campus to support these people. But as mentioned, they don't do anything about the root cause. There
are obviously classes like, oh, if you're gonna stay on campus, here are things to respect other people's
social distance or whatever, but it doesn't teach proper values about hey, can you respect people's
space and not be an asshole?
So yah, TLDR is they did one short-term policy that was “eh”, question mark, they did one longer-term
policy, which was yah, that's a good start. Which is the VCU.

For the 2020 case, they had the timeline. And they had – I think, in general, after the Monica case,
every time a report like that was lodged, they sent a campus-wide email that was like, this report has
happened, more things are going to be followed up with. So I think people demanded, like, hey, if these
cases are happening, which they always will sadly, at least tell us about it so that we know what's
happening rather than keeping them swept under the rug. Whether that's good or not, I think it's
definitely important to let people know what's happening. So that, it at least shows some sign of
accountability that, hey, we’re acknowledging this is happening, action is being taken. But again, I
can't say with good faith that it is a good decision because they are acting because people are
watching them lor.

I think in general, y’all did a lot of like social media pushing for things because it was the easiest way
to reach out to people. So y’all had, like small education snippets, like things like accessing sexual
health, like how to protect yourself, spotting signs of like, predatory behaviour, that so rt of stuff. So at
least on that part, y’all are doing what NUS should be doing lah, which is at least teaching people
about these things, and spreading awareness about how people, like their actions can be
misconstrued/some people have genuinely bad intentions.

I think for every, I think particularly for the Fernando case, because there were smaller ones which
were just like, I don't want to belittle them but I think there was one, which was like, oh, this, this staff
like, inappropriately touched another staff, like, hold her by the waist or the butt or something.
But yah, for the Fernando case, y’all did the push for – what’s that word? How do you say it? – push
for more action/accountability on NUS's part, like student statements, get other groups to sign in
solidarity, it’s like the open letter. Yah.

I feel like that is, that's probably the most prominent thing to me because it feels the most accessible as
a regular student. It's like, oh, if I know someone who is a leader of a interest group that deals with,
like, queer rights, or like gender equality, or maybe because I stay on campus, and things happen like
that, I’ll be like, hey, do y'all want to take a look at this letter and raise it up to NUS in general?

8.13 Interview 13:

Okay, since this question is so broad, I kind of came up with like a short line for each. For students
who don't happen to know a lot about sexual violence or aren’t involved in advocacy, they tend to have
a bit of a blasé impression. They think that it might not happen to them, and they have no stake in the
issue. Yah, it's quite strange seeing that there's quite a number, but for whatever reason, a lot of people
– I mean, there is fear in some circles, but the majority of people think that it won't happen to them,
like they won't be part of those statistics. Yah. As for the public, it’s in a similar vein in that they kind of
think that these cases aren’t preventable? They think that these cases are not preventable, and they will
always occur, like they're part of any, any organisation of people. For whatever reason, they they, they
see it as – I mean, it’s the naturalisation thing. They say, oh, as long as you know, these men and
women are put in the same room, that there will always be this kind of, that, that people will get fr isky

174
or whatever, and there's not much that actually can be done to stop it? Like only yo a certain extent,
maybe their preventive measures and penalties. But beyond that, they don't really see it as a problem
that people have to step in and, and really curtail or –

And the third – okay, this one hits hard. The institution doesn't believe that sexual violence is an issue
that is worth subverting their current systems for. Yah, I think that's been quite obvious, they're not
willing to actually change the way they do things or treat students because of sexual violence. They just
see it as a nuisance that they have to contend with rather than a real heavy problem that they, they
have to look at and really identify what's wrong here, and how can we better protect our students. It’s
more of a, aiyoh, got this fly in my hair, a bit annoying, got to swipe away. And yah, it just really goes
to show how much you really care about us? To the point where they they're willing, they're so willing,
especially to not speak directly to safeNUS? When we’re instrumental – yah. (sigh) Yah. So it's, it's
very disheartening. Yah.

Right, um, students who do know a bit more, I think they think that, that they have a stake, but they
don't believe in their power to push. I mean, which is quite valid seeing how even we, even the way we
do things, and we've been really working rather tirelessly. And sometimes it feels like okay, what kind
of a dent have we made? But yah, I think people who do know a bit more are just fearful that they don't
have the range because it can be quite an alienating subject when we haven't talked all that much
about it. And yah, their beliefs are generally in that realm, I’ve observed, just that, I don't know where
I can go into it. Yah, ‘cause it– like people who are a lot more educated, they're a bit like, I don't, I'm
afraid of saying the wrong thing. I want to help but I am not well-versed on this topic. And I don't want
to do more harm than good. That’s why a lot of my friends have have told me that they really admire
our work, because they wouldn't know how to go about it themselves. Yah, they definitely do see, think
that it takes a lot more courage than they, they have, or a lot more range. And they will say they don't
have the head for it, maybe. Yah.
Okay, I, I had to identify what the players want and then what they're doing to get what they want, at
one shot.
So I'm not sure if it’s as nuanced but I think we can, we can quickly say that students who really
actually wanted to demand accountability from the administration, we saw how many student groups
quickly lobbied and stood beside us when we released our statement. Right, and we told the
administration that we need more information and we, and we want – okay, there’s a lot of things that
we demanded, but essentially transparency and, and for them to actually show that, demonstrate that
they care about our views and our safety? And safeNUS itself is an example of what students are doing
to get what we want. Which is a healthier sexual climate, more informed peers, an administration that
actually cares about us and wants to give us, wants to give us information and not withhold it from us.
Yah, so that I would say, mostly.

The public. Okay. I am actually not sure about this, but I think there have been reports of just worried
parents who are, who are concerned about the, the way – yah, like the sexual climate of NUS especially
since the orientation camps saga. Yah, but it's, it's complicated because some of them are genuinely
worried about their kids’ safety. Some of them just are a bit concerned that their child will be in an
environment where they might “learn libertine values” or whatever that, that they don't encourage at
home but yah, it’s a bit mixed there.

I'm not quite sure what else the public is doing because there isn't – and we know how civil society
works or whatever, it is not exactly organised. So it’s mostly the individual parents, yah. And, and I
suppose activists, but I don't know, while it’s, it’s, I mean, it’s the same few groups, like other queer
groups in Singapore, or like social groups who are, who are talking about this, AWARE, and yah, other
groups who, who actually give a shit and yah, find this an important issue.

Yah, then as for the school administration, um, I would say they're doing what it takes to get by?
Because when they say, when they say that they want to approach this holistically, I guess they, they
gave the appearance of a holistic response, in that they have the VCU and NCU which is, which is for
the survivors, and then they have their preventive measures which are the penalties and the, the
increased security, and then on the literacy side what they deem will be holistic will be the consent

175
 workshops and talks. Yah, I mean, to their credit, I can imagine how as an institution this looks like a
very well-structured triangle. Wah this one damn nice leh, got three prongs. Yah.
What does the institution want? I guess for all of us to stop being a pain in their ass. It’s, I don't – I
mean obviously, I know that the administration is not made up of robots, and they are all human beings
in there. And it's not like they want sexual violence to happen. But the way they are treating it is, really
makes it out to be more of a nuisance, like some PR crisis rather than, than this is a human rights
violation, or, or people are getting harmed in, on our campus and, like, we have to d o something about
it. That's not really the view that they're taking.

They're just like a, oh no, got some problem happened on our campus, I guess we have to come up with
a, with a holistic, like a well-framed approach to, to make sure that the students and the media and
parents don't come after us. And that we have the resource, and whatever resources that we think are
appropriate to, to give to this cause, we'll just like, throw it in, I guess. Got no choice. Yah, it doesn't
seem like there's a huge amount of like, humane investment, it's more like a, alright, this is something
that has to be done. Because if we don't do it, then the school's name will be tarnished. No one's gonna
come here, because got so many cases and then now, everyone thinks that we’re a bunch of perverts.
Yah, so what they, what they want is, I feel, is for everything to blow over. Which is not going to be the
case and also a very apathetic/lazy way to look at it.

I mean, as far as we know. Yah. Those have been the policies that they’ve really foregrounded, and
those have been their approaches that they've taken. I mean, got no upgrade so far. And honestly, I'm
still reeling over us having to be official.

8.14 Interview 14:

Okay, can. So I'll start out with the public lah. So my, my sense is that the public really just wanted to
see the problem gone. Like, they just want like – I mean, I get it, like – they want to see that the, the
sexual assaulters and all that, like, are locked up, they can be put away, away from like, like sight, j ust
away where, you know, most of so called normal society won't have to see them. They just want them
like, literally marginalised. They just want them literally on a different island as much as possible. So
jail is what they want lor. Like, it's the easiest way to just put whoever we don't bother to understand
and whatever we don't understand, like elsewhere and just throw all the social ills into jail and pretend
that, like that will solve anything. Yah. Yah, and I do think that the public is very invested in just not
seeing it? I, like, like, yah, they just don't want to see like any more. So they're, like, the reason why I
think they're so irritated, they're so pissed off at NUS is because they're like, you know, NUS has the
reputation of being the National University. And I do think that a lot of them, like, felt some level of,
like, nationalistic feelings lah, and as a result, like, they also felt that, you know, like, NUS is, funnily
enough lah, they felt that NUS was like, letting down the country, such a shame and embarrassment to
our country. And then because of that, they were like, you know, please like, kick this problem out,
solve it, erase it, like, quickly, like, so I do think that the public was just very, a lot of the public were
very embarrassed about like, how, NUS was like, being an embarrassment to the reputation and the
image of the country.

Yah. Which is extremely weird to me lah. But yah, I think that is, even, that is like another layer on top
of like, not wanting to see social ills, which I think is a very understandable thing? But yah, they
definitely just do not want to contemplate that like, people, that flawed people and predators and
perpetrators exist among them every day. And they don't want to confront that because they would have
to do something.
Exactly, that's how they view it. And because like they're not, they're not aware that like, this is also
like, basically super endemic everywhere. Like, in fact, I would argue it's even more endemic in NTU
than in NUS, but it's just that NUS gets into the news more often. So it's like, they don't know that. And
as a result, like, because of like, how, NUS tends to get more reported in the news and all that, like, of
course, they're more likely to just zone in on NUS and be like, oh, it's your fault. Now solve it.

176
I think it's also very interesting to me lah, the reputation part, because actually, like a lot of how I
observe this was through like, convos with like, people in my, like, people who are relatively old, like,
like, elderly lah. So a lot of them were like convos in Chinese and stuff like that. So you know, it's like,
they really have a sense of pride about like, this being the National University and it's very world -
renowned? So the, the sense of like, shame, shame is real lah. You let down, you let down your family
kind of nonsense again. But like – yah, they really do see that way, like you are dishonouring the
country and shit.

For students, right, I find it difficult to know what the beliefs are, because like, I think the students that
I hang out with are, of course, like of a really specific sort? So of course, I would say that, like, the
students that I know, are, like, genuinely concerned, like, right after I, I released via Gender Collective,
the statement on the whole issue, and like multiple statements in response to like, NUS’s actions and
stuff like that, like, there were multiple people who reached out to us, and that wa s sort of the
beginning stage of how people were starting to organise and wanted to start up something like
safeNUS. Yah. And these were like, multiple pockets of people. And they were not my usual. I was
surprised because they were not just my usual like, like queer, like, and politically-conscious kinds of
people. It was also like, regular students who are otherwise not politically involved at all? And yah,
they were all like, yah, it was very, it was very new to me, because like, I had never seen students, like,
take initiative like this. I had never seen students like, really, genuinely take initiative. And then like,
Facebook, like this random, because by the way, like Gender Collective’s Facebook page is not that
well known. So like, yah, so it was very surprising to me that like these random people will try and
reach out to us. And then like, try to, and they had already, like, tried to talk to other people. And they
were like, oh, like a group of us, like three, four of us were like thinking of this, like, how can we do
something? I was very, like, heartened by that. So it seemed like a genuine concern lah, like they were,
it was not only like, and they were trying to come in, and not only from an advocacy point of view, like
not only were they like, they weren't looking at it as a, oh, we want to just talk to the admin kind of
thing. No, they were looking at it in terms of like, both negotiating with the admin, but they also saw it
as like a larger problem which MOE needed to address. Because, yah, because MOE is like, where the
sex ed should be happening for like, the majority of people's childhoods as well.

So yah, like actually, like right now, I also recently have like a message from some other group, like, of
random students who also like, organise on their own? And like, yah, a whole bunch of them. Of
course, they ended up, like, starting safeNUS? And then we talked to them. And then other groups also
spawned up like, I think there were like, they're like NTU-based groups. And there's also like, like,
people who are invested in like, writing letters to MPs and stuff together. Like, I think there’s like some
group of people from SMU or something, who, like they, they like wrote letters to Ong Ye Kung and all
that? I don't – yah, I don't remember them very, like, clearly. But there were also, like, new Instagram
accounts and stuff like that, managed by a lot of people who were, like, trying to, like, educate people
about sexual assault. So this was all like, such a promising wave lah.

Yes, exactly. It's not at all your usual suspects. Like, you know, SMU kind, they all like, really, they
couldn't give a shit lah. But like, the SMU kind, like, surprisingly, they did spawn some, some groups as
well. And like, they, they were active about it, they were very proactive and like they, they took
initiative and these were like straight up like your usual like, Chinese middle-class, like, cishet business
students. You would never expect them to do anything lah or care about it. But they do. And, yah, I
mean, I've also encountered like people telling me about how like, they were experiencing difficulties
with their friends from, like, engineering, computer science, etc, like downplaying the issue. But that
one is really like, the expected misogyny. Yah. So, of course there are students that like, who have the
belief that this is all just a sensationalised issue? Yah, so that is another one that I think a lot of people
struggle with because like after, after the Monica Baey, like, issue went into the news and like was
reported on quite consistently over the, over time? Like, I do think that a lot of the existing like, you
know, like just, aiyah, cishet men lah, and like whatever, like would mostly be like this is just a really
sensationalised issue that's trying to crack down on like, men or whatever? Yah. Yah, very, very gross
types. Yah. So of course, there’s a significant enough portion that is also like that. But I do think that
the students, for the large part, like even if they're not actively in volved, they want, they believe that,
like, I do think there's a belief that they need to take things into their own hands, because the institution
isn't doing it well enough. And they also like, believe in being proactive about this whole thing, like,

177
like not, like in terms of advocacy, education, like organising people together, they had, like, they had
the belief that, you know, we have to do this ourselves, because they could tell that NUS didn't know
better and wasn't like, well informed enough?

I truly believe that if they felt that NUS was capable of like, doing the education side well, which, you
know, technically NUS should be, they’re a research uni. But then, like, I could tell that they had no
faith lah. That's why they had to start the education Instagrams and all that lah.

So I felt that NUS’s, like, I think one of the more obvious things that I observed lah was their belief that
they are the scapegoat. Which is not entirely wrong. It's not entirely wrong, but like, yah, they
definitely believe that they were wrongly scapegoated by the public and by their own students. Yah.
And they were like, oh, like now, like, you know, NUS has a reputation for being the university of
sexual assault. Yah, like, yah. So they believe that they were scapegoated. And they also believed that
they, that they shouldn't be the ones to, like, bear the bear the responsibility of like, like, starting all the
education initiatives that the students wanted them to do. Because like, why, yah, like, they were very
half-hearted about the about like, starting some kind of like course or module for students to go
through that's like in real life, to like, actually learn about sexual violence, but, and consent and
boundaries and all that.

That is exactly how they feel like, they really feel that, and it's also like they feel, they feel very
aggrieved because they also believe that this is MOE's job after all, but they can't say that like, like,
they're like, you know, we are, we are a uni like, we are not a school, I think that's what I feel they
believe also lah, where they are uni and not a school. So like, how come they have to get all this flak
for not having, like, education on consent and boundaries and all that because like, that's technically
something that's more foundational and better done within like, actual MOE institutions when people
are younger? So I think they really didn't get, they felt offended lah, I’m sure, by the anger by students
that emphasising like the education is really one of the more important parts of like acting upon this.
Because they were like seriously is like not my daiji you know, like this is, this is MOE and also like,
how come we're the only ones who are being pressured to do this like, every other uni doesn’t bother?
Exactly. But it’s like, they don't get that it's like, we have to start somewhere. Yah, and also that it's
like, a practical issue as well, like students have. Students have been like, I mean, not just, of course,
not just NUS students, but like, really like people from everywhere at all points, like have been, have
been, like, hounding MOE over sexuality education for years, like, so and it has never worked. And it
only, it only intensified after the Monica Baey incident. And people started like, hounding MOE more?
But really, like, it's not that there wasn't before. It's just that there were, there always was, but MOE is
a big piece of shit lah. And then so NUS, I think they felt very aggrieved, because they could see that it
was supposed to be like, MOE's job, and then they have to do it. And they have to get all these beatings
from the public and the students. But they don't understand that, like, students just want to see
something like good happen from somewhere and like, NUS is easier to work with than MOE. So we
just do it here lah.
Yah, exactly. And it's also like, the, the, like, it was, MOE as a stakeholder appeared everywhere, in
like my, even in like, you know, when all those people were like reaching out to Gender Collective in
the wake of the Monica Baey issue, like, like, MOE was usually mentioned. And like, I think, because of
my role in Gender Collective and like the closed-door discussions and stuff. Like we knew that MOE
was a stakeholder because like, there's always these veiled like references to the hig her-ups and, yah
and it’s like, we know, we vaguely eventually figured out who the higher-ups were, because of the
fucking MOE tuition grant. So like, yah, like, I do think that MOE has like a kind of spectral presence?
Like, they're like one ghost haunting this whole issue at hand. And they, and they're just constantly
recusing themselves, despite years before the Monica Baey incident like, they have also been handed
over like really insensitive and like wrong, like sex ed booklets and resources. They have been hounded
over shit like that before for years leh, and like nothing has been done. So of course, students are going
to go to whoever is the most reasonable, whoever sounds the most receptive, which to us sounded like
university administrators because Dean Pong and whatever, like they, they understood that education
was necessary. And they understood that, like, what we were proposing was totally commonsensical.
They didn't immediately say no to us. And so because of that, we had to try with them, but t hen that
also exacerbated NUS’s like, like the, the scapegoat feeling lah.

178
I think for students like the most visible forms are, of course, like the newer, the more, sorry, the, the
organised groups that start to come up, like safeNUS and all these little pockets of like educational
groups and like advocacy groups, like here and there that I think don't have a name but they very much
operate and are active. Yah, so yes, like, and they are like actively consulting with ministers and like
with uni admin, and like, yah, of course, Gender Collective and the rest of the queer groups also have,
have had to like, be in consistent contact with the admin on this issue as well. So I think there's a very
proactive, like, attitude lor, and approach by students. And not even just in the form of like, advocacy,
education, but also like on a very casual scale. Like, it's, it's pretty much essentially like how after the
#MeToo movement worldwide, like people started coming forward more?

