The NUS Town Hall on Sexual Misconduct took place on the 25th of April. In the email circulated to students, organizers of the meeting stated that they would (a) gather your feedback and concerns about sexual misconduct on campus and (b) share... NUS’ investigation and disciplinary procedures, and the sanctions framework for sexual misconduct.

In spite of clearly stating their goals of the meeting, when asked about the current procedure following a case of sexual misconduct, one of the facilitators declined to answer, claiming that answering the question was unnecessary, as a review committee was already in the midst of formulating new laws- clearly not understanding that students wanted an explanation for prior failures of the NUS administration when handling cases of sexual misconduct. This perhaps justifies the skepticism of many of those who, in speaking up, also demanded concrete assurances that the administration made sure that changes promised would be put into place.

Here are some of my takeaways from the Town Hall.

The Good

1. Monica Baey's speech. The first of the speakers, she confidently put forward suggestions based on tried and tested measures, setting the tone for the rest of the conference

2. Below are some of the measures which were suggested during this Town Hall:

Punitive: Suspension of perpetrators for the length of time the victim has not graduated; a no-contact order; an official record tied to a perpetrator detailing his offences; possibility of expulsion, which the facilitators implied was not ruled out

Security: Full length shower cubicles, questioning the ability to enforce a ban from school residences

Victim Support: a 24/7 center dedicated to assisting sexual assault victims; easier access to university mental health services; suggested emulating AWARE's current measures

Education: standardized courses initiated by the management and implemented university wide

3. "You want us to lock the door properly when we bathe or what?", replied one student, in response to the facilitators suggesting that students could receive training on how to respond in sexual assault situations.

4. Incompetency of NUS in handling sexual harassment cases was exposed. A number of students came up to share their stories and NUS' mishandling of their cases. One speaker recounted how a rape whistle was handed to a victim as a solution, whilst another talked about how her case was silently dropped after a month. Another victim also stated that she was interviewed by adult males and asked questions like "which side did he squeeze first?". A student also raised the observation that although 13 of the 26 sexual harassment/ assault cases involved repeat offenders, no expulsion was ever meted out.

The Bad

1. Constant deferment to the Review Committee. Whenever questions were asked about whether certain actions could be taken, the facilitators declined to answer, citing that it was the responsibility of the Review Committee. Whilst it is understandable that facilitators would be unable to give an on-the-spot reply, it is also only reasonable that NUS already have potential suggestions in place that could be discussed in the meeting.

2. A request to extend the meeting was denied. A representative of the NUS Student Union requested for an extension, citing the number of questions the student body had yet to put to the board. However, due to having scheduled a meeting immediately after the Town Hall at 630 (the Town Hall was scheduled to end at 630), the facilitators declined. At best, this was a failure to take into account the possibility of a delay, even despite having knowledge of the scale of the dissatisfaction amongst the student body. At worst, this was another example of NUS not taking matters like these seriously.

3. The interruption of a victim sharing her testimony. At the end of the Town Hall, a victim came up to share her story of sexual assault in the campus and the mishandling of it by NUS. Having said barely two sentences, she was interrupted by one of the facilitators, who suggested to the victim that the opportunity to tell her story in a more private setting was available. Whilst well-intentioned, the facilitator seemed to ignore the fact that the victim began her speech with how she had waited three years to share her story. As self-evident as it was, it somehow did not occur to the facilitator that the victim bravely coming up to speak to an entire lecture hall of people implied that the victim wanted her story to be made public, for the sake of fellow victims- in spite of the possible harm caused to herself- and the facilitator made this process even harder by interrupting the victim midway.

4. The guy who argued that if Nicholas were to be now given a harsher punishment, it would set a precedent for other cases where the degree of severity of a sentence would be proportionate to how well a victim articulated herself. This is not the first time I've heard this. In fact, many articles circulating right now hold this position in the name of "rationality". This, however, is premised on a blatant untruth. If Nicholas were to be given a harsher punishment now, it would set a precedent for all future perpetrators to be dealt equally, regardless of the eloquence of the victim or public outrage. These arguments tend to argue that our thirst for vengeance is what makes this whole situation unjust, failing to see the bigger picture. Not only is this for Monica, it is for the thousands of sexual assault cases that our universities will inevitably see in the years to come.

The Ugly

1. Professor ______________

At the very beginning, her apology seemed forced and rehearsed. Unfortunately, it seemed that her apology was the only thing she rehearsed for. She was also dismissive, very obviously shutting down a speaker with mild tourette's (correct me if I was wrong in identifying this) and not addressing points put by other speakers, simply moving on to the next person. Perhaps most laughably, she did not know what the term "doxxing" referred to, and blamed it on it being the lingo of the young. A simply google search for "doxxing", if one is in Singapore, would show articles by The Straits Times and AsiaOne in reference to this case. As the person in charge of "establishing procedures to investigate and manage sexual misconduct", her ignorance and attitude as facilitator is disappointing.

To say that the first Town Hall was a failure would be an understatement. Here's to hoping the next one would be less of a disappointment.