Like many around the nation, AWARE was distressed to hear about the experiences of Monica Baey, as she suffered first a voyeuristic violation in her National University of Singapore hall, then received unsatisfactory recourse to justice from school and police officials.

As with all sexual violence cases, our primary concern is for the survivor—so to begin with, we have been in communication with Monica and have ascertained her physical and psychological well-being.

We commend Monica’s bravery in speaking up about a situation she believed to be unfair, at the risk of reliving the trauma of her harassment and putting herself out into the public eye. Each survivor makes her own choice about whether or not to share her experience—there is no single correct way to respond to sexual violence—but in this case, Monica’s actions have shone a light on the subject of on-campus harassment in a way that will hopefully help other potential victims.

We are glad, as well, to hear Education Minister Ong Ye Kung’s Facebook statement that the “two strikes and you’re out” policy employed by NUS for sexual misconduct “cannot be the standard application”. The current precedent at NUS, evidenced by the many cases it has dealt with in recent years, is clearly inadequate.

What is the appropriate punishment for a sexual harassment perpetrator? This is difficult for an outside party to prescribe; every case must be considered in and of itself. That said, based on what is known about this case, AWARE believes that a conditional warning was not a sufficient punishment.

There are many questions surrounding this particular incident, and we hope more information will be forthcoming—such as, for example, some of the criteria considered by the police when they handle sexual voyeurism cases, and their general approach to investigating these cases. We also don’t know at this point what exact processes were in place at NUS.

Regardless, we believe it to be critical that a university:

a) Prioritises the safety of survivors and others at risk of harm
b) Has in place a strong protocol that is fair to all parties—one that ensures the safety of survivors, presumes that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and can take effect sensitively and on a timely basis
c) Is as transparent as possible about its procedures, so that even if an outcome does not please everyone, the process can be seen to be fair
d) Communicates clearly—for example, keeping the affected parties updated at all stages. A case of sexual violence is stressful for all concerned, and everyone wants assurance that the university is taking things seriously.

In the past, many educators and administrators were completely untrained to handle cases of sexual assault. However, in a post-#MeToo world, with society more aware of and discerning about the complexities of sexual abuse, all Institutes of Higher Learning must get their act together—before incidents like this one develop, not after. With social media readily available to survivors and bystanders, it’s clear that an institution lacking proper systems will be called out sooner or later.

It is a huge, but wholly necessary, endeavour to establish strong policies and practices in a university community, and nurture a culture of consent and respect in the long run. We encourage all institutions to solicit the all-important input of its students, faculty and staff when undertaking this, and to make use of available resources at AWARE and elsewhere.

Lastly, we believe that it behooves the public to reflect on our own actions when we seek justice on behalf of a sexual assault survivor. Bystanders, outraged as they may be at an unjust situation, can usually afford a measure of graciousness and compassion. Nicholas Lim’s actions were incontrovertibly wrong, and prima facie, they warranted stronger punishment than he received at the hands of authorities—an injustice created at an institutional level, that speaks of a far deeper, more systemic problem than one perpetrator.