Similarly, I do believe that like, a lot more people started talking about their experiences. And, like on
a casual scale, it was more possible to talk about it precisely because of the visibility of the issue. Like
previously like, like, really previously before the the Monica Baey issue, like, my friends already, like
they just stopped wearing low-cut tops in the MRT entirely. Because, yah, because of like voyeurism in
the MRT being just so common? It's more possible for us to talk about this and to assert our truth, in
light of like something visible, like the Monica Baey incident happening. So it made public discourse,
and just casual social discourse, so much more possible, like on an issue like this. Yah. So students, I
think, talked more about it in general, even if not, from the point of view of, oh, how, what can we do
about this? They were talking about it in terms of shit, this sucks. And like, it's something that happens
to us,

Public ah. I think public like, to me, one of the more visible things is like the memns lor, the memes
about like, NUS being, yah, NUS being like the, the university of sexual assault. And also like, there's
more public awareness, of course of like this as an issue. Like, for example, like, I mean, even within
families, like, there's so much concern over like, oh, do you really want to stay in the hostel, like, you
know, got this problem in your uni, you really want to stay there or not. So there's an overall like, shift
in, I think, how, how, like parents and like, older members of the public start to view safet y? Because,
of course, like, the default assumption in Singapore is that it's safe. But clearly, like this just ruptured,
like that whole assumption. Yes, they were more like, because simply because they had been able to see
it in mainstream media. Yah, it's like you literally, you can't deny it, because I can I can raise evidence
in that, you know, I can link from Straits Times, so they can't unsee it anymore, even if they want to?
Yah, left what else ah? The public, I don't really know what action they did lah other than the fact that
like, I think they’re having more discourse about it lor.

Okay, so the institution's actions like the, I do think that the most memorable thing that I remember was
the the circular where they agreed to a lot of our demands, like after, after the initial like the Monica
Baey incident. I believe this was like towards the end of, towards the end of year two sem two for me, it
was a few months lah after the whole incident. And this was after all the dialogues, consultations, etc,
within NUS that they had held. After the whole consultation period, then they issued the internal
circular, where they like, agreed to whatever the students were demanding, most of it lah. Yah. So it
was such a black-and-white commitment sort of thing that it was just, it just like blew me away,
because this is not something that I would have ever expected from any institution in this damn
country. It's like, oh, like to even be listened to is so rare? And in this case, like, they actually had
consultation sessions with actual students who were criticised, I mean, who were criticising, like, the
institution and all that, like, it's, wild lah, yah. So we were listened to and we were heard and there
were promises made. So we could hold NUS accountable for once to that. But of course, in the
following semester, NUS proceeded to kind of like, be extremely wishy-washy on the education side of
things, because they decided to just not consult, they decided to just not consult the queer groups. And
then they just went ahead with the online module, even though we told them from the very fucking
beginning, online module is not going to cut it. Because, like, no one takes online module seriously,
including for the orientation, kind of like stuff like, that never worked. And the online modules really,
like they never worked for orientation. Despite the earlier, as you know, the 2016 sexualised
orientation games scandal. Yah. So I guess now we are at that point as well, where NUS is just like not
doing shit. And also, of course, overwhelmed with the pandemic stuff, but NUS has just not been doing
shit for some time. I guess there's VCU lah. But that one, I'm not sure I can really. Aiyah. I don't know
what to feel about that one.

179
8.15 Interview 15:

And I think like, being an unregistered student group does lend itself well to that. And I think having
that independent student voice, that, that comes in the form of safeNUS has been a good way to see this
entire thing as like a movement, because, and I think that is precisely why safeNUS’s work is
imperative, right? Because it's it's not just the Monica Baey incident. It's not just the scandals, or like
the controversies that emerge, but it's how do we organise ourselves into a sustained movement that
can see itself through the reforms that we want to see?

And I think that, that longevity basically, and sustainability are some of the core issues that safeNUS
needs to fulfil, like how do we make sure there's always that pressure, that student voice that the school
can't ignore? But it does? But at least having that right, not just having an institution answer to the
media every single time, every single time it's a crisis, like having like, having like the student voice.
And I really hope this is what we continue to do. But I think alongside with that, I also would want to
see a more plural scene, right? I don't want us to be the only one speaking out about sexual violence.
And this is also in part like cultivating a, an active, an active student activism scene in NUS and Yale-
NUS, where there's solidarity, where there's intersectionality, understanding how everything fits into
each other. I think that's one of the core, core things that safeNUS has probably has to look towards in
the future.

Yah. And I think yah, so there’s the independent voices also? I mean, as much as we don't get the
opportunity to do this, but working with the school like, like being that active stakeholder, right? When
I mean that the school has to work with students, they might ask, oh like which students, we don't even
know, like, there's a literal group. There's a literal student group working on these issues.

I don't know, like, maybe moving towards, like a place where we can do that, where the school does
take us seriously? And then also trying to balance that with like, oh, but actually do we need to do like,
do we always need to depend on the institution to recognise us before we do something? So that's,
that's, um, that's like a balance that I'm still trying to figure out. When do we self organise? And when
do we work with the institution? How much do we wait, how much patience can we give before, before
it's too late? Or like before it's too much? Yah.

8.16 Interview 16:

Okay, so general public probably believes, okay, like the camp, the camp who, where they sympathise
with Monica, or the victims, probably are aware that these things happen, and could happen to them.
And the ones that, the ones who don't sympathise or over-sympathise with the perpetrators probably
have internalised patriarchal conceptions of sex and entitlement and non-consent. Or they under, they
under-value or don't even recognise how important and central consent is, not just in a sexual way, but
in general?
And it's either that, or they probably don't think, they really proba bly just think that these cases are
sensationalised and one-off, of like, one-off lived experiences that now are being rampant.
Maybe it’s naivete with regards to that, or like a complete misrecognition, because if you, if you
constantly misrecognise a sexual assault case as something less serious, you're never going to be able
to recognise sexual assault case, cases, or if you keep recognising them as anomalies, that even if there
are like, a hundred anomalies, because you tell yourself every single time they are anomalies. They're
just gonna keep seeming like anomalies to you.
I don't think the general public – okay so the difference between the general public and students, I feel,
is that general public doesn't, probably don't feel as though they have as much power in institutional
reforms, and students do. So the way that the anger is expressed and the goals of the anger are
probably different? Students believe that because they are students and part of the institution, they are
directly, like they take up that voting space, not voting lah, but they take up that space. So if they view
themselves as people within the space of the institution, then their anger will probably be directed
towards, you know, like expecting an outcome.

180
In the meantime, general public, or students who don't view themselves as, like, part of the institutional
space, so they kind of view themselves like, outside or detached from the institution, they will, their
opinions are probably just gonna be opinions to them. So the, like, the end goal, or the end, the end
destination in terms of like, how much they project the distance that they can reach is, is probably less
than students who feel like they're part of the institutional space. Kind of like the trajectory that you
expect your opinion to go forward, because like, in your mind, you don't even conceive of yourself as
part of that institutional space.

So it’s just opinions to you, like, this is why it's so easy for you to move on from the cycle of it. Because,
like, once the media hype dies down, you won’t feel implicated, you don't feel – yah. Or they feel like
they don't have stakes in it. Or they're just like, it's kind of how you feel if you're like, somebody
commenting on another country's politics like or elections because you don't get the, like the vote. So
that kind of distancing. Like you can be engaged emotionally, but like, you don't expect anything
pragmatic or you’re really just airing your opinions rather than, you know, feeling angry and like
wanting to drive for the opinion to result in something, like your end goal is just to express
disappointment, disapproval, rather than –

But I think important to note is just that, it's not that people, like the general public won't get
emotionally involved. It's just that they really don't perceive their emotional involvement to be anything
beyond.
For the institution, I don't know what they believe in regards to sexual assault sia, I really just view
like, to them, sexual assault is probably just like, like as part of protocol, a s probably one of those
sections they just wish to not have to ever like have to touch. They have to because it’s, they’re an
institution and it happens on campus. It happens with people that are employed by them, so they kind of
have no choice, but I don't think that they are particularly concerned about, you know, the fine-tuned
details of these things? Like it’s probably very minute to them. They have bigger goals, broader goals,
you know, like causing students to not be able to afford housing fees.

It probably reflects from their day-to-day operations. It’s like one of those things that pop up. And then
they are like argh, it’s like a little crisis, like financial crisis, not financial crisis, a little crisis inside
their predictable, like runnings of the school. Logistical, unfortunate occurrence. ‘cause they don't
view themselves as spaces or communities what, they view themselves as, like, an institution, their
function is totally, like, this is really like a tiny thing. It's like a single dot in the s ky kind of thing for
them. Yah, so why do they have to, like, deal that, like, you know, worry about accountability, like,
which again, ties into the whole idea of, their idea of justice and violence being very, you know –

Students? Either going through like the formal like Town Hall stuff set up by the school, or you know
that the school is a participant of, right? So official routes so -called. Or more informal pressure? You
know, like Facebook posts or like, Instagram, comments, emails, that kind of thing. Actually emails I
don’t know if it’s informal pressure or direct, official, and also obviously, like, stuff like safeNUS which
totally operates like outside of the institution lah. So clearly, students do feel kind of empowered, or
like, as discouraging as it can be, they definitely feel like it, like compelled to do stuff.

General public, I really don't know, I think maybe probably just like posts and comments? I don't know
if people wrote in to the newspaper or if they wrote in to the school. I don't know if there were any, like,
parents concerned about safety on campus petition going around. I’m not sure.
I mean, I think yah, the institution probably just participates in these Town Halls, or like, will be a
party member lah, will be like, honestly, we're at the head of these things. You know like, to show that
they’re doing something, to show that they care. You kind of need to when something has been blown
up.

But again, like again, like the reason why they never, like, have institutional reforms, like, without all
this, without a crisis having been, having been blown up, and without people pushing for it, is because
they aren’t concerned enough to take the initative to review it.
Their policies? I still don't. Yah, I really don't know the policy details. And also like, how do I even
know the policy details, will they email it to me or what? Wait, was one of them to have that e -learning

181
 module on consent? I did that e-module learning. I thought it was so bad. Yah, I was like, this is the
best you can do? Who put in the work for that?
Yah, so that’s clearly NUS not actually caring, they just want to like, do the bare minimum so that they
don't into get any more trouble sia. Yah. I mean, the consent module, I was surprised that they had it.
And I was like, oh, they have a consent module. But like, it's e-learning. You can't learn about consent
through a rulebook. You gotta like, talk about it with people.

Which is what Yale-NUS did. So I had to do the Yale-NUS in-person workshop. And I also had to do
the NUS online e-module, which is very easy to click through right away. And very easy to get blanket
responses and, you know like, standard politically correct statements without actually engaging.
YNC’s one was a lot better, but this is also because my RCA is queer. So, like people already knew
what consent generally is and stuff lah. So the conversation was fine. From what I've heard from
people in like single-sex suites, especially like the male single-sex suites, it was just, they still don't get
it. They still don't. They just treat it as a joke still, but I would assume that it would still be better. But
that, the thing about it is that if it's still a single-sex like suite, and then you all are all, like, you know,
like, you don't have a diversity of opinion in that, you're just gonna end up leaving the whole thing and
you wouldn't have learned anything from it. That’s why there are still cases of sexual assault after the
workshop. Because clearly, you're not introducing anyone who's like, gonna , like call you out.

For safeNUS, I just feel like I've seen them as a lobbying group for a lot of things, like a lot of
signatories kind of thing. They had, right? But I mostly know them through their social media front,
like, because I feel like, in terms of the resources they provide on social media, it’s very good. ‘cause
it’s so, like, topical. It's like, very, like thorougly topical.

8.17 Interview 17:

Institution, I think something underlying would be, reputation comes first. It’s a clear, it’s a clear
mindset that they have lah, our reputation comes first. And the belief that if you don't talk about it, I do
not see it. If I close my eyes, it doesn't exist! You're not there!

And then general public, so many underlying, so many underlying subconscious narratives of victim-
blaming, so many, so strong, very very strong underlying beliefs of, women should just be more careful,
victims should be more careful, why did you put yourself in this situation? And then another
underlying, oh my god the biggest underlying belief in general public is boys will be boys. I'm not
saying boys don't get assaulted either. But statistically speaking it’s always men who are like the
perpetrators, statistically. So in response to that, then yah. I mean, obviously there are guys who are
also –boys will be boys thing is horrible. Oh my god, yah! You really thought generations would
change after a while, but no! Yah.

Their wants. I think the institution, they just, they just really really want this to not exist, but they're not
really taking any action to make it not exist. They just say if it – yah, I think their wants is really for all
of it to just not be seen. That's why, that's why they just want it to be invisible. You really just pretended
not to see! Yah! Yah, oh my god. It's clownery leh, they're really clowns leh! Oh my god it’s a whole
circus.

182
And then I guess general public – wah, don’t even know what the hell they want, man! I think they just
want. I wouldn't say they want it to be normalised but they're really just normalising this. I think they
just, I guess they just want – I wouldn't say they want victims to be more careful, but they just – they
don't want anything. They don't want it to change. At all. They don’t – oh my god, that’s the thing
about, that’s – this is where the danger of normalising things come, once you normalise it right, you
don't realise there's a need for change. When you don’t realise there’s a need for change, you don't
want change.

Students, they, I mean, I'm sure a bunch of them also believe that boys will be boys type thing, for sure.
They will obviously believe that it's normalised, but I think they obviously want, I wouldn't even say
they want justice? I don't even know if they want justice? I think they just want to be safe for
themselves. Yah, which is honestly quite selfish if you think about it, because I don't know. Like, if you
want justice, you wouldn’t call people out for being SJW, if you wouldn’t want it to happen to yourself.
So why are you calling people out for speaking out on your behalf leh? It’s social leh, you’re included
in social leh!

For students, belief I would say is like normalised lor, it’s very normalised, it’s very similar to the
general public, actually. Because for students, most of their mindsets are being s haped by the general
public, especially people that you're around. I think, a belief is also how like, yah lah, very similar to
general public.

Institution, the action is to always just keep it quiet lah. Very, keep it as quiet as possible, don't, avoid,
avoid conversations. They really try to avoid, they’re silencing leh, their action is silencing, that’s why
they don't even want the rape culture to be in the FOP booklet, it’s silencing. Yah, silence it, take away
any emphasis. Do the bare minimum for the sake of doing the bare minimum. Yah. It’s really the bare
minimum at this point, super bare minimum. Everyone sees it but you!

I feel like for public, they want, they, the, they want, those that want justice at least, they use Twitter,
speak up, speak up about it, spread awareness, a lot of awareness spreading, which I really do admire,
because it's very, very, it’s important to spread awareness lah, like even a simple retweet is spreading
awareness. And I guess you're kind of doing that by achieving your wants. There's also – what’s it
called ah, like everyone sign – petition! Public and students, they always do petitions to achieve their
wants, which barely ever makes an effect.

Right. I guess students, if they just want to be safe, they just be extra careful? But, just aware of it lah,
just aware and careful. But that's about it lor. Because they don't even, they’re not, they don't even
really believe that. Like, they don't put emphasis on something unless it happens to them, like as, like,
they don't see the need for change because they're not really, they don't, because the situation already
caters to them. It's like, it's like I think I saw this one movie where this, um, this b lack girl was talking
to a white girl, it was set in a Renaissance era. And the white girl was like, oh, I'm just not into politics
that much, like, I don't like thinking about politics. And the black girl was like, yah, you're not
interested in politics because you live in a world that already caters to you. That's why you don't see
the need to change it. Like that lor.

To be very, very honest, I really don't remember NUS implementing any policies at all lah. Like, I
really don't remember any policies, because none of it is very, none of it is very effective. I don’t even
remember it being enforced? Let alone being effective? It wasn't even enforced? What policy ah. I
really don't remember anything. Yah, I don’t even know if they have any. It kind of says a lot, right?
Like, if people don't even remember your policy. I don’t think people even think about these things.

I think, one thing I really commend about safeNUS is the fact that they really wear many hats. Like,
they wear many hats. Not only are they trying to help NUS figure out how to properly apologise to
people, but they're also, they’re helping students as well, in a sense that, it kind of makes students feel a
bit more safe. Like hey, there's actually people looking out for us.

Another role is also educating, literacy. They're educating, which is very, very important even though it
really should start in schools since like primary level. Yah, like it really all just boils down to
education. Oh my god. Not to mention NS, right? We just make guys more rabak, you know? NS – if NS

183
 does anything, right, they just, they reinforce misogyny, they re– oh my god, NS reinforces rape
culture! It reinforces it, it reinforces everything. It’s so disgusting. It's so disgusting. NS reinforces
rape culture and misogyny. From what I hear. Another role that safeNUS does, I assume is, it's really
just like, I think it's really in the sense that, with what safeNUS is doing, right, like being supportive
and talking to the school and actually implementing, trying to, tryin g to implement policies lah, trying
to ask the school to implement proper policies, and bringing up issues, being a bridge, basically, from
student body to institution to really keep everyone safe. I think all of that, right, which is very, very
important work, is also in a sense kind of educating, in a way because people are realising that, oh,
there's so many things that we're overlooking that they're starting conversations about.

8.18 Interview 18:

So for Monica Baey’s case, she obviously went on social media and exposed, like, her perpetrator and
expose the fact that the school didn't do much about it. I think the institution had to release, like, press
releases and statements, to clarify their position, to clarify the things that they've done after the Monica
Baey thing blew up. I think when Monica Baey uploaded it on social media, it gained the traction of
media companies as well? Which kind of helped her get even more views, get even more people aware
that this thing is happening. And then you have members of the public who use social media and watch
the news, and they would be aware of that. Yah.

For Jeremy Fernando, I think the victim chose to be, chose to remain anonymous, right? So the victim
actually went through the direct, kind of the so-called proper channels, in terms of like reporting it and
talking to Victim Care Unit. I actually don't really, oh, I remember that the reason why this whole thing
blew up was because someone posted it on social media as well, to talk about how the school hasn't
released any information about what is going on. Why is he like, not teaching and stuff like that? And
they demanded, I think it was Tembusu College, demanded for more transparency, and that's when the
whole thing blew up again. So you can see the similarities that both use social media except I think the
Jeremy Fernando case was on Facebook and then Monica Baey's one was on Instagram. Yah.

General student body? For the Monica Baey case, I remember that a group of people rallied to come
up with the statement, the petition. Yah, so I was part of it because I was helping them edit the
statement or the petition that they wanted to upload. And the petition was shared amongst like the NUS
students and alumni. And people signed it and stuff. And this statement was actually also shared on like
Mothership as well. And the statement contained, like some recommendations that people thought the
school should take, moving forward. For the Jeremy Fernando case, I don't think there was any
petition of any sort. I'm not aware if people emailed Tembusu College’s heads or whatever, to demand
for more transparency? I'm not really sure? But I just knew that, people shared, like, that post that
talked about this issue a lot. And because it gained traction, then NUS was kind of forced to release a
statement. Yah.

How would I evaluate them? Okay, so after the Monica Baey case, I remember the Victim Care Unit
was set up with a team that, behind the Victim Care Unit. And then we also had the respect and consent
module on LumiNUS, which is made compulsory I think, that we all have to go through once we enrol
in school. I mean, I think they mentioned that it's compulsory, but I'm not entirely sure if everyone has
done it. Okay. Yah, but I'm not privy to like what happens if someone doesn't complete it. For the
Victim Care Unit, I am not entirely sure what they do, but I know that they provide support to victims
of sexual assault. They're the people that people can turn to if they want to report instances of sexual
assault. And they can report it anonymously as well. And they investigate these cases and they release
the statement and stuff. So after the Monica Baey case, I think that setting up the Victim Care Unit, and
the respect and consent module were the two main policies or main initiatives that were triggered.

