Enhancing Measures to Prevent Sexual Harassment in Schools and Institutes of Higher Learning

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) what measures were put in place to reduce sexual harassment and misconduct in Autonomous Universities and polytechnics after reports of sexualised harassment during orientation activities in 2016; (b) what steps were taken to review these measures subsequently; (c) what were the shortcomings; (d) what steps have been taken to improve; and (e) what further steps are planned.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the forms of training provided at educational institutions to address sexual harassment and assault cases, including support for victims; (b) what are the measures to support victims; (c) what are the policies pertaining to investigating allegations of sexual harassment and assault; and (d) what are the procedures in place to review the effectiveness of such measures and to propose improvements.

Minister Ong addressed questions relating to the disciplinary frameworks in the Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and the reviews that the IHLs, including the Autonomous Universities (AUs) are undertaking. I will now address the other questions raised in relation to sexual misconduct in educational institutions.

Ms Tin Pei Ling asked about the prevention of sexual harassment in school settings. Students' safety and well-being are our priority. Schools take a firm stand against sexual harassment and exercise judgement to ensure that disciplinary actions reflect the circumstances of each case. Depending on the facts of the case, a Police report may be made.

Beyond disciplinary measures, students are taught to identify risks to their personal safety and learn to seek help from trusted adults, such as their parents and teachers. Teachers are trained to look out for signs of distress and provide victims first-line help. Both students and teachers are supported by school counsellors and other external agencies, where required. MOE works with the schools regularly to ensure that support measures are relevant and effective.

The other areas of concern raised by Ms Foo Mee Har, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap and Mr Leon Perera and which I will now address is what support is currently available in IHLs for the victims of sexual offences and whether it is sufficient, as well as what measures are being taken to ensure a safe environment for all students on campus.

In terms of support, the first and most fundamental thing to understand is that sexual misconduct can have a lasting psychological and emotional impact on victims. The sense of violation and fear that victims – male and female – experience is real and can be crippling. For many, the road to recovery can be long and painful. It takes courage for any victim to come forward and report the incident. There must be strong end-to-end support for victims, starting from the time they step forward to report an incident, to post-incident counselling and psychological support.

The recent case reported by NUS student Monica Baey shows that insofar as NUS is concerned, there were shortcomings in victim support and there were clearly areas which were lacking. NUS has acknowledged this and has committed to doing better. NUS is serious about improving its frameworks and processes and has convened a high-level Review Committee to oversee the implementation of various measures by NUS management. One of the immediate steps is the establishment of a Victim Care Unit.

The other IHLs are similarly concerned and are in the process of reviewing their support for victims with a focus on ensuring that the support provided is holistic, timely and accessible. For example, some IHLs have in place 24-hour helplines for incident reporting or counselling services. These ensure that victims or any distressed students receive timely support, even if they come forward outside regular office hours.

As the IHLs do their reviews, there are three broad areas of focus.

First, support for victims. All the IHLs have full-time counsellors on site to support victims, as well as a larger group of staff who are trained as para-counsellors to provide additional support. Counsellors are also trained in managing such difficult situations sensitively.

Our IHLs will look to strengthen these provisions, taking the victim's entire journey in mind. The support must extend beyond counselling and begin at the point that the victim first reaches out for help. We should also ensure victims feel safe to step forward and report cases when they occur and seek help.

A good support system must create psychological safety for victims, guide them through the processes and protocols involved in the management of their case, update them on investigations and ensure that their concerns and questions are addressed along the entire journey. All these must be done sensitively and with empathy.

We also need to recognise that individuals have different resilience and coping levels and that some of the trauma and stress might not manifest immediately. For more severe cases, such as sexual assault, our IHLs will need to be equipped to make judgement calls about the victims’ emotional state and quickly call for external professional help where needed. These are important details that will have to be worked out carefully.

Second, campus security to deter would-be offenders. Currently, CCTVs complement campus security guards to ensure security in common areas and some institutions take the additional precautionary measure of having controlled access to female bathrooms and toilets.

More will be done. Over this past week, NUS started installing full-height doors and partitions in the restrooms of all its hostels and sports facilities, as well as new locks at the entrances of the hostel restrooms. Additional CCTV cameras are being installed at more locations on campus. NUS will deploy more security guards at its hostels and introduce roving security patrols across campus. These changes will further strengthen privacy and security on campus.

NUS expects to complete these enhancements in the coming months. As part of their overall review of campus security, the IHLs will take steps to address new forms of threats, such as the illegal installation of miniature cameras. For example, SUSS is collaborating with SPF to train its security staff to inspect toilet cubicles or ceilings for such cameras.

Third, ensuring a collective stand against sexual misconduct in a modern age.

At its core, the issue is about respect for others. There are some who mistakenly think that voyeurism and verbal harassment are not serious because there is no physical contact with the victims. And this is very simply, just wrong. Voyeurism and other unwanted non-physical harassment exact psychological and emotional harm on victims and, similar to other types of sexual misconduct, have no place in our society. Perpetrators are no less culpable just because they did not come into physical contact with their victims.

We can and, therefore, must do better to educate students not only on the importance of respect, but also what constitutes harm and violation. The IHLs are committed to this and will be taking steps to strengthen such education. For instance, NUS will be introducing a course on respect and consent at the start of the new academic year for all students, faculty and staff.

Technology has also amplified the potential for harm arising from sexual misconduct. Take voyeurism, for example. With image-capturing devices becoming ubiquitous, especially on mobile phones, such crimes are no longer contained between the victim and perpetrator, and the potential for mass dissemination is much higher. We are updating the Penal Code to deal with technology-enabled sex crimes. Institutional processes must likewise keep up with the times.

