On Wednesday (Oct. 21), the National University of Singapore (NUS) released a statement about Jeremy Fernando, a former non-residential teaching staff of the Tembusu College who was fired for having an "intimate association with an undergraduate".

In the statement, NUS revealed that the two students who lodged complaints against Fernando for sexual misconduct opted not to report the matter the police, and that NUS separately made a police report.

On Thursday (Oct. 22), gender equality advocacy group Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE) questioned NUS's decision to proceed with a police report when the students themselves did not choose to do so, and sought clarifications about Fernando's case.

Questioned mandatory reporting

AWARE stated that "it is not clear why NUS went ahead and filed the police report", speculating that it could be that the university felt legally obligated to do so.

Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that anyone aware of a crime must report it, unless they have a "reasonable excuse" not to.

AWARE explained that, from a "trauma-informed, survivor-centric perspective", it is not ideal to file a report if the survivor of sexual assault is reluctant to do so.

This is because an important part of healing from trauma is regaining a sense of control that has been lost during the assault.

The NGO explained that there are many reasons for why assault survivors may opt not to file police reports, such as assessing that they do not have enough evidence to win the case, or because of how arduous the process of going through the criminal justice system can be.

"Survivors should, as much as possible, be allowed to exert their own autonomy and agency in their own cases," said AWARE.

This principle is essential for support services for victims of trauma, the statement said, because survivors of trauma will likely be less inclined to seek out support from a service that will force them to act against their will.

AWARE stated that at their Sexual Assault Care Centre, the staff allow clients to decide if they want to report, and do not ourselves file reports on their behalf, other than in "exceptional situation" in which the client is in imminent danger, or a minor.

Sought clarifications about Fernando case

AWARE asked whether mandatory reporting has always been NUS's policy, and for what types of cases.

The NGO also questioned whether the policy was made clear to the affected students from the start, and whether NUS's Victim Care Unit notified the students that the university would be filing a police report.

In addition, the organisation raised the question of why NUS's statement referred to the situation as an "intimate association with an undergraduate" if the offence was a criminal one, given that a police report was submitted and both survivors' accounts suggested it was more similar to assault.

AWARE called for more NUS to be more clear, sensitive, and communicative:

"While we commend the university for empowering its Victim Care Unit to give specialised support to the survivors, and keeping their privacy and confidentiality a priority throughout the case, more clarity, sensitivity and consistent communication would be useful."

Many organisations and individuals do not follow mandatory reporting

AWARE also noted that many organisations and individuals do not follow Section 424, and that there is "great inconsistency in its practice".

For example, the NGO said, instances of sexual misconduct may not be reported within corporations.

Together with other organisations such as Beyond Social Services, AWARE has previously asked the government for clarification on Section 424 and whether counselling centres may be excused if there is "no imminent risk of harm" to the client.

"We ask again for such a clarification, to prevent further confusion and stress for both services and clients," AWARE said in the statement.

We deliver more stories to you on LinkedIn

Top photos via NUS.