For the Jeremy Fernando case, I suppose you can see that the Victim Care Unit was quite effective in a
sense that they did provide support for victims of sexual assault. Like I read how things proceeded, like
the process from the, from the day that the victim reported the case of sexual assault. And you can see
that there’s due diligence in terms of what they're doing, in terms of making sure that there's no contact

184
 between the victim and the perpetrator on campus. I think that's a very important thing to do. So, I
think having the Victim Care Unit is quite, is obviously very helpful.
But I think there's still lack of awareness in terms of how to go about accessing the Victim Care Unit or
how to go about reporting these cases. Like, what number do you call? Who do you email? Those kind
of stuff. For the respect and consent module, I think I've mentioned earlier that I don't know what
happens to someone if they don't complete it? And I've also heard from, like some peers that the respect
and consent module that they have within their residential colleges or wherever, if they lived on
campus, the, the scenarios that they were given, like, that depict sexual assault instances, instances are
very extreme? But I think that there are certain cases of sexual harassment, which aren't exactly black
or white. And they're a bit more complicated, and there's a lot more nuances to it. And I think it's those
kind of situations that people lack knowledge about, like, if someone, for instance, if someone says –
you know, the recent Viswa incident, with the comedian Sharul? And about the rules, yo u can tell that
people, like there's quite a large proportion of people who think that there's nothing sexually
inappropriate about that comment that Viswa made. But obviously, to Sharul, it's sexual harassment.
And I think it's this kind of thing that people don't really know. Yah. So I just think that the respect and
consent module should touch more on these scenarios, the grey areas.
I think that safeNUS only came up after Monica Baey. I don't know if I’m wrong. So in terms of the
Monica Baey incident, I don't think they did, like, they didn't exist. But I know that safeNUS has been
really good in providing – safeNUS provides a really good resource for people to learn more about
what sexual assault constitutes, and point towards, like, resources that peop le can turn to, if they need
a bit more clarification, you know, like, what's consent, what's not consent? If I'm not wrong safeNUS
also liaises with AWARE to bring in the First Responders Training, which I think is really good.
Honestly, I don't really know what exactly safeNUS did in the case of Jeremy Fernando? But yah, so
that's the thing. Like I know that safeNUS always write statements when such issues happen. So yah.

8.19 Interview 19:

I think for – okay, I'm not sure again, this is just, I feel like this is their belief lah. For the institution. I
feel like they believe that if they don't, you know, if you don't poke at the bear, then it won't get
aggressive, kind of thing. So they're just trying their best to, they're just trying their best to lay low as
much as possible and only deal with it if it blows up. They are definitely, they are worried that there's
going to be discourse, because there's definitely going to be people critiquing their changes. But the
thing is, if they don't make any changes, and your foundations are already weak, then anytime that this
kind of issues happen, it’s just going to blow up even more, you know, and, and –
I guess they just trying to make sure that, that, like, I don’t know, I guess they're just trying to make
sure that they deal with as little paperwork as possible, with as little like, you know, administrative
issues as possible. Because they, I mean, they are a large institution, they have a lot going on and stuff
like that. So for them, they have a lot of concerns, so this is one of their concerns. So for them, they are
just trying to make sure that, you know, I want to stay out of it.
Students’ beliefs? I feel like students are – they believe that they do, they – how to say – they want
things to change. Or at least the people that I've talked to. They want things to change, because they
believe that the system, and I feel like I'm talking for myself as well, the system is not, is not adequate
at all, it is not sustainable, it is definitely going to break down, it is already breaking down at this
point. It is not about to breakdown, it is in the midst of like having a full-on breakdown. And it's just
getting worse and worse, case by case. And I just feel like we, as students, as myself, we want change,
because we cannot trust the system anymore. And we are starting to get afraid that if this were to
happen to me, then what am I going to do, because you're just, right now, there's not much support
given to, as not as much support given to survivors as there needs to be.

So, you know, I guess that the “want” aspect of for students is that they want to see changes, they want
to make sure that they can be in a place where they can feel safe, or at least know where they can turn
to should anything were to happen, should anything happen to them. Or to, to one of their friends or
someone that they know, you know? Yah.

185
I feel like the public's one is the most shallow one, it’s – okay, I know it’s not the most shallow, but I
feel like because they are a third party, so to speak, they are detached from this whole thing, you know,
they're not directly involved. I guess that's a good thing and a bad thing, because you can see from a
third person's perspective lah, but it also means that you're not directly involved, so you hav e nothing
to lose. Yah, so you know, even if something bad were to happen you’re just going to be like, “okay lor,
it’s bad”. You critique it, but then you’re a spectator.

Their wants is to see, you know, if they if something were to change, and if somethi ng does get better,
then they will be happier lah, but if nothing were to change, I don't think they specifically want
anything out of it, you know? But of course, I feel like they do believe this idea of, if the person does
something bad, they need to get punished. But then they're not really thinking so much about the
survivors, about the students’ welfare, about the management and stuff like that lah, they just want the
person to be punished, finished, full stop, kind of thing. Yah. But I mean, okay, of course, I'm biased,
because I'm talking from a student's perspective.
I don't know whether, I'm not sure about the general public. But again, I think I need to make a
separate, a distinction between public and media and their wants, because like I said, I don't think the
public themselves want specifically anything out of it except for maybe to sort of in a sense seek justic
lah, in like a, in like a punishment form, like a punitive way. But for media what they do want is, they
want sensationalised news. So the media tries to, you know, first thing happens, they, the majority of
them do want to, you know, discuss about it and bring that perspective to the public, which, I mean, I'm
not saying it's wrong in a sense, but they are busy sensationalising it?

I think that's what happened to Monica Baey’s situation, right? The media, like, sensationalised it so
much, to the point where there was a lot of also backlash from the public, by some people that are like,
oh, you know, maybe she's just doing this for attention. And she's just trying to get like, people to you
know, I don't know, follow her or something, god knows what, what they have lah. But, you know,
there's, I'm not saying this is the general public, I'm just saying there's that few people who would
respond to the case as such, because it blew up a lot. And I don't know whether it's the best thing to
blow up.

And then for the institution, they are trying their best to make sure that they don't release any, any
information until they, I don't know, maybe they veto it internally or something. Because it takes
forever for it to be published, their statement. And it’s always like, a more neutral statement? They're
not trying to side the side of the survivor, but they're trying to be like, make sure that they a re neutral
and stuff like that. Which I – yah.

And also, in a sense that they are, like with the Jeremy Fernando case, they, even though they took the
right steps, they never said anything to communicate it to people, because they're trying to lay low as
much as possible, until something blows up. And then once it blows up, then they're like, quickly
scrambling to cover their backs lah. Because, yah, so I feel like actions-wise, they are just trying to
hush the situation down as much as possible. Yah.

And for the students. That's where I feel like this whole, I don't know, whether this is what's been
happening, like this idea of silencing out the, or like quieting, quietening out the issue, is what has been
done previously, like maybe like 20, 30 years back, 50 years back, maybe this is what has been
happening, all this while. The thing is, now with social media and and like technology and stuff like
that, students, what they are doing is that they are making, like, if the survivor does publicise it, means
that the survivors are ready to share the information already, right? So what students are doing is that
they are sharing. They are making sure that this goes viral, and so that everybody knows about it and
NUS gets pressured to do something about it, because the media is asking them to respond. And I think
that's where the whole issue of what NUS does, and expects, in the sense that – so what NUS is doing is
trying to lay low and keep things quiet. But the problem comes where, because, because the technology
is so advanced, and people are pushing it out, like students are pushing it out. There's that disconnect
between what they're doing, and their, like the what, the, what results they're expecting, and what's
actually happening.

186
 I feel like in general, I know that the reason why we started out was because if I'm not wrong, because
of Monica Baey lah, you, Luke, Lune and stuff like that, like a few of y’all went to the Town Hall. And
you were like really disappointed by their response and decided that, you know, if the administration
isn't going to do anything, then at least the student side, we need to do something about it. And I feel
like what we are, at least trying to do is trying to be the bridge between the student body and t he
administration to try and make sure that we, we represent, to a certain is that we represent the student
body to push stuff across to them, of course, they don't respond to our emails and stuff, but at least we
are, you know, making things known to them that like, hey, look, we are here, we are, we are
representing them, this is what we have to say, kind of thing. And I feel like in general, we have, we
also have the first responder unit and stuff like that, right? So we are there as from like, a student's side
to help, be there, at least, you know, make sure that there is, there is some sort of like support, given for
survivors who are, you know, reaching out for help lah? Yah, and, yah, I also feel like we are also
trying to make sure that more students get educated in general or, like, get to know more about what's,
what is consent and what is right, what is wrong. I feel like because we are in a very conservative
society in general, like Singaporean, as Singaporeans, as Asians, we don't really talk about the idea of
sex in general. So this idea of assault and harassment, they just go, I know, like, they just kind of, like
get hidden. And I feel like maybe, you know, we are trying to, to make sure that discussions do happen,
and people know, what's, I guess, just the general gist of it? Because if you don't even know what's
happening, then you won't be able to make any informed decisions lah.

8.20 Interview 20:

Okay, so I think I’ll start off with the students because I think that's the closest t hat you can get. Their
beliefs are that, that the institution, it is that it is the inherent right of the student to actually be given a
safe place to stay in campus. And that any form of infringement should be reacted upon as quickly and
comprehensively as possible. And that if, and that maybe perhaps, in my understanding of what, of
their idea of sexual violence and all that, for their responses to be victim-centric, and to ensure that
victim care is provided for in the most comprehensive way possible, of course. And, and also another
core belief would then be, that the perpetrator will be given the full face of the law. So I think what
they, what the students want would then be like, basically, all these beliefs manifested into institutional
practices. It’s a very short version of it lah.

So the other two players? Um, I think the institution beliefs is always, the institution beliefs are quite
varied, in the sense that, for the students, of course, they will want a strong student life for them, for all
their undergraduate. And of course, for the, and also for the learning experience lah, and more
importantly for NUS to still be the premier institution. Right? So it's both at student level and
institutional level in terms of image, in terms of performance, etc. So how did they translate it, is in the
form of practices, in the form of rules, conducts that they have, that they have and more, and also KPIs
lah.
For the public. their general beliefs will be everyone's equal to the law, in that, equal under the la w.
Everyone, and that, what else ah? It’s actually mostly very law-based lah, a lot of laws, and a lot of,
basically, very consequence-based lah. A lot of, based on comments I've read so. And so it’s that plus
that institutions of learning and also the government at a higher level, are responsible towards the
provision of care and security for everyone. So they believe that is their right as a citizen to get, and
then after that from there, translates into their, into their wants.

The wants of the institution is to be, to be a premier institution, that’s for, that’s for student life, and
also at the same time for research, etc lah. So, of course, they want their students to excel and also at
the same time to stay in campus. And also for more research papers, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that
kind of thing.
I think you know where I'm going at when it comes to the students’ one lah. You can just put in your
responses before I say it.
So I think for students, generally, it's a lot of grassroots, ah, grassroots level of engagement with the
organisation. So, I mean, of course, of course I have to say it, safeNUS, Students for a Safer NUS,

187
 that’s one. And of course engagement with NUSSU. And, and also at a higher level – oh no, sorry, not
at a higher level – and also amongst, within Colleges, at least for CAPT lah. You know, we had a
petition, where we talk to the professors and say like, you know, we need to revamp this course, this
course called like respect and consent, and we need to be – basically, we need to hold more nuances
and be more relevant with what's going on. And that the response to the case has been pretty muted
and disappointing. So it's very grassroots, very bottom-up approach, and engaging with the different
levels of management.

And then, at the institutional level, is to engage – at whatever degree I think is really dependent. So
with CAPT, it’s very engaging, it’s a lot of engagement, at a higher level, at the institute, at the varsity
level is – I'm not one to comment, because I didn't talk about it to the management, it’s you. Engage,
perhaps say that they want to be more transparent etc. Then nothing. Engage, follow up internally,
nothing much released to us students, okay lor.

And for the general public? Of course, they’ll just make noise and comment lah, generally. Of course
lah, but I mean, if I were to specifically pinpoint to the Monica Baey case, it’s that through their make
noise and commenting, of course, it created a traction enough to push the organisation to do more, to
respond better. And, of course, to start to, to change its ways of, like, responding, of responding lah.

Right. So there was a committee formed, that, I think that committee formed was ground-up, I think?
Eh? Wait, the Monica Baey one, was it commissioned by NUS, or was it – I cannot remember that one.
Okay wait, no, there was one, there was one that was led by a professor, I think.

Yah. The Review Committee. Yes. So the Review Committee, that was, well, one policy, I guess, to re -
look into responses. That's one policy change. One is, with regards to transmission of updates of other
sexual harassment or violence cases, especially after Dr Jeremy Fernando's case when they wanted to
be more, where they are now provide, they have a more transparent SOP of releasing variou s news and
ideas and other things, etc lah. Like other details that are relevant to the case to students. And of
course, to the general public lah.
I mean, if you want you can put respect and consent lah. But that one was already a prerequisite for
years, years ago already.
So yah, I understand that safeNUS was created after the Monica Baey case and had responded to quite
a lot of sexual violence cases. And through – so number one, work together with certain NUS
management levels, on ground policy changes, and the introduction of perhaps VCU, I think? I think, I
think I think safeNUS did have a role to play for that? And another one was, another one that I know
from what I’ve read is a lot of social media advocacy, advocacy through social media, where they a re,
where they talk a lot about perhaps you know, not just things that was going on within NUS, but within
Singapore, you know, for example, the Ashlee case, the MOE one, I think you know that one right?

Yah. So, and basically write statements, from an information levels, and providing different
information for different things, reminding students of what are their rights to privacy, etc. So I think
that's – so, because I follow safeNUS on LinkedIn, so this is where I see them a lot, they’ll be doing
that. That's what I've seen them doing. And of course, managing, I'm pretty sure there's interacted, a lot
of interactions going on at the managerial level, at the executive level with other students,
stakeholders, and of course, the professor sitting at the high end, about, talking about student, student
rights lah, and practices to protect students, especially in campuses, from sexual harassment and
violence.

8.21 Interview 21:

Okay. The belief, I think from the school, from the institution, I think, or rather many students also
think that schools have this idea that, you know, the PR, they use to save face and, you know like to
manage the public relations kind of aspect, it's not to, makes a lot of actions not to become too public
in hopes that, and you know like, makes everything go out of their own control lah. So I think, in a way

188
I think they believe that they need to control, like, to manage things from a very top-down manner, I
think that that is also, I think, one of their underlying beliefs.
From student, what are the belief? I think there was also a belief of, you know like, that I mean like, the
institutions have failed? So I think direct action by students is either semi-institutional, or completely
independent. So I think there was, there was a lot of like, you know like, I guess, student care initiative
that’s been come up, been set up by the students themselves. But I think, I also do think that it’s not
very sustainable in a way? I'm saying that given like I’ve seen evidence that, I mean, even inst itution-
led initiative is also not very sustainable in terms of tackling these issues. It’s very ad -hoc based, from
what I see. But I mean, there was this idea that, you know like, because they failed, so we have to take
action to correct, I mean, to achieve justice and to right the wrong.
Right. I think students, obviously I think the petitions-cum-, you know like, -demands like, listing out a
set of demands that we want to the institutions, and offers when, you know like, they know that it has
not done, like for example – so, yes, so for the students, I mean like, so, we start like demanding the
institutions through petitions and things like that, and I mean like, you know like, want to shape the
public narratives as well. They also do, I mean, more direct actions, in the sense of providing care,
support to the community themselves. I mean, I remember, I think, I saw my juniors who were, you
know like, setting up all these initiatives for community conversations, providing, you know like, cares
and support and things like that, for those who need it. I mean, that was probably the direct action
from I mean communities, students, etc.

The institution themselves, they, they understand that the students represent the largest opposition, or
rather, you know, the largest kind of like, source of anger, that they see as they need to manage that. So
things like for example, focus groups, small meeting groups, Town Hall, Zoom meeting, those kind of
thing. They are, I think, they are designed mostly to, you know lik e, to answer the students’ questions
and demands, in a very inverted comma way, very “rational” manners, which in the sense that you
know, they hope to, you know, when students, they rationalise things, then they would not, you know
like, let the emotion that would go into this kind of thing.
So I think that was their thinking. And that's what they try to achieve from there. Whether it succeeded
or not, I mean, it's dependent on students. And I know a lot of people who I mean, going out from those
meetings, see that, oh, okay, I guess they can, they are handling it, or I mean, and others think, that you
know what, their response is like, not, is a no response to clarity, and it doesn't answer anything at all.
And I mean like, it's just made me more angry, in terms of like, how they handling this kind of thing.
But I think in general, I think that was their belief, and why they had, you know like, take actions like
conduct Town Hall, meetings, and so on. I have to caveat that you know like, these actions shoul d be
taken, even if you don't care about managing things. I mean, I think it’s more of like the manners in
which they do, it's very clear that they want to manage situation rather than to genuinely want to
respond and, you know like, correct certain institutional failures.

For the public, I don't know, I think they generally, they don't, they have a very short memory span.
Mostly they just go. Most people won’t bother, like they just read the news and they talk to their friends
and things like that, and they express their belief in private. The louder voices on social media, I think
they use social media as a way to just satisfy I guess, their own urge to voice their own opinion?

But I don't think there is any collective actions in the public space? With reg ards to this. But if, again,
if we talk about let’s say, for example, civil society, then of course, I think there are groups that have
vested interest in this kind of issue. I mean, the biggest is probably AWARE, when they have made
statements, and I think that's on the public front in terms of like, what they urge is very similar to what
the students do. From behind the scene, I'm not too sure whether they have channels to, you know, to
talk to, you know like, policymakers or key executives in certain pub lic institutions that have the power
to, you know like, to make any of these corrective actions lah.

Yup. Victim Care Unit, I think, here is what my direct kind of like involvement. I mean, I've been a
member of ResTeam, I think many of my colleagues, they work directly with Victim Care Unit. I think
in general, I think there are some satisfactory, I mean like comparatively to in the past, where it's
mostly just police, directly working with the police, which can be very traumatic. I think they see that, I

189
 think, there are professional working there that have more, maybe, better knowledge of how to handle
this kind of thing. Yah, I think so that, that is probably I think one of the plus point, one of the step
forward for them.

But I do think they in, where as things move along, I think there is, either because there’s a sheer
number of cases that is now being, you know like, case in the past where NUS students have come
forward and, you know like, talk to the Victim Care Unit in this kind of thing. And I thin k they might be
understaffed? So it severely affects how effective they can be. And I guess, in that sense also, where I
mean the question of how much the Victim Care Unit is independent in terms of its obligation? Is it
only obligations to the student, or does it also is a function of the school, of the institution and serving
the institution? So I think that's a big question, I think that question flare up during the Jeremy
Fernando case.

I mean, I think they have been doing quite okay in terms of, you know like, conducting investigations
and taking disciplinary action. I think they have been doing that so far. I think it’s been, it’s okay. But
it’s just I – whether what you mean by justice lah.

