1. We learned today that NUS, in the case of Jeremy Fernando, filed a police report about Fernando’s misconduct, despite the two survivors’ unwillingness to do so.

We have heard from some NUS students, as well as other netizens, who are disappointed by this decision by NUS.

2. It's not clear why NUS went ahead and filed the police report. It may be that NUS felt legally obligated to do so, because of Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which imposes a duty on those made aware of a crime to report it, unless they have a “reasonable excuse”.

3. We understand why some are upset at NUS’s actions. From a trauma-informed, survivor-centric perspective it's not ideal to file a report if a sexual assault survivor is reluctant. A key factor in healing from trauma is regaining a sense of control, which assault tends to erode.

4. Survivors should, as far as possible, be allowed to exert agency in their own cases. This should be an essential principle for support services; after all, a survivor would be less inclined to access support, even if she needed it, from a service that disregarded her consent.

5. Hence, at our Sexual Assault Care Centre, staff allow clients to make up their own minds about reporting, and we do not ourselves file reports on their behalf (outside of exceptional situations in which a client is in imminent danger, or a minor).

6. (As to why assault survivors may not want to file police reports, there are many reasons for this—they might assess that they do not have enough evidence to win the case, or they might be put off by the well-documented arduousness of the criminal justice system.)

7. Regarding mandatory reporting: We know that many organisations and individuals do not follow Section 424—e.g. within corporations, many instances of sexual misconduct are not reported—so there is great inconsistency in its practice.

8. We ourselves have struggled with this practice because, as explained above, it runs counter to our effectiveness as a counselling provider.

Alongside orgs like Beyond Social Services, AWARE has previously asked the Government to clarify this section...

9. May counselling centres be excused from this duty 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.

10. As for the NUS case, it would be good to know:

- Has mandatory reporting always been the NUS policy, and for what types of cases?

- Was this policy clear to the survivors from the start?

- Did the Victim Care Unit notify the survivors that the school would file a report?

11. - If the nature of the offence was criminal, as the police report suggests, why does NUS’s statement merely refer to an “intimate association with an undergraduate”? The survivors’ own accounts suggest something more akin to assault.

12. 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.