I mean, not really a member because, I guess I have privilege of information (laughs).
Yes. But I mean, what my impression is, of course, I think the safeNUS become, I guess, a second
contact point for students? I mean, like outside of like the institutionally legal – not really legal means,
I mean like, established means. So for example, let's say they stay in Hall, there is a Residential Team,
if they are just in the school, it’s the Victim Care Unit. Or they can go to the, I mean the, AWARE,
there’s –. I mean, there was this Centre for sexual assault victims by AWARE – ah yes, SACC. Yah, so I
mean, safeNUS become, I mean, I guess one of that other contact point, where, you know, a student can
go to and you know like, be more assured that you know like, because it's a student-led group, it’s
independent, and it has established itself as a, as a defender of like, you know like, championing, like
the rights, in essence lah. It has been more reliable, more credible, in a sense? So, that is one thing, so
it’s a victim-facing function.
There's also an advocacy function? Where I mean like, writing statement to make, like, public
statement, getting signatories, writing to the school, the Victim Care Unit, I mean, the different
stakeholders in this aspect, and representing victims in a, in a way? And of course, I mean I kno w that
there was also some advice, advisory role that y’all are doing, I mean like, it’s part of the, the, the
safeNUS victim-facing role, is where, I mean, they provide, you know, what are the remedy? As in,
what are the course of action you can take as a victim? And how to support? And so I think there's that
aspects lah.

Yah, I think what else, what else? I think there was also I think, the public advocacy point -of-view,
there’s also this desire for some sort of a, a civil society approach, rather than, like an individual,
institutional approach to this. I think this is something fairly new? I mean, not fairly new, but I think in
the last two, three years has been more of like the, what student groups tried to do as well. I mean like
they try to get more network out, and therefore, I mean, trying to get strength in numbers by align and
creating this solidarity, kind of like, network between different student groups. For I mean like,
obviously, I mean usually in most of the progressive causes, though, not just Victim Care but also
LGBTQ, green, like environmental groups and stuff.

8.22 Interview 22:

Um, I think the more like, tangible want is like, for like, justice for this like particular case, where it
was like, you know, either, like, again, like more, just like more action taken against this, like one
particular student? And I think more broadly, also, just like policy changes within the school, and like
people who are more equipped to like, handle these things, or like administration, that also j ust, like,
understands sexual violence and like, safety better. Um, I know some students also like definitely just
wanted more like, consent education. Yah.

190
I think, okay, a nonbelief I think the general public had or like – and I think again, like this is not
limited to Monica Baey, but like, like, throughout the whole, like, I mean, Monica Baey was like, what
started it right? But I think the general public belief that sexual assault or like sexual violence is like, a
big problem in NUS only. And I think they failed to see that, like, obviously, sexual violence occurs
every fucking where. And this is just where it is currently visible. Yah, so I think that the failure to like,
see that was huge.

Yah, and I think I don't, I didn't sense any, like tangible wants aside from, um, yah, I guess maybe just
like more robust ways to like deal with it or like, more serious punishments for perpetrators? Yah, I
think administration wanted students to feel better, very broadly? I guess to like trust that, to have
more trust in the institution? And they also wanted, I imagined, like for the attention to like, stop. Right,
because there's a lot of like, external pressure.

Yah, I guess it's the belief that like, this is a one-off incident or like cases of sexual violence are very,
like, independent or like, very, like unusual? I don't think they see it as a part of a broader problem
with our culture, in NUS and like, in general. And so it was very much like, okay, this is like one
incident, let's like, deal with it, and then it'll be fine.
From students, there was definitely a mobilisation? I think on one level, it was like, the very early like
social media stuff, right, which was just like, share and what not. And then I think, then, like subgroups
of students took more like tangible actions like writing, I don't know, like showing up in Town Hall, or
like writing specific, like recommendations, feedback, um, engaging in dialogue.

This is very broad, but I guess, like, a lot of social media sharing? I think like, I mean, beyo nd, like
sharing the original post, but I think also just like, sharing their opinions and stuff like that. Like, even
media, I'm sure. Um, and then. Yah, I think that's all I can think of for students. I think in terms of
administration, it was also like, yah, like, responding to students. And through like, questions and like,
responses, I think trying to make space for like, dialogue, like, for example, also, like organising the
Town Hall, setting up the Victim Care Unit. Yah. And just making, like sticking to the narrative that
they did, which was like, yah, I guess the idea that like, it's not – or I think the non-acknowledgement
that it is a chronic problem, and just like sort of, it being like that one particular case, right? Yah.
What else? My gosh, it feels like such a long time ago.

Um, I thought, okay, I think one thing, which is like again, like not specific to the case, but I think more
generally, I think they have definitely been not so friendly to like gender and sexuality groups on
campus, right? Really a long-standing issue. I got the impression that they like, were a bit more
interested during the incident, but I think still broadly, they're not very, like accepting or receptive.

For public – yah, I think nothing particularly comes to mind. Okay, I remember Straits Times
comments. No lah, I don’t really remember. Yah.

They put it in writing that, like, for the other case, like, faculty and students cannot have amorous
relationships. I don't know if it was always there.

I think not on the policy per se, but on the approach, like I do remember, um, NUS like, I think getting
consulting Yale-NUS administration for ways to like, yeh, work on that. Their new policies, I guess.

Honestly, I don't think I remember like anything specific, like after the J eremy Fernando case, because
I think my conception of safeNUS is very, like, continuous. Like, it's not like – but I think generally,
like, very much like calling for transparency, better communication, taking a more like, preventative
approach, and not just like, how do we deal with cases, right? It's more of like, how do we build a
stronger, or like safer culture around like, sex on campus, and like consent? Um, yah, I think. Yah, also
like writing or working on like policy consultation, or like policy memos for the institution? Which,
yah, I sense that they don't particularly respond very well to?

191
8.23 Interview 23:

A thing that comes to mind is, I think this holdz for like all three of the players that, um, there’s still this
perception of like, anything you do with like a sexual nature, that’s something that is very private. Like
stigmatised, sure, but private. And the reason why, like, I talked about this a lot, right, about why
people were so like, like why people had a strong reaction to all this being made public. Like why you
know, you wouldn't necessarily have reacted this way if it was say like, bullying, you know, right. Or
like racism, you know, someone say something racist to you, I'm not sure that they would necessarily,
would have reacted so strongly to like Monica Baey like, putting Nicholas Lim on blast if, like he had
just did something else that wasn't sexual. Yah. And – okay, I mean, that’s speculative, but – I think it’s
quite true lah, honestly, that things that are sexual in nature very much at least still in Singaporean
society is supposed to be something that is, like, you don’t talk about this in public.

And because of that, I think that, that really obstructs discourse. And, like, it means that people are
unwilling to engage with it. Because in their mind, like, yah, this is, this is an issue that should stay
behind closed doors, and it's, like, unsanitary to even be discussing it, like, in public. But als o that, you
know, there's a whole degree of like, shame for anyone who tries to talk about it, like any victim who
tries to bring it up, automatically gets slut-shamed, like, straight away. Like it's part of the victim
blaming, that the slut-shaming will come in as well. And it becomes something that is very, like, it's not
helpful to anyone as well, because I think, from the institutional perspective, at least, like I think NUS
tries very hard to keep it private, quote unquote “private”, because, like, the y have this idea. And this
goes back to your question about, like, beliefs, right? That they have this, like, belief or their
perception or whatever that their student body is very – I want to say, “guai” (乖), I don't know how,
like “obedient”, I guess?

And you see this a lot in their COVID-19 rhetoric, where you see like, like journals, like the New York
Times, I think they had an article recently talking about like, the Singapore universities and how like
they have managed to somehow keep their case count to zero when so many other campuses around the
world have had like exposures or cases. And like you have the NUS officials like being quoted in this
article saying that, oh, yah, you know, our student body is very compliant, they actually use this word
“compliant”. And you can find the article that I'm talking about and I remember very distinctly that
they used the word “compliant”.

And they have this like belief, you know, that their students are very, like, “good”, you know, that
things like, like you know, drugs, alcohol, like, frat parties and like date rape, campus, like sexual
assault, these kinds of things are not Singaporean problems, you know? That, you know, these are
things that happen overseas in fraternities and sororities and you know, like, yah, like, that's, that's
something that happens abroad. It's not something that happens here in NUS, in our own universities.
And they have this perception of their students as being like, yah. Obedient, compliant, “guai” (乖).

There is this idea that like, anytime a victim, a victim speaks out, they are, they are trying to show, and
like, they treat each case as an anomaly. And because of that, they tried to quash it because it goes
against their narrative and their belief about what their studen t body is really like and what their

192
 campus culture is really like. And they will say that, this is like a campus of scholars, this is a campus
of like, compliant, obedient, well-behaved students who are upright and –
Yah, and they'll say that all of these things. It's like smearing NUS’s reputation, or it’s damaging
NUS’s reputation. But it's not. It's just making the reputation more accurate. It’s not creating a
problem. I think they have this idea that like, it's because, it's because Singapore doesn't have a culture
of student activism. So for, for students to be taking charge, and for students to be paving the way. For
them, it's a sign that upper administration has failed, because we have no history and no culture of
student activism. And so for them to be relying on students, is something that is not normal.

And so, like, they can't be letting the students speak up, they have to be the ones that are solving the
problem, even if they make countless mistakes and dig their hole even deeper. So yes, in terms of
conscious or subconscious beliefs, I will say that like, NUS has very much stubbornly held on to the
belief that their student body is a certain way, that it is, it is compliant, and that they are upstanding
moral citizens, and whatever, and all of those kinds of things. And because of that they excuse like, all
the sexual violence that happens right under their noses. And this extends not just to sexual violence
lah, I mean it’s like, you know, all their, like, their orientation games that are l ike, racist.
And while they continuously paint things as anomaly as anomalies, rather than a trend that needs to be
addressed, like, they'll never, like, accept that this is really something that's happening, and they'll just
keep pushing the narrative and holding on to their belief that their students are good students. And it's
just a handful of bad eggs. Yah. 100%. Go and quote the New York, definitely the New York Times.
Yah. There’s some, I don’t know which higher-up NUS person said it, but someone from NUS called
their student body compliant.

Actions taken? The answer is none.

8.24 Interview 24:

I believe most NUS students have a vested interests in pushing for more protection of their safety in
school by the authorities, and believe they are justified in doing so given the current (and trend of)
societal norms as to what is considered violent. However, a potential limiting factor could be the
potential victim’s own self-stigma regarding certain cases, as some sections of society still deem them
“embarrassing” to talk about.
NUS clearly would like to see itself as a premier educational institution, and incidents of sexual and/or
other forms of violence would clearly tarnish such a reputation. There is also potentially a case that
the school has certain duties towards its students (but debatable and might be misused). However, this
can be a double-edged sword as it is also in the school’s interest to downplay incidents or even try to
keep them under wraps. Some other contributing beliefs favouring towards inaction also include
arguments that students are “mature” enough to take care of themselves, and that they should not
compete/conflict with the state justice system.

I believe for the public (which is more diverse demographic), they would generally have similar views
and beliefs as the student, who could be their siblings, children etc. Though we cannot exclude the fact
that some others may be more distant and apathetic, and do not see sexual (or other forms of) violence
as a serious enough issue that warrants legal safeguards and/or action.

NUS have generally cooperated closely with other authorities, while trying to maintain publicly neutral
and low-key as possible, and framing the incidents as isolated cases, representing only a very small
fraction of the population. For the Jeremy Fernando case, I must give NUS some credit (?) for
handling it in a very palatable and presentable way. I am unsure of any changes in internal policy due
to the incidents.

(Most of) the students obviously were outraged, or at least felt sorry for the unfortunate victims. While
student opinion and word-of-mouth can affect societal views and attitudes to some extent, it is unclear
if they can mobilise effectively to push for greater protection (which I generally assume they favou r).

193
 The public makes its voice heard through social (and other) media, and there is a mix of opinions.
However I don’t recall that many influential or prominent figures strongly representing or lobbying for
any specific position.

I wasn’t a student at NUS already when the Jeremy Fernando case happened (sorry). I recall seeing
various statements by safeNUS in newspapers and online platforms, and believe the organisation
assisted in the investigations and lobbied for greater attention from the school. I hear d the victims were
also provided with various post-trauma care and support.

In regular times, I follow safeNUS’s facebook page which has many infographics which raises
awareness to students on how they can stay safe, which red flags to look out for, and common
misconceptions of certain issues. When bigger cases occur, I also see statements made by safeNUS to
newspapers and other platforms. I’m unclear of how or to what extent the organisation engages with
school or other authorities though.

Apart from specific actions taken against the respective perpetrators, I don’t recall any overall or
concrete policy changes. However, no doubt the issue of sexual (and other forms of) violence would be
more salient to the school authorities which can influence the design of future policies, actions and/or
rulings. (Though I may nit be able to predict in advance which areas that might include).

Personally of course I find the (relative) inaction, or failure to bring about more sweeping changes,
somewhat regrettable.

8.25 Interview 25:

For the students and public they generally have the belief that the school is not doing enough to protect
the students. Especially for the MB case, there was this widespread belief that if the police doesn't give
an appropriate penality, NUS could step in to give a more severe penalty, but NUS later clarified that
their decision was independent of the police's decision.

For NUS it seems they either are not used to dealing with such cases, or have seen such cases before
and assume it can be swept under the rug; until MB chose to make her case public (which explains why
they weren't prepared for the resulting backlash)

Students and public: Social media. Enough said really

NUS: The usual NUS reactions like feedback channels or discussions or meetings

Only thing I remembered was that safeNUS made a lot of statements regarding JF and other cases on
social media; though I'm not clear whether y'all are actively engaged in talks with relevant parties

MB - More secure gates in hostels, revised sexual offence policies (can't remember the exact details).
Unfortunately, the revised policies came too late to help at least one other case, where the incident
occured before the new policies came into effect

I don't remember significant changes happening from the JF case

8.26 Interview 26:

The student community: Punishment should be harsher and schools should be transparent about their
take on such cases. It is also the school’s responsibility for students’ well-being and come up with
preventive measures to stop the occurrence of such cases.

The institution: Reduce the number of such cases happening and safeguard students’ interest.

The general public: The accused should be dealt with seriously with actual consequences such as jail
or even expelled from school rather than just suspension for a semester or a year. The effects of their
acts can haunt the victims for a long period of time and hence the punishment for such cases should be

194
 concrete as well. This also acts as a deterrence for people who attempt to make the same mistakes in
the future.

The student community: safeNUS is created by students to bring awareness to students about topics
such as consent and other sensitive topics and how to seek help if they were put in such a situation.
safeNUS’s role was to represent the student cohort to ask NUS to give students a proper explanation of
what has happened and what actions NUS plans to do.
The institution: Victim Care Unit is created to give the victims support as well as assist them with the
procedure of making a report.
The general public: Coming up with petitions, sharing and voicing their opinions causing a debate
online which escalates the case such that the ministry has to speak up and eventually the accused got a
harsher sentence.

8.27 Interview 27:

Differing conception of sexual violence. If they define it narrowly the type of responses can be specific
to the case which is often some sort of punishment or removal of the perpetrator, and may generally
steer towards justifying the sexual offence.

NUS probably thinks they have done what they can. If defined more broadly as a problem rooted
deeply in power imbalance and sexism, failure of sex ed, then people will think NUS should mete out
proportionate punishment, handle victim care delicately, and be transparent about the whole process.
The conservatives conflate many issues and think sexual misconduct arise because people are too
sexually liberal, while progressive people are enraged and actively campaign for more justice to
victims of sexual assault and misconduct. E.g. activism on social media.

safeNUS: definitely a important role in unifying outrage and amplifying common opinion during JF
incident. During regular times the group plays an important informative and signalling role to increase
awareness, acceptance and empowerment on issues relating to sex.

Post MB: punishment framework. Post JF: transparency in reporting - subsequently other incidents of
sexual misconduct on school premises were updated via school-wide emails.

Both are welcome changes in my opinion, though I think the best responses are not incremental as
such. Still, it is better than nothing.

8.28 Interview 28:

For Monica Baey I remember coming across it on someone’s Instagram stories? I remember that she
was filmed showering without consent and the perpetrator denied it even when confronted. My memory
is hazy on the rest of the details though I do remember an immense sense of rage sweeping through my
body and my social circles as the news broke. I remember being moved to tears - rage? frustration?
powerlessness? All of the above probably. I also remember people rallying around her and raising
their voices. I think I was one of those people but I honestly can’t remember what I tangibly did. Did I
write to NUS? I must have shared posts somewhere. As for Jeremy Fernando I remember the same
sense of exhaustion and rage, this time paired with immense disappointment because of the authority
he commanded as a writer and a teacher.
I remember being very comforted by the formation of safeNUS. Knowing that a group of students was
advocating for policy change - for survivor support to be more comprehensive and sensitive, I recall -
made me feel like there were people looking out for me and holding the institution to account. I
remember that safeNUS was pushing out educational material too? Honestly I have a terrible memory

195
 and spent much of 2019-2020 in a depresso fog so I am so so sorry I don’t remember much and this
interview isn’t super helpful.
During the JF case I recall a strongly worded statement....? And perhaps some meetings with the
admin? I checked out to be frank, it was a rough time for me.
I remember that there was a VCU set up? I don’t remember reading the policy changes both because I
felt that others who had more capacity would do it and also because I was graduating and no longer
felt like it was my place to do much in the NUS institution. I suppose as a Yale -NUS student too I
wasn’t sure how I was supposed to interact with NUS policies and admin.

As for how I’d evaluate....gosh. I’d like to see a transformative justice framework implemented
nationwide, so I suppose NUS’ policy while a step up from the previous....is still pretty far from that.
I’d also love for NUS to tackle other things that contribute to a culture wh ich enables sexual violence,
like conducting consent workshops and facilitating open discussions about safe and consensual
sexuality.

8.29 Interview 29:

Institution/state maybe believes that rehabilitation and light sentencing might change assaulter so th ey
don’t want too much to happen. But Monica there should be consequences and a heavier punishments.
Monica used social media to garner the public’s support to put pressure on NUS. Monica and students
wanted justice and a more severe punishment for Nicholas while NUS thought rehabilitating will be
better because he had a bright future. But with everything going on, they got pressured to do something
more and this led to future actions too.

So now NUS has made it compulsory to attend a workshop to learn about respect and consent. When
Fernando's happened, they promptly sacked him rather than giving thought to what he has contributed
to the school or him as a person etc. Which is a good sign that they are taking things more seriously
and think more for their students. We wouldn't want the assaulter and the victim to be in the same
space in school.

I don’t remember much about safeNUS's role other than their name floating around emails and
perhaps providing a safe space or an outlet for other victims to confide in?

8.30 Interview 30:

Students: Belief that all students should feel safe on campus, regardless of gender or sexual identity. So
students want to see that the institution does take sexual misconduct cases seriously, and that they
understand it is a serious issue that undermines safety on campus. In practice, students want to see
more preventative measures (consent education), and more robust and transparent systems of how
punitive measures are rolled out.

Public: Belief that harm should be proportional to punitive measures (i.e. “justice”).

NUS: Belief that, in some cases, sexual misconduct reports may be exaggerated or false. I think NUS
adopts an “innocent until proven guilty” standpoint. This means that survivors are often burdened with
having to gather evidence to prove that something has happened before the institution takes action. I
think NUS also believes that they have done well in mandatory consent lessons (e.g. mandatory online
LumiNUS module), so they have fulfilled their institutional duty. Ideally, I think that NUS would like to
do the least amount of work possible to keep cases low, and low-profile, and to take the least
responsibility for the actions of perpetrators.

196
 Students: I can only speak for Yale-NUS in this case, but students generally were very concerned and
came to me and the Dean of Students Office (which handles sexual misconduct cases) to seek
information and air their fears. A DOS-funded, student-led group called Kingfishers for Consent
(KFC) was also introduced. Students from KFC were on-campus ambassadors for consent, and the
idea was that they would be more approachable to the normal student to ask about issues of consent.
Privately, some students also began writing about restorative/rehabilitative justice as well.

NUS: I believe that in the wake of the Monica Baey case, NUS introduced a department for survivor
support. They also implemented a mandatory minimum model of punitive justice for all misconduct
cases. I think the minimum sentence is 6 months of LOA for any type of misconduct.

After Monica Baey, I think NUS introduced the survivor support system, made it that survivors could
report cases to a more decentralized network of staff members, and the mandatory minimum of 6
months LOA. After Jeremy Fernando, I think NUS’ solution was to have a non-fraternization rule
between staff and students.

Moving forward: How can and should we reframe all this?

Author’s note: Please refer to the earlier excerpts for additional discussion participants
have brought up regarding how we can reframe the problem. Some of these have been
intentionally omitted from this section due to identical duplication of content.

9.1 Interview 1:

It's not just an NUS problem. It's a Singapore problem. I think the first step needs to be like, NUS,
MOE, etc, like acknowledging that we have a cultural problem. ‘cause, just, they just like to stick
behind rules. It’s not good for anyone.

I think the VCU, they should probably try to collaborate more with the social work people. Yah, like
some of them are being trained for trauma counselling, I'm sure that they could do something.

The punishments thing? Like, I don't know, it's a very Singaporean thing. It's got a – I mean it just
really comes down to this underlying idea that, like, things can be punished out of us. So I don't really
think there's much of a fix to that.

Security measures like what? Oh, yah, those. I don’t know, it’s a lot of security theatre. They… can't
acknowledge that. But they should. Like, it’s all security theatre, ‘cause, I mean, you just need to take a
look at South Korea. You can hide a camera anywhere. And so, it's not so much a matter of, like,
people can't. It's just a matter of determination and timing, especially. And I think especially in NUS
it's also very much a matter of being caught. And most importantly, the victims speaking out.

197
 Yah, like, NUS sees all this discipline, disciplinary issues, I mean, they call it disciplinary issues, first,
and like, second, they see it as a PR thing.

Okay, I mean, I went through the workshop. It's very, very dependent on who's running it. My
facilitator was, eh, not the best. Mine gave this, like, scenario on like, what happens if, like someone, a
guy gives a girl a kiss that she didn't want. And he was like, wait, but lik e, then you can't be
spontaneous! I think it was kind of a similar attitude of like, the camps, OSA dictates that we have to do
this, so we have to do this. It’s an issue because you made it an issue.

It doesn't really seem to address any questions that anyone has had. Like, literally AWARE made an
entire statement against the mandatory reporting thing, and like, okay, so why are you not listening to
them? But like also ultimately, they kind of know that, if they wait for a while, it will blow over.
Because it seems to me they see it as a very PR move, so it's easier to wait out than, like doing things .
And it's easier to cover their asses than listen to professionals. Which comes back to the point I made
about like, NUS seems to be very, very corporate.

They can say they consulted with their professionals, but who are their professionals? Yah, I'm pretty
sure just someone made a decision and they decided to look for evidence for it instead of the other way
around?

9.2 Interview 2:

Okay, how do I think the agenda ah? I think, definitely they need to stop just like, there needs to be a
sincere commitment towards fostering a safer university environment and there needs to be more done
to inculcate consent. I feel like consent needs to be drilled into every single university goers’ head,
staff, uh, everyone, really, not just the students. So I feel like there needs to be a sincere commitment
towards forging a safer, safer space. Yes. And I think also there needs to be greater sex positivity in
general, so I think they need to be very open about certain topics. Um, yah, and I think they need to
devote more resources towards educating their students lah. So, and then also, don't just focus on like,
covering your backside and really just start – start caring about your students. I mean, without them
you wouldn't exist. So – we maketh you. So I think it's time that you actually – we should be the primary
stakeholders, okay? Stop caring about, like whatever lao sai that is going on out there, like we should
be the first. We should be the priority always. Start acting like it lor. Yah.

9.3 Interview 3:

I mean, definitely, like what I say about the ground-up channels, just because so much of it gets
overlooked, and not everybody wants to go viral in order to have-

I mean, that for sure. But also, just like, I think their policymaking is probably missing a lot of, is
probably just being done from like a very disconnected way lah. Like, there’s not the right stakeholders
involved, or if they're being involved, then they’re clearly not being involved in the right, at the right
moments, or like in the right places. That kind of thing. Yah, that like, all of their, all of their things
seem so tone-deaf. Like, a lot of their efforts seem quite half-baked as well?

And I think the VCU is quite a strange concept also. Yah. And like, yah, and that, like the VCU is quite
limited in its capacity also, because they're really just like a support wing, they really can't do much
else than that. As in, but it makes sense lah. It’s very much like an on-paper thing for NUS also.

I think it could definitely be more survivor-centred, for one. Yah. ‘cause clearly like, even if – I'm not
sure, I'm not sure what is exactly happening behind, like um, behind the scenes also. But it just feels
like even the survivors themselves aren't really necessarily being involved or updated? And that's why

198
 like a lot of these things happen also, where there's like a misalignment even though apparently the
institution claims that the survivor has been assisting with the investigation for so long already.

Yah. Yah, and probably the admin needs a bit more training on like how, like, sexual assault and, how
sexual assault affects people and stuff like that. I mean, the trauma of sexual assault. I mean, these are
just like a– these are just measures like for a start, though. I didn’t even cover like a lot of things also
like, they're clearly lacking on so many other things also. Yah.

9.4 Interview 4:

How should they reframe it? Survivor-centric. It’s all punishment-centric. It’s all perpetrator-centric.
Rather, like it's all – not just perpetrator-centric, but punishing the perpetrator centric, punishing an
individual perpetrator centric, it doesn't like, like, like in terms of perpetrator, they onl y focus on the
individual perpetrator and not on it as a wider social issue, like the reframing of it as a social issue,
like makes us opens up so many doors, like not just to explore the individuality of cases, but also
explores wider issues. But the way we are cooped up in individuality, so much so that we always pin
blame on, oh, it’ll still be Nicholas who does this, oh, this still, it's Jeremy Fernando who does this –
no! It’s – it happens everywhere. It happens in unstoppable situations. Like, I’ve ha d friends who, like,
said, you know, they, who have, you know, like, come up to me and said they've been sexually harassed
but they haven't reported it. You know, like, and these, and, like, different, you know, like, at a group
table, like, out of all, like, in that group table, like everyone's, like, like, I was in a group table with like,
two other friends. And those two friends both came out about they have been sexually harassed before,
and I had no idea about this, they didn't report it. And they obviously kept it to themselves. And
obviously, they feel they've healed in some way which, thankful for them. But, you know, it just goes to
show it's hidden, it's – no one talks about it until we are given, like, the kinship we require to talk about
it, like, they trust, like their trust in me as a, as a confidant, as someone who, as someone who also
advocates for these issues, like, I, like, the fact that, you know, they were only comfortable to come out
in that really limited, with someone of that limited of an identity, you know, highlights, you know, why
aren't we opening up, you know, to more identities and why isn't like, why can't you know, other people
be as understanding of advocating for this as a social issue when you know – yah, sorry, got a bit
personal. But, yah. And in terms of reframing it as well, survivor-centric, again, justice, but like, again,
as I mentioned, survivor-centric-ness is recognising there are multiple forms of justice, you know, like,
you have to recognise that you cannot stick to rigid structures, you cannot stick to any rigid ideas or
beliefs, you have to open to discussion, open to discourse.

And I think in terms of harm as well. People should recognise harm doesn't come in just, you know,
like, yah, I actually – I don't know where I was going with that, but like – harm comes in more than one
form. All I can say, like no one – probably the one aspect that I, like, probably the one aspect that I,
like, paid the least attention to because I, I don't have much experiences often with sexual harm. And to
some people sexual harm differs, but like it’s realising again, much like survivor -centric justice,
realising survivor-centric harm differs, you know, is key.

9.5 Interview 5:

Okay, but I think like, they need to stop looking at things as isolated incident, because I feel like um,
even now like their responses are very incident, like, incident-framed? Because like, let’s say safeNUS
releases a statement, right, for example like we had, we released a statement on like the dentistry case,
right? That one was like, dating violence, right? NUS didn’t even talk about it, but they replied us like,
they would, they would reply our email, like, just like that, right? And then with Monica’s incident
clearly it was just a one-off thing. And then like, with Jeremy, like the Jeremy Fernando incident, they
also responded directly to the incident, but like, they've kind of barely started to look at it as like, as
like, systemic, a systemic problem. I mean, I think they are slowly getting there. Because like, with, like,
the, like, you know, how they have a new report?

199
I mean, I think they are slowly starting to see it as light, you know, not isolated incidents, but these are
like incidents that are part of like, the systemic problem of sexual violence in society. So, I, you know,
hope that they will continue moving down this path? Like, I also think like, in future responses and like,
policies that they enact? Like, they definitely need to get more like, feedback from the student
community. I don't think like even, even if they do, like, even if they are getting feedback now, they're
not implementing that feedback. Because like, like I think a lot of the policy like, like, the policy and
things they implement now right, are still mainly to appease. It's like a, it’s more of like to show face
lor. It's like, it looks very nice on the outside, like things like that report lah, you know, yes, it shows
transparency and accountability but like, in some sense, but it’s also very surface level. So it's like, you
know, students deserve better. And like, they also definitely need to improve on our consent module. I
think one thing, hopefully, that they do implement is to, hopefully, like, they actually start working with
safeNUS on like, the Sexual Assault First Responders Training, because I know, like they’ve expressed
interest, but you know, hopefully they actually go forward with it, because like, I think it will be very
helpful in the wider student community to have access to these resources lah, and also get more
educated on sexual, on like issues of sexual violence.

And NUS also definitely needs to, like I think the way they address these issues, they need to take into
account like, I mean, they need to start taking more into account the survivors, but not also just the
survivors, but like, I think I said before, like the wider NUS community lah. Because when these things
happen, like it doesn’t just affect one person, like the community gets affected as well, so like I,
hopefully, in the future, NUS will be able to address this on not just like an individual level, but like a
community level.

And I think they can, but they're just not – like I mean, it's not just groups like safeNUS right, like, there
are like so many other student groups on campus that, like, would stand in support and sign on to our
statement. So you know, like, clearly, like there are many students willing to work together with NUS to
enact, like, change. And hopefully NUS, you know, is willing to do that as well. I mean, I think it's
about time.

I think one thing is that NUS has realised that students do take these issues seriously, and like you
know, their initial response was like, clearly not, not enough to, like, address the issues? Because I
think like they thought that, you know, after the Town Hall and everything, like people would be
appeased and move on with their lives, but, but clearly that didn't happen, right? Like safeNUS, like
not only was safeNUS formed, I think other students, even if they didn't, like, they aren’t a part of
safeNUS, are like more aware that these things happen, are happening, and that NUS is failing to
address their students. So I think it's, it is something that NUS realizes which is why like, their response
to the Jeremy Fernando case, was different from like, the Monica case like, you know, they, they, they
like, emailed students to, like, kind of inform them or something, even though it was still belated, but
and like they, they released the, you know, the sexual, like, the misconduct report, is that what it's
called? Because like, you know, I mean, these things are for students, right? So it's like, they do realise
that, that the students are watching, like, watching what NUS is doing to address these issues lah. So I
think there's one thing that has shifted. So I like that because like, they – hopefully this pressure means
that NUS is more willing to like improve lah, and like better themselves and how they handle this in the
future lah.

In terms of the student community, I guess like the main big shift is that like, there are a lot of people
who are more aware of, like all the reper– not repercussions, of all like the hurt that is caused from
like an incident like this? So it's like, you know, not just the survivor, not just the actual, the act of
violence itself, right? Like, it's just like, um, like in from Monica’s statement, right? The violence she
received from, like, the institution lah, because they failed to take her case seriously and like, and like
protect her, and like, and I think students who weren't aware of this are more aware of how institutions
who are supposed to protect students actually fail to do so.

So that's one thing, like, I think that has changed. And also that more people are willing to kind of
speak about this issue, because I think – this is like, I guess, speaking from like, a safeNUS perspective,
like seeing the new, new members, like come in and say like, oh, that they want to work on this. So I
think it shows that more people are taking it seriously lah. Like not that it was never, not that it wasn't

200
 a serious issue to begin with, but that I think more people are beginning to realise, like, that, it's not
just the act itself, but it's like everything else that comes, like, after the act, right, that has to be
addressed lor. And also that there's a lot of work to do because like, things like consent and things like,
like the entrenched misogyny in society, these aren’t like things that you can solve in , like, a short
period of time. So that's one thing.

9.6 Interview 6:

I– I don’t remember there being a big shift, really, I if there were any differences, I thought it was
because the nature of the cases were different. Like for example, Jeremy Fernando is not, is not a
student, he's a teacher. And like the issue was that the school wasn't transparent versus Monica Baey
was the issue of justice. Yah, I don’t remember there being a huge shift in the language, to be honest.
The only shift I, I might also be very cynical, be very cynical by saying this lah. But I feel like by t he
time it came around to Jeremy Fernando, like, people were just kind of tired, and they – sexual
violence was not very new anymore. They were still angry. But it didn't generate like the same level of
shock as the first one. Probably also because of the way you found out, because Monica Baey told her
story herself, and it was on Instagram, and on Instagram, and especially social media, these things can
catch fire really fast. Jeremy Fernando, at least I did not hear about it through social media. I heard
about it through the, I guess a more formal news site or whatever. Yah.

I think like what I said earlier, I think they need to, I think they cannot take it as your typical
bureaucracy problem, at least in the students’ eyes, like this is not some random in jury or some don’t
know what module assignment, that is just like any other case. Somebody’s safety – I mean, I mean,
obviously, student safety is like, comes into everything lah, but like this is, this is quite a big issue in
student safety, and they need to, they need to have a culture that takes this a lot more seriously, and
makes it a much more like widespread understanding. They need to – like even in things like
orientation or whatnot, like they, it needs to – when the, by the, from the moment that, they already
know that they, like, they – is it because NUS is like a quote unquote “prestigious institution of Asia”
or something that they feel like, that they don't feel the effects of this, of like, that they don’t feel the
effects that any, that this sexual violence has on their reputation, or whatever, but like. From the
moment that like students enter orientation, and even before that, students need to know that this is a
serious problem. And they need to have a, I guess, also, because since you say like, it really depends
from from facilitator to facilitator, they need to, they need to get people who are more well -trained and
know what they are doing, and have a more coordinated effort at teaching students like anything
related to sexual education at all.

I guess of course, that's probably also hard because like, I mean, not that, not that that should be a
reason why they will leave it out. But like, psychology, mental health is already like, people already
have a problem getting enough psychologists together. So yah, but they do need people who are more
well-trained, they need to, they need to, yah, they need to have a more coordinated policy on what this
is. I, I feel like they need to make the policy more accessible. More accessible, like more peopl e like –
do you, do you feel like? Do you feel like NUS disseminate information in a way that students are
easily able to find out? What to do in cases of sexual harassment? No. So yah lah. So that's the other
issue.

They– yah, they need to not treat this, they need to see that, they need to see that like student safety is
at stake and not just like, treat it as another piece of bureaucracy where they need to cover their ass.
Yah. And they need to, like they don't. Yah, seems like the well-being of the students, doesn't seem to be
their priority even if they say it is. Yah. And they need to stop prioritising stupid PR things over basic
safety!

201
9.7 Interview 7:

For NUS, what has shifted would be like, I guess, so-called increased attempts at transparency?
Actually no, I think it's more between the Jeremy and the Ted Hopf case. Because they started sending
out like mailers. So I think it was really the Jeremy case that focused on lapses in communication.
Okay, but between Monica Baey and Jeremy Fernando, I think the level of engagement from like NUS
admin? I think, before Monica Baey, it wasn't even like, I don't think it was like, even talked about at
all, right? I was only year one in, I think, Monica Baey, so I don't know what happened before, but yah,
definitely, like the level of engagement with students, I think there is an increase, so I think that's good?

As for what is not enough, I think like, the lack of a trauma-informed approach? Like as a, as a guiding
framework for everything. I think that is not enough? And it's like, I think a lot of that is just pushed
onto NCU now, when it should be, like, that trauma-informed approach should be part of every aspect
of policy. Yah, like, it shouldn't just be like, oh, one component. When it should be like, the guiding
framework for everything. Yah. And then I guess, for the other – um, I think for the public, what has
shifted is also I think, the level of engagement in the public sphere? So like, definitely the discourse
that's happening. But then again, it's like, not all of the discourse is necessarily productive at the same
time. Yah. Because yah, I feel like sometimes that discourse has shifted to a, oh this is a n NUS-only
problem in the public’s eyes? Yah. Instead of like, the discourse should be, this is a systemic issue that
is endemic to the whole of society? And we need to engage with that as a public instead of like, oh, this
is National University of Sex, you know? Yah.

Yah. Then I think for students, definitely the level of engagement with the school has also, like,
increased. And I think like the organising also, yah. So like, a lot more proactive, sort of like,
responses? Which, compared to, I think, the public and the institution feels more reactive?

Yah. But then again, it's like, I don't want to fall into this trap of like, dichotomies or binaries. Because
I recognise that there might be some people in the public who are also very proactive about this kind of
thing, you know, like, people who are, who are organising on their own, or like, creating that discourse
on their own. So I don't want to like discredit that also. And I guess, like, within NUS there may be
individuals also, who are, you know, supportive of like, students’ efforts, but may be a bit hamstrung.
So yah, I think it's really not that easy to, like, separate these categories. Yah.

I think even like, starting with the language is important. So again, right, they kept, they keep using this
term of sexual misconduct? Which feels like it's not as, it doesn't have the gravity of, like, sexual
violence, right? Yah. But ironically, it’s like, even though they use something, quote, unquote,
“lighter”, like sexual misconduct, the way they respond is so heavy handed, you know, with you know,
like, punitive framework and like all this security, surveillance. So there's that like, weird irony there?
Yah. So I think shifting the language would be good. And, again, like incorporating a trauma -centred
approach, but also like, reaffirming the trust and, you know like, that responsibility of care that the
institution has towards its students? And not just students, you know, like faculty, the community,
everyone involved. Yah, it's very important, because I think there was also that harassment case filed
by a staff member, right, at the EAI. Right. So yah, again, it's not always like, oh, students, student-on-
student violence. There's so many like, permutations of it? Like, it can be staff -on-staff, student-on-staff
like, yah. So it's, it’s – what was I going to say? Yah, so like, NUS reaffirming that responsibility of
care to everyone. I think it's very important. And I don't really feel that yet from their efforts so far.
Yah. I think what else?

I think, okay, but this, I think this sounds quite impossible for NUS to do lah. I don't think they will say
anything about it. But, like, in my ideal world, if NUS were to also kind of like, take charge of that
public discourse, that sexual violence is not just a campus issue, but a societal issue, right? I think that
would really change things also. But I really, I doubt it. Yah. But yah, so because in a sense, like,
institutions also play a very big role in shaping, like, public discourse, right? But yah, I'm just not
optimistic about it. I think that is mainly it.

202
9.8 Interview 8:

I think definitely for the institution, like, it's quite evident in how quickly they, they proceeded with the
police report, to the point like, you know, they didn't even inform the student, it shows that, you know,
they, they're really scared. The pressure was on, you know, they – it shows that they were aware of the
backlash that they had received regarding the Monica Baey case and how slowly and inadequately that
entire debacle was processed. But it didn't exactly shift for the better either? Again, they still ignored
what the victim wanted, they just did it faster. But I guess like, in a way, they did change in the sense
that they took much more severe action. But like I said, it wasn't necessarily for the better, they didn't
change in their stance towards like student welfare, the wishes of the victim, which should have been
the most important part.

Most students felt it to be the most important priority. And I don't think that, you know, they were
unaware. They were definitely aware of the fact that people felt that they should have put the students’
welfare first. So while they did kind of change the policy, the way that they handled the case of Jeremy
Fernando versus the Monica Baey incident, the fundamental issues and the fundamental, like,
ideologies hadn't changed at all. They were just better at appeasing the public. So I guess like, you
could say that the way that they changed would be that they changed their PR strategy.

Among the students, I guess like you know, when the Monica Baey incident happened it was like the
first wave of incidents right, in a very long time. So I guess there was a lot of shock at how the, the fact
that they had to be like that, and had to get, that we had to resort to so cial media to such a large extent
to make our voices heard.

But by the time like the Jeremy Fernando case happened, it was just like, I think there was like a
general air of like, exhaustion? The fact that it was like, oh this is happening again, you know that
repetition? Like I said before. So I guess like we, there was less shock. It was more like, you know, we –
how do I say – we knew that like, going through, like official means won’t do anything, because that's
what we tried with like the Monica Baey incident. And so like, a lot of us just like straight away went to
like social media to like disseminate information. Yah, you know, while, people still did try to, like, you
know, contact, go through official means, a lot of us like, you know, we didn't bo ther even waiting
anymore. And like a lot of like student organisations were reaching out to one another to find out how
they could support the students. So they were, students were contacting other students and not going to
the school, because they felt that – we felt that we had to rely upon one another.

And then I guess, for the public, there was already a lot of scrutiny over NUS at that time. Traditional
media outlets were trailing NUS, waiting for them to slip up? So when the Jeremy Fernando case
happened, every, you know, everyone was like, ah, NUS again, right? Yah. So there was there was a lot
of pressure to see whether they would handle the case differently, compared to the Monica Bay case?
So there was a lot of like, call for NUS to handle it more aggressively, which is, you know, I guess what
they did lah. So again, it's kind of the same with the student community, there was less like shock, there
was less like, shock, and like, disbelief, that, you know, such a reputable institution mishandled th e
case, or, more accurately, that such a. such an incident would even occur within such a reputable
institution. So when the Jeremy Fernando case happened, people already knew that cases like this
could happen. Yah. And they were kind of even like, expecting it, I feel that. So, but I guess there was
also, like, more uproar, because of the fact that this time it was a person of authority?

First and foremost, the most important thing is that they, they need to very drastically reform their
conception of sexual harm, violence, like we said before, their definition cannot be so objective and
narrow, It’s quite appalling that they’re still taking such a very clinical, very semantically rigid idea of
sexual harm and sexual assault. Because you don't – I think that it should be up to the victim to define
whether they felt that you know, any, any form of sexual harassment has been inflicted upon them?
Because it is a very – at the crux of it is a very personal issue. And these things don't happen usually
with, you know, witnesses.

203
 So it's, it shouldn't be the role of the institution or like figures of authority to dictate their experiences.
So I think that's the main, the first main issue that they need to listen to, to the victims and allow them
to, and not classify, not tell them like whether something qualifies as sexual harm or violence or not.

There needs to be a very, this is probably not possible, but there needs to be an ideological, like you
know, paradigm shift of sorts. Because the fact that they are more concerned with their image and the
fact that they're more concerned with pandering to the public is something that should not be
happening at all. That should not even be the main issue that they're focusing on, it shouldn't be an
issue at all. If they were able to adequately handle these cases, they wouldn't even have to deal with the
backlash.

9.9 Interview 9:

They need to bring students to the table, and when I mean the table, it’s not, it's not a consultation. We
should be a, we should be a part of the decision-making process. We should be those random ass
consultants that they like to consult. Yah. And they should not, well, try to shut us down. They should
not shut the students down in any sense. Okay, we are paying the school fees, we are adul ts here. And
we have a stake because this concerns us, this concerns our friends, this concerns our family members
who are studying in NUS or teaching in NUS, or working in NUS, like we are all stakeholders and if
anything, they should be including us in the conversation and at the decision-making level and at the
policy-making level. Instead of just treating us as like – reframing ah? I mean, like – like, well, they
can definitely, they should definitely stop trying to frame everything as like, as like, yo u know, like
saving their ass lah, and like saving their reputation, and that of like following procedure and
bureaucracy. Like we get that, but do you, do you really care about the students, right, do you care
about these people who are, like, giving you money every semester? Do you only care about students
who contribute in some economic way. Some national, national way?

Like, like seriously, like reframe ah. They need to completely transform the way they think about, about
this. Like, they need to recognise that. And some more most of them are academics, they need to
recognise that, that, whatever they have been teaching us on the critical level, is happening on that
scale. And that, and that they should not resort to methods that failed and they should not result to
methods that are violent. Yah. That’s all.

9.10 Interview 10:

What has shifted is I think, there's a shift in I think student agency that, because at the very start, like
Monica Baey case occurred, when there was no, there was no NUS student group that was focused on
these issues. And when it hit, I think the, like, you know, even though there was so much outrage, so
much “I want to do something about this” from so many students, there was a huge sense of like, where
do I go with this? I don't know how to direct this energy to, what do I do with all of this want, to make
things better?

And after that, after safeNUS was created, now there’s, I think, a place to go. Like I, a lot of students
would come and they would know, oh, there's a student group over here. These are students like me,
who want to do something about this. So I should ask them about it. And so it was really a very
organic, like, culmination of that. And there’s a change now. Now, now whenever something like this
happens, students are like, okay, we got to do something about it, and there is a place to say, you know,
okay, what are we going to do about this? How can we build up bit by bit, in everyday life, a better
culture, a safer campus, instead of just, you know, instead of just having a lot of high emotions when a
case becomes high-profile, but how do we do this consistently? How do we have a spread out, regular,
yah, regular, consistent way of building more awareness and education. And a better culture around
this.

204
And with regards to NUS administration? Well, there's now the VCU which has now changed its name.
To sorry, what’s it called now? NCU. Okay, so the shift is that now there's more specific places to go
to. And I think that this is good, because when there's more specific resources dedicated to sexual
violence, then it signals, it signals a recognition that this is an issue that has to be addressed, that we
must focus our efforts and resources. Because this is an actual problem that we got to focus on solving.
And I don't think this was as present before that. Yah, this definitely wasn't as present before that, and
it was really a build up. Even after the Monica Baey case, there was, like, things like the workshops
that are, in the workshops that they conducted in the RCs, there was a lack of understanding that you
need to be very trained in order to have like, sexual, uh, sexual violence education?

And also there was a reluctance to say rape culture. There was a reluctance to say rape culture and I,
and other words that, and other words and terms and phrases that insinuated that there was already an
insidious culture that was a danger to students. And I would say that while acknowledging that sexual
violence is an issue in NUS has improved in administration and you can see that because now there
are more resources dedicated to it. But the same underlying problem of, of not wanting to, of not
wanting to admit that this is a serious problem is still persisting? Like you know that with the idea of
like not wanting to say rape culture, I would like to ask why the name of the Victim Care Unit change
to the NUS Care Unit? Yah, what’s with that?

Yah, okay. That – okay, first of all, I will say that that does not, that seems to be like a lack of
comprehension in the word victim. But, so that, that doesn't seem to be – okay, that's strange. I will just
say that’s strange. That doesn't address like the idea of like staff and student at all. But anyway, Yes, I
would, I still see a lack of willingness in the institution to say, to sa y words like rape culture, like
victim, like survivor, like sexual violence. I think that there has to be a lot to be done in that regard?
There have already been improvements, I would say, but it's not enough. I think acknowledging that
sexual violence exists after such high-profile cases, frankly, after cases occur at all, is really the bare
minimum. It’s really like less of – yah, it's really less of like, how to say, it's less of like, it's less of a
step in the right direction for the institution and more like really just accepting the facts. Yah, just
acknowledging that the situation exists? Yes, and so I still, I think that, I would like to acknowledge
that there have been advancements in this, but there is still a lot to be done especially in
acknowledging–

I think the main word for this is survivor-centric. I think that NUS has to be fundamentally more
survivor-centric, especially in terms of the institution. And I don't like theory words, I don't like
abstract concepts, so, and I'm not like, yah, I’m not like a very theoretical person. So I will, I will say
that, I will explain the concrete actions that this, this results in. The idea of survivor -centric is really
just centering the conversation on survivors. It's basically thinking, like, fro m the very foundation, you
think of the survivors The reason why this is important is because when you do not, first and foremost,
think of survivors, you do not have your actions be based, first and foremost, for them, with them. And
from them.

Yah, you fall towards, you fall towards, you know, things like oh, thinking of the institution first,
thinking of the image first, thinking of this first, thinking of that first. No. The first thing you should
always think of is the survivors. Violence has occurred to them, how do we make this better? That
should always be the start. And frankly, the end of any action, any conversation around sexual
violence. So that has to be the shift. And that would, and I think if there's just this general, this, this
shift towards survivor-centric, in everything, in actions, in thoughts, in everything, then it would very
naturally result in things like listening to students more. Because, yah, because like, listening to
survivors more is something that happens very naturally when you centre them. And when student
initiatives, when students initiate things, when people, and when really anyone starts to initiate things
that are survivor-centric. I think the school should support that, should not, not – how to say – like not
focus on like, saying that they support it, but more like support with funding lah, support with their
actions, you know, support with policy change, support with, like, very active conversations with the
people who are – yah, very concrete things.

205
9.11 Interview 11:

I suppose the speed of processing the case? What I remember, and I can't really give a very concrete
timeline, but what I remember from the Monica Baey case is that it took a long time for NUS to
respond to her requests and, NUS did not play very much of an active role in supporting her through
each step of say, the investigative process, you know, which is something that they would have a vested
interest in doing because they want to maintain their reputation. But they didn't really do that. And they
didn't do it swift enough. So that's, that was probably the most glaring aspect of the Monica Baey case,
which has shifted into a little bit more positively in the Fernando case and the subsequent cases in the
same year. Being that, you know, because NUS published their timeline on the investigation, and if that
is to be believed, then they actually completed the investigation within several months of the complaint
being surfaced, which I think was, and it seemed as if that, they had more regular i nteraction with the
survivors themselves, as opposed to in the Monica Baey case, which took, which seemed to take longer.
So I think the process and speed of processing each of these cases was what improved over the course
of this. Yah. Yah, not much else to add, I suppose they're very focused on security and surveillance,
which doesn't really help the situation, or even if it can help the situation, they don't implement it in a
way that would. Yah. They're still very focused on security and surveillance even after 2019.

I think they should reframe it more survivor-centric, survivors’ well-being centric. I probably don't
have the right words for what I'm going to say just because I don't, I'm not well acquainted with the
literature on justice as a whole. Right. So how they should reframe it, I think they should reframe it by,
by, by more, by a more active listening to the requests of the survivor? And also better inform their
procedures by looking at what are some, you know, evidence-based procedures put in place by various
other institutions in other countries that have shown better outcomes for mental health, for physical
safety and otherwise, and academic outcomes too, for the survivors that they serve. I think that NUS
should take a step in that direction, because right now, what they're doing is very much tied to, have I
investigated the case?

And so that is where NUS’s focus is now, it’s whether they have completed the investigation sufficiently
and swiftly, you know, to their best knowledge. And I think that, while that is still good, you know, you
can’t not have it, if you don't have it, that's worse. It's still good to have, but I think they should do a
little bit more than that, which is to shift, then, the focus away from the perpetrator and back to t he
survivor. You know, what through this investigative process, has the survivor been provided with
sufficient academic, psychological health, and physical security and safety, support in these three
aspects? And if they have not, then what are the correct? What are the safety nets? Or rather, what are
the resources that the institution itself can provide for the survivor to seek recourse? I think that a step
in that direction would be much better, they would be able to – then, like you know, when they release
their circular about the timeline of investigation, that would – if they put more detail into how then they
supported the survivor in the aftermath, that would allay a lot of the fears, comments, opinions with
regards to how NUS had handled the situation, you know, when a lot of students are like, you know, but
you know, what have you done for the survivor? What have you done for the safety of other students
like us? You know, then by showing at least that they had prioritised the survivors’ well -being, you
know, they are taking care actively of the students they are supposed to take care of.

9.12 Interview 12:

I think it was better to, that – I don’t know if better is the right word to use? But there was more focus
put on the perpetrator. Because sometimes the victims don't want to come to light. They're like, I
already report about something that’s so personal, I don’t want to have to go through the public
scrutiny, deal with the person who did this. Rather than Monica having to speak up and like, do a ll the
tanking on her own? I saw that even her mother posted about it on Facebook, and people were, like,
sharing that, I was like, oh my god, the whole family involved in something that was like, obviously
very traumatic.

206
 It feels strange because like, conduct is such a broad term. But I feel like they definitely need to split up
the work. Obviously plagiarism and things like that are like important issues to deal with. But I don't
think the people who deal with plagiarism are necessarily equipped to deal with sexual violence.

Yee-haw! That's my general reaction to everything that’s happening. Yee-haw!

So yah, I think the shift is more like, the scrutiny is more intense. And they choose to take action based
on how they think will solve/dissipate the scrutiny, but it's not necessarily in the victim/survivors’
interest. That's why I don't know if I should be using victims/survivor. I went for the AWARE course.
And then they were like, we can use them interchangeably, but it tends to depend on the person.

One don't call it misconduct, because that one can very easily go into, like you mentioned the, the
different forms of misconduct, whether it’s academic, sexual. So it, it feels like it belittles the violence
that has happened. Yah. So at least adopting a different terminology would help people understand the
severity of these cases. Oh, shit, I just realised that there was technically another policy that happened,
which was NUS released the yearly report on reports that were made, right? So I think that was a
reframing on NUS’s part, because I don't think this was done before? Where they were like, okay, let's
take this seriously. And there is important information about the steps that can be shown. But, again,
they should not see these things as like, problems they can solve with a standard set of steps. They need
to – I don't know if the word is right to use, empathetic? Because it – for all of them, they, no matter
what cases they are, Monica, Fernando, or any of the smaller cases th at we did not mention, in detail.
It's like, oh, these are just people, as if it's a HR issue that they can deal with.

This deals with like, very, it is genuinely about the lives of the people that they are housing in the
institution. I feel like they are treating it too lightly. They have to treat it with more reverence and
severity than they are doing now. Okay, I don't know if reverence is the right word. But yah, in general,
pay more attention with empathy. Yah.

I think another way to say that – you mentioned clinical? I think they also say it in a very sanitised
way, because like, it's like these are the facts, these happened. And I also think they're probably not
considering the fact that, oh, releasing the timeline may be good for transparency, but do the victims
really want information about them blasted out like that? Yah. I think, yah, I think that's about all I
have to say. NUS do better. I'll take a picture of the “Monica deserves better”.

9.13 Interview 13:

Okay, I don't know how much this will cover but I think one – okay. What has shifted in between the
two cases is that I, there is a growing awareness among the student body. And I think people are
becoming more willing to learn about sexual violence and, and not just shunning it as an issue th at
they don't have to participate in. But at the same time, they're also very confused, especially with
people who think that it's the number of cases that are rising and not the number of cases that are
being brought to light. Yah. Like someone that I was in a group project with was saying, how come
with the growing awareness, there's more cases, and then we're just like, no, it's not more cases per se,
it’s now that we're knowing, it's now that we know about it. Especially with the JF case. Yah, now we
want – yah, now we are bothering about it and taking – exactly. Yah. So that's still something that
people are learning.

With regard to the administration, I have the impression that they're getting increasingly frustrated.
Because they're throwing all these measures at the wall and they're hoping they will stick. But it's not
exactly what they want to see? It's not that there's like cases every day that they're like, oh no, we don't
know what to do with it. It's like, they are kind of in limbo right now, and they're, they're like, okay, so
we've done all these things, we cross our fingers, hope no one comes for our asses, or like no one
screws up our name, or no one commits another offence that would be reported in the news and will
ruin our reputation.

207
 Which brings me to another strange thing that I think I might be seeing, I'm not sure if it's just me, in
the administration, which is, as with the pandemic, we’re kind of treating this as the new normal, in the
sense that now we have to adapt our, like the way we go ahead, dealing with sexual violence with all
these cases that have occurred, and then the new measures, the measures that they've all ramped up? I
guess there is somewhat of an unwillingness to shift, to completely reframe their approach, but there is
a bit of a, okay, we did all these things. Now we, we have to see what new challenges come our way
and like I don't know if I'm phrasing this in a good way at all, but they're still not seeing sexual
violence as again, as we said, harm done to people but rather almost, almost like they’re smoothing it
out as some sort of narrative that they need to polish out? So like, I don't know. Yah, yah.

How to reframe? Transformative/rehabilitative justice. So okay, first of all, people, it's about
people/survivor-centric measure. So obviously, basic things like strictly ask from the survivors before
you make the police report it’s not that difficult. And, and, and making an excuse to mess up for
yourself is so much harder than actually just doing the right thing in the first place? Not that they
know. But yah, that survivor-centric and then student-centric in that they claim that we have all these
channel and we have every right and ability to, to talk to them whenever we have, have suggestions, but
first of all, is that true? And second, do they even take our suggestions into account?

Yah, I think one thing that worries me is that the institution wants to go on with the way that they've
always been going, while also trying to solve the evident problem of sexual violence, which would be
for them, like reputation, or maybe people not coming to the school because of the cases being
publicised. Yah, like, they definitely have to look at it in more of a, okay, so there are, there are people
being hurt on our campus, there are students being harmed on campus, how can we actually listen to
them and, and tell them that we're there for them and not just in lip-service, but in taking their
suggestions and also, and not just taking their suggestions, but also showing that they understand the
issue in its entirety and not, not on the surface?

So I think on their part, there is a lot of learning for them, for them to do in every office. Like, just
reading up about consent isn't quite enough, it is necessary for those in charge to actually see what's
going on in maybe other universities, see how sexual violence has all these networks of, problems of, of
power and social relations and education, which is so funny ‘cause we’re learning this in school, but
anyways.

Yah, just, they definitely need to see everyone’s safety as the priority. Okay. So obviously, pu tting
students first is important, but I think also when they do learn more about sexual violence in general,
then they will be able to equip themselves and protect their members of staff as well? Because that's
not something that we have been entirely focusing on. But that's also one of the problems that people
just like, oh, you know, it's just some professor getting horny or whatever. And not, yah, not
interconnected. So yah.

I think the school, the institution has to maybe be a bit more concerned with c ommunity. I mean, we
also learned this from safeNUS, but the way that the school tends to treat survivors is extremely
isolating. And I don't think we're given sufficient avenues to really reach out to each other, and
convene and share with one another and to feel safe with one another. And we also understand that
weith so many people being uneducated or even slightly hostile when it comes to the issue of sexual
violence. That there are a lot of survivors and a lot of people who are unsure, who don't actual ly have
anywhere to go to, and the way that the institution treats sexual violence makes it even harder for these
people to find community. So one thing that they can do better is to allow for more community. Even if
we put NUS at the end of our names and we don’t want to register?

9.14 Interview 14:

I think the main shift to me that was noticeable was, of course after the Monica Baey incident? But the
I do think that the shift, like, that happened from after the Jeremy Fernando case, that happened was
more of like, more attention being paid to abuses of power within the university, from like authority

208
figures, which I think is really more of a thing that is not, it tends to be overlooked lah in like sexual
assault and like violence. So people generally don't really even jump to the conclusion that a lo t of the
time like teachers, profs, etc, are the ones who are doing this, when actually it's a significant enough
percentage if I'm not wrong, it's one, one out of 10 or one out of 12 of most of the cases? Yah. So,
abuses of power, like, I'm not sure really like people really came to consciousness about this, but at the
very least, like it was in public visibility, and people were like, openly castigating like Jeremy
Fernando as well. So I saw on social media, like the boomers like on the Straits Times comments and
all that, they were like, like this, like this this prof, like he should be sacked, etc, etc. But there were
layers to this lah, which were very uncomfortable and weird to me. Yah. So the layers were stuff like, a
lot of the right-leaning, the right-wing leaning sorts of people were like, ah, you see, like these left-
wing, like these left-wing like, like political science, like critical theory, and those types of profs like
are all just like sheep in wolves’ clothing, wait, wolf in sheep's clothing , that kind, so there were a lot
of like these weird like, accusations about the left. I didn’t even see Critical Spectator’s take on this,
but I really saw this, like, quite a few people? Like, just like, these very like, yah, the thing that they
were saying is like, oh, this smarmy like, very charming and like, easy, like, yah, very charming.

Exactly. They're like, oh, like, I think they were also using a lot of like, these tropes of the liberal elite
sort of thing? They definitely saw the left through that eyes lah like, oh, like this elite very charming
can say all these smart things like very intellectual, then they are in the in the university in positions of
power, then you see lah, they're all just wolves in sheep's clothing. So these are the real da ngers to
society like leftism, etc, etc. So I definitely saw that and it was really uncomfortable.

From students, I really like, I don't, I didn't see a big shift lah. Other than that, like, it was, of course, a
huge betrayal? But I don't think that there was a shift. Like, to me, it was like, it seemed like it was an
adding of like what we already knew. Yah, it's just like, oh yah, we been knew, like the violence
permeates everywhere. And now it's just, it's just one after another coming out again, and again and
again. And we’re tired of it lah, that’s all.

But okay, actually, yah, I don't think that that was a shift, per se. But of course, there were things that I
noticed, like I do know there were some conversations among students about how they were, the y were
reflecting more about their own responsibility as individuals, as students in the whole, like, issue of
sexual violence, because people, I don't think that they were interrogating trust per se, but like,
because Fernando's like poems came out, like, and all of that. And there was all kinds of questionable
like, and weird shit, which, like people could point out from his earlier works. And people were
reflecting a lot about how like, they had seen these poems. And they otherwise thought nothing of it.
Because even though they could sense like questionable elements, they just, they just attributed it to
like, oh like, aiyah but this person could never do it, so I just won't think about it. Or like, this person is
like, so woke, so, so, so informed, also left leaning, like, their political beliefs, and also their stated
beliefs show that they could never ever do something so heinous. And because of that, they never like,
asked Jeremy Fernando like, oh, why did you write this? Or like, did you think this was okay to say, or
like, they didn't criticise it. I mean, not criticise, they didn't critique it from an art point of view, either,
which was weird to me. Because like, of course, like poetry critique exists. So, to me, I would have
probably critiqued this piece and like pointed out, like, you know, like, what are you trying to bring
forth, what’s the effect of the, the whatever style or like craft you're trying to use here, but I think there
was some level of evasion of that just because, like, of existing trust? So I do think there was a lot more
conversation about like navigating trust and also, like, how do we hold each other accountable as
individuals and collectively rather than displacing accountability and responsibility through the
institutions?

Yah. So I think one of the things that I wish that they would do is to really view it more as like a, in, like
an essential student welfare issue? And also, like, do not, do not just take the public's like anxieties as
their own? Yah, I essentially wish that they wouldn't be, so spineless lah and like bend to public will,
because like the public, the public's anxieties and of course, their, their, their desire is to not see the
problem. And they just want to lock up the problem away from like, public sight, right? So I wish that
the NUS wouldn't just do that. Because like, they know, the reality is that, like, they should know, the
reality is that you can't do that. And students definitely don't believe that this can happen. Like it
happens, happens everyday among us. So I wish that they would be more invested in confronting the

209
 fact that we have to actually confront the issue and, like, acknowledge the issue as just part, part of
society and not something to expel.

And I think just even doing that, would already reframe a lot of how they will approach the disciplinary
issues like they wouldn't, they wouldn't like do all this nonsense, like physical infrastructure if, like,
they actually acknowledge that, you know, like this, like sexual violence would happen regardless of
whatever physical infrastructure or like rules are put in place? Like it's, it's literally unpreventable,
harm just happens like and they – yah, they will have to actually listen more about, not just about
education, but also like, actually have real dialogues with students about the, the quandaries over the
kinds of justice that we want to see through the approach towards sexual violence? Because students
have their own quandaries and like, the institution has its own quandaries. And of cours e, like
practical, like, limitations and all that. Like I think students are, to some extent, some, to some extent,
pressured to have, to have everything that we want, like, clear, and like we’re expected to know what
we want, we're expected to, like have no moral doubt, to some extent? Like we're expected to know
what to demand. We're also expected to like empathise with the institution, yah. We're expected to
articulate ourselves clearly to be active, like active stakeholders, which is not a bad thing, bu t it's just
that like, I wish that they understood that. Like, it's not, it's not, yah, it's not student's fault that we have
legitimate doubts and like legitimate, like quandaries and dilemmas over, like the kinds of justice that
we want to see because these are like quandaries that happen everywhere in the world. Even like
amongst like, The most concerned of people. Like we should be allowed to have these doubts, and to be
able to be in an, in like an ongoing dialogue, and a serious dialogue where people are actually heard
and taken seriously. And for NUS to actually think about these dilemmas with us. So basically a
collaborative thing lah. But of course, like, this takes, this takes resources right now that, resources
and a lot of will, institutional will that they don't have right now.

9.15 Interview 15:

If I'm being cynical, I don't see any change in NUS. NUS continues to be complicit. And just, yah, it just
continues. It's, it's very frustrating. Obviously, it's also because I'm very like saturated in the work, that
I don't see any, like, big radical changes from them? I think, safeNUS is beginning to understand its
position within this landscape. Because I think when we first came into being, I mean, I wasn't there for
the first year, obviously. But I think even when I entered there was that kind of uncertainty. And like,
every single time there was a crisis, it's always like, shit, what do we do now? How do we respond?
Whereas I mean, it's sad to say now lah, but like, whenever there's a crisis, like we immediately get to
work, we already know what to do? I mean, that's both like a bad and a good thing, I guess. But I
mean, that's why we have to like also build up our own capacities, like how do we tether ourselves to
like other causes so that the student voices are louder and it's not just coming from a niche group of
people? And I think, like, solidarity is actually something that has changed, I think more people are
also speaking alongside with us. And that's been an amazing thing. And I think yah, like what the
recent protests also showed us is that safeNUS also cannot work as a, as an organisation, like a
student group on its own, because it has so many, it itself has so many intersectionalities to address,
right? Like, we can't talk about safe campuses, until we talk about trans bodies being subjected to
violence in our education system. We cannot talk about safe campuses until we talk about how you
know, male-on-male violence or female-on-female violence is oftentimes very marginalised from
discourse, and subjected to even more like, marginality, public scrutiny. And all this, yah, all this, like,
important intersections that I feel like we hadn't had time to consider, but they're now coming to the
fore. And it's, it's very urgent that we, that we take these intersectionalities as we move through our
work, because I mean, not everybody, literal body is subjected to the same kind of violence. And that's
something that is becoming, violence and thus, attention, right, from the institution, and care. An d so I
also see NUS’s role in that, that we have to, I guess, like care for these intersections more. Because
that's, I mean, it's something that the institution will never formally recognise. And it's, it's our
responsibility to bring up how there are definitely certain groups that are more disproportionately
affected by issues of sexual violence than others.

210
 Immediately what I think of is, just work together with, with your students more, we are not against
you. I feel like NUS is like terrified of its students. And I'm going to be anonymized, right? Okay, I
mean, yah, like when, when we were talking to the Vice-Provost, she was so scared of us like, and I
think I was very surprised because, she was just like, you're not gonna post about this, right? Like, is
this, are you recording anything? And I'm just like, as in I wouldn't do anything without your
permission. I don't know. There's just like this general distrust. I don't know what, where it came from.
Because we have never gone out of our way to antagonise institutions because we realise that that's
just going to make our work harder. Yah, so it's just like, just have more trust in your students, like
your students aren't there to get at you, we want, we want a safer university not just for ourselves, f or
like everyone, for our friends, for like our, our classmates or schoolmates or batchmates, for like queer
students, or trans students. As in, I don't know where, where this like kind of distrust and like, yah, as
in I really don't know where it comes from. Maybe it's just like that entire taboo of activism that like
we’re troublemakers. And so immediately, the institution sees us as a threat. But I mean, ultimately,
we're all just motivated by a desire to be, to want to feel safe, and protected? All of which are very
human things to want, I think. And I wonder why they don't see it that way?

Oh, not I wonder, I mean, we also know right, ‘cause, entire history of student activism, etc, etc. So
yah, I think I think like, just really sitting down. Yah, work with us. Why not?

9.16 Interview 16:

I don't think institutional attitudes have shifted. I think institutional protocols have shifted, but not
attitudes, in that they don't care. I think what has shifted is students, like students being enraged and
mobilising better? I definitely feel like it's brought, like Monica Baey – yah, Monica Baey seemed like –
like I feel like student activism and engagement has been increasing since Monica Baey. Public, I
really cannot tell. But, I mean, safeNUS has gained a lot of followers.

Okay, I think – can and should ah? Obviously, to have a more human perspective, but I don't see that
being even viable, given how institutions and universities exist under like this capitalist model in their
goals, right? If they can't be human, because they're not, because they're institutions, then at least, at
the very least, fund, put enough funding into humans who can be human? Like, obviously, it's not ideal
if they want to detach themselves from you know, being human. But the fact, the truth, I feel, the reality
is that they will never view themselves as a space, they will never view themselves as a community. So
the least they can do, or the, or the most that I can feel I can ask for is for them to at least give the
money.

9.17 Interview 17:

Nothing shifted! In all three players! Nothing shifted! Oh my god, oh my god, I didn't realise this, you
know, I really didn't realise this until you brought it up. But nothing shifted. After the second case,
right, I think people have become numb to sexual assault. They normalised it to the point where they
become numb to it. The institution probably just sees it as another chore. The student body is the same,
just scared, and the general public is just like, normal lor. Oh my god, nothing shift ed at all. Not even
policy shifted lah.

First of all, don't call it fucking misconduct. Call it what it is – assault. Streamline any assault to jails.
Stream it to the justice system. Don't try to handle it yourself. Stream it straight to the justice system.
It's not a primary school detention leh, it’s a legal crime. You're dealing with adults. You're not dealing
with children. Almost everybody in university is an adult. Deal with it, like how you would deal with it
in a community, not in a primary school.

211
 And let’s be real, the stupid consent module, right, that we all had to do at the start of the year. That
doesn’t do shit, that's the bare minimum, that's the bare minimum just so people wouldn't call you out.

I think they should re-evaluate every single one of their teachers? Increase, increase the, increase the
background checks for sure. Increase background checks, re-evaluate your own existing teachers, re-
evaluate your faculty members, for sure. And in like, yah, sure, the consent mod is great, but I don't
remember one thing from it? Honestly, re-evaluate every single one of your modules, try to implement
a little bit of sex ed here and there. Like, I know, it's not very possible, but it is possible to implement a
little bit of sex ed, like just normalise consent, normalise content like something as, even though it's a
bit of a stretch lah, but it doesn't even have to be a proper point like for example, I mean look at all the
mods I'm doing. Like I’m doing, like for example, in economy, right? Like maybe you could just say
implement a little bit saying like, saying like something or something sex ed related lah. Just anything
related lah.

Because like, this, you really have to, you’re talking about people who, especially in Singapore, like
when your only sex ed is abstinence, you really need a proper sex ed module to, just implement sex ed
somewhere, anywhere like, everywhere actually. Implement consent. It’s very, very easy to implement
consent here and there, yah, just educate more. Educate your students more. Yah! Educate yourself
more also! Re-evaluate your own, your own people also. And just, oh my gosh, yah, like really, educate
yourself also.

Just get rid of the whole hush-hush idea, man. Just get rid of the hush-hush idea, like just get it through
your head, that the more you – the more you keep it hush, the more it will blow up in your face
straight-up. There's really, there's really nothing else more to say other than that. And, yah, maybe
change the office that handles it, like the moment you stop calling it misconduct, you can change the
office already, it’s not as serious as the temperature-taking, we all know that.

9.18 Interview 18:

What do I think have shifted? I think, in terms of the population, the student population in universities,
I think a lot more people are aware of where, what they can do to report instances of sexual assault, I
think there's been a shift in mindset. I think in the past, you would still probably get people who are
like, oh, no, that's not sexual assault, that’s not sexual violence, you're being too sensitive. But I think
right now with, you know, all the courses that we're taking, all the talk about sexual a ssault and sexual
violence that people are having, that people are a bit more aware. The student population is always
changing, so you’re obviously going to get the younger ones who are a little bit more knowledgeable,
and I suppose, woke? Yah.

I think in, for the institutions, they're also aware that the student body is a lot more vocal about this
issue? And I can see that they're trying to listen to the student population a lot more, trying to take in
the feedback that we provide them, and trying to see how they can incorporate our feedback into what
they're doing. And that's very clear in the Jeremy Fernando case, because right after the whole
transparency thing happened with Jeremy Fernando, they were really open and transparent about the
Ted Hopf case. I mean, they're not perfect, but you can see that they’ve improved in terms of the
processes that they're taking? And how do you relay these things? How do you remain accountable to
the student population?

For members of the public, it's a bit tough to say, because you're always going to get, you're still
always going to get people who don't see this as a huge issue, the people who still think that victims of
sexual assault are just being too sensitive, not just sexual assault, actually, but like sexual har assment
as well. Yah.

I’ll tackle the policies one first, I think NUS just needs to, NUS’s policies, in terms of responding to
sexual assault or whatever, they should be a lot more victim-centric. And it needs to centre on the
victim, regardless of whatever law is in place. And I think they are revising that law thing. Regardless,

212
 they should abide by the wishes, the victims’ wishes and needs and wants and centre their policies
around that. Yah. So in terms of policies, I think that's what they need to do. I think they should
continue to be transparent about these cases of sexual assault and violence. But I think now something
that they're not really touching on is how or what to do if you face such, if you are at the receiving end
of like, derogatory comments or sexually harassing comments over Zoom. I think that is something
that's missing? Because we're all learning online now. And obviously, the Sharul and Viswa case
happened over Zoom. So I think they should probably touch on that a bit more.

I think right now, like I mentioned earlier, there’s a lot of focus on very obvious instances of like,
sexual violence, like voyeurism, or rape, or molest, like these are, I think, things that a lot of people can
already agree that, okay, that is an act of sexual violence. But I don't think they've really taken into
account like the grey areas, or – yah, like the comments where you're a bit like, oh, is this offensive? Is
this not offensive? Does this count as sexual, as sexual harassment or does it not count? And I t hink
what NUS needs to do is reframe how they see sexual violence? Because I think sexual harassment or
such comments is also an act of violence. And I think only if they see these grey areas as, or they give
priority to it, that people would, that they would be able to reframe their modules like the respect and
consent one far better, so that people are a lot more aware. Yah.

I think something that, like, I think people don't know what to do if something happens outside of
school, but it occurs between schoolmates, does that make sense? Because like, the whole, the way
things, or the way I see the Victim Care Unit is that, oh, if sexual assault happens on campus, then you
can come here, but what if, what if it happens outside of campus? And I thi nk the school still has a duty
or responsibility to address this issue as well.

9.19 Interview 19:

I think students’ mindset definitely shifted, you know, the idea of – because pre-Monica Baey, people
weren't even aware of this situation happening. You know, it's not something that students would be
like, discussing about, or like raising it as a concern, you know. But after the Monica Baey incident,
people were generally wary? But also, again, we were more shocked. And we weren't – how to say –
we didn't really know what to do lah. But then now I feel like people are generally more aware. And
they are more willing to, I guess, you know, that, you know, the student rage, is there lah. The rage to,
to make sure that – the frustration is there, you know, that, hey, we want, we demand change. And we
know that, we already asked you this before and this hasn't happened. Nothing has changed. It means
that we want something good to happen, kind of thing. And, you know, we have safeNUS set up and
stuff like that. I feel like we're generally at least trying to have some form of, taking things into our own
hands if, in a sense, because if NUS isn't willing to take care of the survivors, we need to do something
about it. If NUS isn't gonna listen, we need to do something about it. I feel like that is the general
mindset that, that's like, has been going on? Yah, I wouldn't say this. Yah. Even after Jeremy
Fernando's case, like this, it’s the same, the same thing. Yah, I guess, what else?

Institutionally I feel like they are trying to make changes, because you can see that the difference
between how they handled the Monica Baey case versus the Jeremy case.

So yah, so they did try to handle the case a bit more differently. But I can't tell entirely because it's a
staff versus student thing, in this situation, versus there’s like, between two students? So like, I don't
know? But there's definitely been a few cases in between as well, right? A lot. A lot. Yah, so. And this is
a very nuanced issue lah, you can't just be like, hey, you know, black-and-white, this is the issue that
happened, kind of thing. So you can see that they are trying, maybe I'm wrong, because again, I'm not
too sure. But they are still not listening to the students. I feel like they’re just, if this went wrong the last
time, I make sure I don't do this the last, you know, it's like, if I do A wrong, next time, I won't do A
wrong, but then they're not listening to what needs to be done. So maybe they do BCD wrong also. But
then they, they don't, they don't listen to us lah. And the thing is, I don't, what I don't understand is:
safeNUS is literally set up for that very same reason, you know, we are here to say, look, I am
representing the students’ perspective, listen to us, but they're not listening to us la h. So I feel that, in

213
 that sense, what hasn't changed, is that lack of communication. And when I say communication, I don't
mean they never say anything to us, which is also true. But it's also they never listen to what we have to
say also, like both, two-way communication. Both are out. Yah. So I feel like it's, there's still a long way
to go.

9.20 Interview 20:

What shifted is definitely students’, basically, students’ awareness, basically, realise that this is
actually happening. So they are like ooh, this is what we need to do. Or rather like, you know, this is
my rights. And then after that, that’s when a lot more discussions are happening, especially for us guys,
because we are not directly affected by most of, if not all the cases, right? There are o ne or two cases
that affected us guys, but at least for most guys, so for us guys it’s more of like, we know that this is
going on. What can we do to help? That’s one.

Another shift would be people's courage to talk more about these kinds of things. You kn ow lah,
conservative society things, put away this kind of things as a taboo. But then, after this kind of cases
continues, continually pop up, and one even affecting my College, I think people are just more aware
and are more willing to talk about it, even without being requested to talk about it, or rather, being
forced to talk about it lah, that kind of thing, or put in a situation where they have to talk about it. So,
like, more free-flowing conversations, more and better, like awareness of this lah.

What has changed also at the institution level is at least the transparency, is also the transparency. I
think that's something that – baby steps, of course, unfortunately, but also at the same time it’s a big
celebration of progress – it’s a small progress, but progress is progress. You know, transparency, I
think is very crucial, because once they tell us, once they tell us that, that these are the sequence of
events that led up to, perhaps a Fellow’s dismissal, or these are the sequence that led up to the person's
arrest, then they are aware, and then, and also the timeliness of information. You know, not like, not
like a few days after the thing happened then they release, they happen in at most 24 or 48 hours lah
okay. I think that’s where it, that’s where the organisational trust is built. And then another one, but
what didn't change was, at the general levels, the level, the level of guaranteed security still, which
actually in fact, kind of degraded because, after the old incident lah. But again, that h as been, that has
been brought up by the media. Both the social media and mainstream media. I think, but again, this is,
again this is very very contextualised to NUS.

I know NTU had a lot of these cases but a lot of them are kept under wraps. A lot of people say it’s
actually a lot more than NUS. But it's just, it's just kept under wraps lah, and also because their hall
security is utter, utter rubbish. Been there once, I was just like, how the heck did I manage to walk in
there without actually having to tap in, I was like huh? Okay, noted. Yah, so I think again, my answers
are very contextualized in NUS.

I think it especially happened for this year’s, the this year’s freshmen intake for CAPT. We had one of
the lowest, one of the lowest numbers of applicants actually, from what I found out. And, and actually
the fellows anticipated it already lah, so yah.

Oh, sorry, another thing that I forgot to mention, what didn't change was the lack of competence that,
or rather the lack of certified competence that both the RAs (Resident Assistants) and the RFs (Resident
Fellows) have when it comes to responding things as a, as a first responder. Because I know the only
organisation that I know holds somewhat like a first aid course for sexual, first responder course, by
AWARE course, by AWARE, yah. I think that's the only organisation in Singapore that does that. Test it
out, test it out with CAPT, CAPT will be like – I think half the College will sign up one. Yah, so. Even if
it isn’t half, don’t worry, I will, I will be the one who will be banging some drums and be like, you
know, “sign up, all of you idiots!”

214
 My immediate response to firstly stop using the term sexual misconduct. Use it as it is: sexual
harassment, sexual violence, use the terms, survivors for victims of the, of this harassment or sexual
violence lah. That’s at the response level. I think that has to be done.

The second level would be to ensure readiness. I'm seeing this from a very militaristic point of view.
But I think that this militaristic point of view will provide a most comprehensive response to, yah.
Because I used to work in the ops side for when I was in NS that time, so this kind of like, things have
been somewhat, I –

So the level, so that readiness must be there, by especially the, the Residential Life teams of all
campuses, of all Colleges, of all Halls, of all Residences. That includes a comprehensive course that is
on, you know, whatever and then they get certified, and they actually get to perhaps practice it in their
own internal drills perhaps.

And, and then after that, at a level above it will then also be, and then after that at the ground level for
everyone to basically to stay alert lah. Right? I mean, of course, we don't want to be like in a constant
state of vigilance also, I think that's something that we don't really want to do. But I think it's just more
of like to, but it’s more of like to keep a lookout for people who are affected by it. And for us to know
how to respond properly, and you know, be there for them.

And I think, thus far, truth be told, or at the very least, for CAPT lah, you know, is that the community
in CAPT responded really well, in the sense that the, we really keep a, kept a lookout for the girls
especially, ensuring that, you know, their welfare is well taken care of, you know, we talk to them. And
then also we, and also like personal anecdotes for the guys, is like, you know, the number of times
where my friends, my guy friends actually have this kind of conversation and us feeling bad for not
being able to protect them was there.

So, yah lah, so I think at the level, so what – so if I were to summarise, my response is to basically
change the way that we refer sexual misconduct to sexual violence or sexual harassment, and victims
as survivors, and then to basically have a comprehensive level of readiness should something like this
happen again. And that includes expertise, certification, and community resolve. Yup. And I don't have
to say about transparency lah, ‘cause that’s already been in effect already? So I think that one is a
good step, a good step already.

9.21 Interview 21:

Right, I think the school definitely have learned its lesson in terms of like, you know like, their old way
of managing PR doesn’t work. And they probably need to, you know like, be more upfront and
transparent with students. I think that, I guess the Ted Hopf case, kind of represent that. Although I
have to caveat that. I think there's, I mean, you talk about agency, of all like different NUS institutional
body, right? They have very different way of functioning. And I mean, there's politics involved in that
as well. So I think it also affect how they respond to things.

So I don't think, to say that I mean, the Ted Hopf case, the difference between that and the Jeremy
Fernando case, would prove that NUS have changed its way completely. I don't think it's, it's
completely true? But however, I, from the people I talked to I think it certainly seems like I think they
don't want to face another, like major disaster, like the Jeremy Fernando case. So the urgency to take
actions is, it’s there lah. I mean, it’s either from department level or from the whole management, NUS
management level, there was that.

What has also changed, I think, is the narrative, I think, among students, I think that whole narrative
has been strengthening, the, I mean, the narrative of accountability? There has also, I mean, the
language of sexual violence has been more prominent compared to in the past? That's where I think it
had gained ground in, within the student body. However I don't think it has gained enough ground
within the institution itself. So I guess, that’s what I answer in terms of like, what the institutions sees

215
 its role in all of this, has not changed. They see it as a fixer of issues. And as an, as a manage – like
managing crisis, rather than, you know, like, inward-looking and see itself as an accountable body.

And as a cause of crisis itself, I think it doesn't see itself as such. Which, I guess, is still a constant. It is
a very weird relation between, I think they do things that think that they need to, they need to hear the
students, they need to take students’ comments, and things like that. But tha t relationship ends there.
And they don't see further in terms of they have to answer, answer to students in a, in the same way
they answer to their shareholders or so to speak. That relationship between the university and the
students have not changed.

Although I have to say that they have been more active in terms of consulting the students. I mean, and
we can project this to the society level, we talk about, you know like, how democracy without
participation, and it's all very consultative democracy for Singapore, I mean, that kind of like,
framework can be applied to it into school as well, where students will see themselves as, not as a – I
mean, they use the word stakeholders a lot of time, but it doesn't mean what it means at the same thing
as the stakeholders of an institution. Precisely because stakeholders of a company and things like that
have voting, voting rights. For how many, how much shares they have, but the students don't have lah.

Moving forward, okay. So I think it should look at definitely sexual violence as a product of – it is a
product of many things, one of which is its own institutional problem. I think that is one explanation
that they can do in terms of whether it has created an environment or enabled an environment where
students feel empowered or entitled to take these actions. I think that is one area – that they are
empowered or entitled to sexual violate, or sexual, yah, sexual violate others. I think that, that
recognition of the institution’s role in creating this environment, I think that is one step that I wish they
would do.

And because of that, I think then, there is, the next step would be then to see how, I mean, of course,
what the students want, in, to address this issue, in, from a very ground-up kind of like, view on what is
the – both in terms of prevention and in terms of justice, of sexual violence. And of course, I mean that
also involves, I think, having students be on the table? Not just in terms of a symbolic kind of thing, but
in terms of certain power that students body can have with regards to just I mean, the management, I
guess, the management of the school, whether it's in this singular aspect of sexual violence, or in other
things, like for example, school fees, you know, financial assistance, in terms of curriculum and things
like that.

Though, of course, I mean, that, that thinking inevitably result in having the whole idea of
democratising education, meaning university education in that sense, which I think is a, is a very far -
ahead project that we can have, so. And I think the school recognise that, I think these, the few steps
that I mentioned before, inevitably lead to that, that direction, that outcome, so I think the school might
be, in a way resistant to, to this proposal as well. But I mean, that's just my hope, that the, that how
education should be.

Whether I think that that would be the silver bullet to prevent, you know, this, I mean, I’m not
confirming that in the whole idea of democratising itself and what it means to, and to give students
power here. I mean, we can talk about how the students themselves might have other type of
conceptions that of what sexual violence is. I mean, when you talk about, you know like, different
groups of students and things like that, I mean that might, there might not be a good mix? Or rather,
like there’s um – how to say – people who have a wrong idea about sexual violence and things like
that, very reactive, reactionary, the idea might be detrimental to the cause itself.

9.22 Interview 22:

What has shifted? I think one is like definitely consciousness, like, definitely, amongst students, for the
better, for worse, I don't know, like, but there's awareness right, and I think there's also fear associated
with it. But yah, that like this is a problem. Um, and the fact that like,

216
 I guess. Like, I mean, I'm sure yah, for like, groups like safeNUS, or, like QueerNUS and, you know,
equivalents in Yale-NUS, there is a stronger like, motivation to, like, continue or like to do the work
that they do. Um, administration-wise, I mean, I think the setting up of like VCU in itself is quite
significant. Um, generally more attention to like, cases of like, sexual violence on campus.

Um, I think general public, I feel like nothing much has shifted very sadly. Esp ecially for like, other
universities, yah, if they count as general public. ‘cause I feel like other universities have not like
worked on their policy or pay more attention to like sexual violence, right? It's just like, oh, haha, like
NUS reputation bad.

I think the most important one is, like, definitely to like not see all of these incidents as, like, existing in
isolation and I think to like create better, or more like, to have more transparency in a way that like
promotes consent culture, and like greater dialogue between students and, I mean, faculty or anyone
and I think just really, like, not shy away from conversations around sex. Because like even after, like
they like, shut down that, like, is it Tembusu, like, event on like BDSM right? Yah. And I think also like
they should pay more attention to like student activists? Um, yah.

9.23 Interview 23:

And I would say even then, right, like, I think the one that was really very shocking to me about the
Jeremy Fernando case was that, was that whole like, oh my god, what was the name, what's the name
of that course – respect and whatever. Yes, the consent and respect module. Like the fact that he was
like a facilitator or like, whatever role he played for that course right, I think he was the one who
taught it to like the Tembu students. And just the fact that like, he can be the one that helps to design
and administer the respect and consent workshop, right, when he is the one that is committing violence
against students goes very far to say like how deep this problem runs.

I think the first step is really that they have to accept that this is something that occurs. It’s what I
mentioned earlier about, like, they can't keep treating these as anomalies. Because for every case that
comes to light, there are countless others that go unreported. And they have to, like, there needs to be
that acknowledgement that this is a problem that is there, that is larger than they think, and that is
affecting far more their students than they realise. And I think until th ey really come to accept that,
then their responses will never be sufficient, because it will never be proportional to the size of the
problem. And so I think that's the first step.

And I would say then, subsequently, that, one of the things that Singapore and that US does well, is that
they're capable of learning from others in areas where we are lacking. It's like how the Singapore army
went to train with the Israeli army, because they could acknowledge that the Israelis had skills that
they didn't have. And it's exactly the same reason why, you know, they go for international conferences,
to improve their pedagogy and all of those other things, to try and learn and to improve.

And as much as Singapore in general tries very hard to like, strive for improvement and innovation,
then, I think this is one of the one of those areas where, like, they actually have a lot to learn. And if
they were proactive enough, like – I think like now right, they're trying to deal with problems as they
come. So like, it’s like students will call for something and then they'll do it. So like, they’ll ask for a
transparent, like ask for transparency, and they’ll ask for report, then they give. Someone asked for our
Staff Code of Conduct, then they give. Someone asked for like, VCU, then they give. It’s very reactive.

Yah. And I think like, that's kind of what I mean by, they need to acknowledge their problems there.
And only then can we be like, actually take like proactive, proportional steps to address it. And I
actually think that there are, I will not say that other universities around the world have found perfect
solutions. But like, at least like, there are things that they can learn.

I'm mentioning this because when the spycam incident happened in CAPT, I was good friends wi th an
exchanger on this floor from Canada, and she was, like, one of the girls that was affected because it

217
 was the bathroom that she was using. And she was so upset by all of this, right? And she had to report
it to her university, of course, because you know, it's a partnership, right? And she said, like, even from
however many like thousands of miles away, the support that she got from her home university was so
much better than what she received from NUS. And she said that, like her home university was furious.

And that part of the reason why like CAPT actually got their game together was pressure from this
external university, that they were saying, like, you've got one of our students under your care, you
have failed to protect her, and you have to step up your game. Yah, because, like, their relations with
like, relationship with this other university was, was, was coming under fire. And like she explained to
me, like some of the things that like, would have happened, if this was her home university, you know,
they would have immediately removed this person from, from campus, they would have immediately
like, brought in like VCU and, and done like, individual support for like, all of the girls, there would
have been no-contact orders that put in like, straightaway, like, and they're not exactly like super
innovative responses. It's nothing that NUS can’t already do. The difference is that it was extremely
proactive. Like every, like, the system was already in place. It's like a fire drill. Like they k now exactly
like how to react so that the student, like, doesn't have that burden placed on them to try and advocate
for themselves.

9.24 Interview 24:

I must say a silver lining from these two (otherwise very unfortunate) incidents is at least that the
public, NUS and its students are more cognizant of sexual harm as an issue, and several shortcomings
of various authorities have been exposed in dealing with it. (It is certainly better than not having the
violations reported or addressed at all, and the victims suffering in silence.)
However, there still seems some reluctance on the part of NUS and other authorities, as they seem to
want to “contain” the issue and avoid too much discussion and/or controversy. While public opinion
have generally have shifted to favour more safeguards for students and action taken against violations,
I’m not sure how much concrete changes are being made at the policy level.

In my opinion sexual harm should be taken as seriously as any other kind of crime — theft, robbery,
physical violence etc. In fact I find it a shame that awareness needs to raised and steps taken to
address it in the first place (though of course it is very necessary). A statement and/or document
endorsed by NUS and accessible to all students clearly defining what sexual harm in campus is and
includes, rather than dealing with them on a case-by-case basis, can establish a certain standard,
clarify expectations for the parties involved, and resolve issues with greater efficiency. Prompt and
transparent action upon the occurrence of violations also will improve the institution’s accountability
towards students whom it is responsible for, as well as act as a clear deterrent in future against
potential perpetrators.

9.25 Interview 25:

I will say generally people are more aware of the importance of having a safe environment and
preventing sexual assault cases; I do hear that such cases used to happen a lot but get covered up or
the victims don't dare to speak up, so the fact that MB had the courage to make it public is a good thing
because NUS has to be more careful in handling of such cases lest they get held accountable by the
students and the public

I think they have already made much improvements after the MB case. But main thing is to protect the
identity of the victims and let them know that it's ok to come forward and report such incidents.
Because even with stronger penalties, it's not much use if victims don't dare to report such incidents for
fear of being exposed.

218
9.26 Interview 26:

NUS has become more transparent in their approach with such topics. They would let the students
know about what happened and what the school has implemented after knowing about what happened.
NUS could perhaps be more sensitive about the victims stance and concerns. NUS can have more
support for the victims as well.

9.27 Interview 27:

There was definitely a shift towards transparency in how they deal with sexual misconduct. However, I
think institutional red tape and other hurdles may still remain, still making it diff icult for victims to
navigate the recourses they can take via the school. They should admit its prevalence. and signal that
do not tolerate sexual violence.

9.28 Interview 28:

What feels like it’s shifted between the two cases is public opinion I guess an d the speed with which
NUS responded. Public pressure works I suppose, and i do remember that I heard abt the JF case thru
official channels faster than with Monica Baey. I’d like if NUS would a) adopt a transformative justice
framework b) recognise the way that sexual harm is entangled in a wider culture which enables it c)
take active steps to facilitate open and safe discussion about sexuality so as to give students the tools to
recognise and resist sexual violence.

9.29 Interview 29:

I guess now punishments are more obvious. Like they are removed from the institution. I think they
should make it clear it’s not permissible to do such things and I think to immediately expel students
who misconduct in such ways should be the only way to go. There shouldn’ t be a space to give them
leeway.

9.30 Interview 30:

First of all, NUS has finally decided to have a concrete sexual misconduct policy. In old conversations,
I heard that AWARE had been trying to propose a policy to NUS for years, but NUS was concerned
that if they implemented it that parents would be concerned about sexual misconduct on campus.

Secondly, I think that conversations about misconduct have become a lot more normalized. In my
freshman year, I was stalked by a peer around campus and had no idea that it was misconduct. In
subsequent years, a lot of efforts were made (especially in Yale-NUS) to increase awareness of
misconduct policies and harmful behaviors. The introduction of KFC and SafeNUS has also made it
easier for students to find resources— even if this isn’t necessarily thanks to NUS.

But, I think that there is a lot more work to be done. NUS’ measures, as I have said before, are very
reactionary in nature and they have made little attempt to have more robust consent trainings. Their
excuse is that the scale of the institution is too large for a more effective consent module. I think there
is still an air of conservativeness when it comes to sexual misconduct as well. Every time the topic
comes up with NUS administrators, it’s almost a taboo and people speak with great caution. Naturally,
that means that there is a lot of stigma still associated with misconduct, and makes it hard for survivors
to feel supported in NUS. The focus of misconduct cases is still the scale of punishment— not
rehabilitation. There are few attempts to help perpetrators reintegrate and to learn from their actions.
Misconduct cases are also filed based on evidence and investigation as a result, because the institution
needs to guarantee that harm was caused to justify the punishment.

219
Restorative justice is so important. It is one thing to discipline perpetrators, but it is an entirely
different conversation to understand how they can be rehabilitated. This requires a lot of work —which
NUS is unwilling to do because it costs a lot to learn and unlearn these old understandings of punitive
‘justice’.

I think there also needs to be greater distinctions between different forms of misconduct. Harm can be
psychological and emotional, not just physical. A lot of the onus to provide evidence that harm has
been done also falls on the survivor. We need to believe survivors more, and to support them through
their own recovery. One thing that Yale-NUS does that I think is useful in this case is that our
counselling center offers students referrals to external counselors in the case that students feel more
safe/comfortable seeking help outside the institution. These sessions are still covered by the school (up
to 4 sessions per year). This is a potential solution of divorcing survivor support from the NUS
institution, especially if survivors are uncomfortable being associated with the support center. But this
also requires that NUS acknowledge that the comfort of the survivor is more important than
institutional intervention.

THE END

220