Institutions and organisations must also recognise that expectations of how they should respond are changing, not just in Singapore but globally. The “me too” movement is an example. As societal norms and expectations change, all organisations need to keep up with the times, send clear signals that sexual misconduct is unacceptable and equip themselves to deal with sexual misconduct complaints appropriately should they arise.

At the end of the day, the best deterrent and protection in such cases is if we respect others, both in the physical and emotional space, and conduct ourselves accordingly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have two supplementary questions for the Minister. I think it is good to hear about installing more CCTVs, doors and so on. Those are hardware, infrastructure. I would like to ask is there a more deep-rooted culture of sexual harassment in our campuses. If there is, what action is going to be taken to eliminate this deep-rooted culture of sexual harassment?

The second question is, I think what we need is education, or even a campaign on zero tolerance towards sexual harassment. So, in this aspect, is there anything that can be done?

The first question is whether there is a deep-rooted trend of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a type of sexual misconduct. There are several types: outrage of modesty, sexual assault, sexual harassment. At the AUs, the big bulk, about two-thirds, is still voyeurism. Based on the data I gave just now, there has not been a rising trend in the last three years. However, I do also acknowledge all the explanations that some of the literature has given including the "Big Read" article in TODAY that I mentioned earlier, that the young today grow up with Internet, they are exposed to pornographic websites, they know of miniature photography and recording devices, and sometimes, they get these materials through their WhatsApp. Over time, they may have the idea that "Actually, this is no big deal". This is what we worry about. It has not manifested in terms of higher incidence rates – at least not over the last three years. But we do worry about this underlying trend.

I do agree with the Members – we need to send a strong signal. It has to be a combination of measures between what I and Second Minister Indranee have talked about, tougher penalties, education, improving the physical security as well as better support for both the victims as well as, sometimes, for the offenders in counselling them and helping them turn over a new leaf.

I have two questions for Minister Ong. The first is, had this incident not been taken on the social media and gained so much attention, would the Ministry and AUs have taken actions to review the disciplinary framework? The second question is, the Minister mentioned that the AUs are now undergoing this full review. When they are ready, would the Ministry ensure that the revisions are adequate and serve their purpose?

Okay, I see. Should we not have done this earlier, in other words. The AUs do review their disciplinary framework from time to time. NUS' framework was reviewed about five years ago, and it was probably due for review. But I think what this incident has taught all of us is that there is a stronger concern and some underlying trends. I think we do need to make it tougher at the egregious end of the offence. Should we have done this earlier? I wish we had but I think there are many things that we do, sometimes, ahead of time, and we are also being questioned, "Why do you do it now?", "Aren't you going to open up other problems?" In this case, unfortunately, that did not happen but I think what is more important is immediate action is being taken now. I am confident that there will be swift and decisive actions.

The second question is how we would know if the measures will be adequate. I think after this furore, the AUs all understand the implications of this. I have given them my written advice and policy guidance that they have to do a thorough review. I am sure all of them will take it very seriously.

Mr Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Minister, I thought 37 cases of voyeurism over three years was quite a lot. Frankly, I am quite disappointed that the AUs did not take earlier action to review their processes to better deal with the complaints. I am wondering would the Minister review why the AUs did not take further action, having seen the number of cases that have been reported over the three years. If we do not get to the root of the problem, then whatever we do, the AUs will not do anything to review the process until the matter goes up to social media. That is one point. Two other queries.

Can the reported cases of voyeurism be publicised in campus newsletters to alert students of the extent of the problem?

And also, whether the Minister will consider asking the AUs to publicise the punishment of offenders to students in the AUs, so that there is also a learning message for everyone that there is some deterrent effect. Potential offenders must know that there would be appropriate punishment for them.

The first question is again, looking back, why did we not realise that was serious? Of course, we wish that there was a realisation that these are serious offences. Voyeurism is a rising concern. But having said that, today, after this incident, I believe that the AUs are all very aware and I am confident that they will do something swift and decisive. I am confident of that. And we will work closely with them.

As to publicising the punishment, NUS has actually been publicising the cases, the sexual misconduct cases and the punishment that has been meted out to them. It is available on their students' website; which is why after the latest incident, there were several press reports about past cases, because it was publicly available within the NUS website. I think we can publicise but fundamentally, as what I have mentioned, the penalties are just not stiff enough. We just need to toughen them up and send a strong signal that at the most egregious end of the offences, there must be very stiff punishment.

I have one supplementary question for Second Minister Indranee. Minister Indranee alluded to the infrastructural changes that are happening in the NUS now, the retrofitting of the shower cubicles, the locks, additional security cameras and so on. It is a shame that it took this incident of Ms Monica Baey coming forward before these changes are actually made given the number of voyeurism offences that have taken place in the previous years. My supplementary question would be, are these infrastructural changes to enhance security being done across the board for all the IHLs? And is there a time frame for this to be carried out?

The short answer is that all the IHLs are reviewing their security arrangements. In the case of NUS, they have already embarked on it. They are expected to be completed in the coming months. For the other AUs, they will have to complete their review. But the short answer is that they are all looking at it and their priority is to make sure that the campus is safe for students.

Can I asked the Minister, given that this is happening across all the AUs and maybe other IHLs, are we looking to introduce codes and standards to Universities and IHLs to help them prevent and manage sexual harassment on campus? The second question is, are we considering, given the numbers that you have shared, a kind of cross-campus body that would help to manage such incidents? I am wondering because a student does not stay in a University if he has been found to have committed a misconduct or act. Would he then go to another University? And so, is there this cross-campus sharing of information and therefore, that warrants a body to be set up?

I think the first thing to remember is that it does not take codes and regulations to understand that taking videos of somebody bathing is wrong. That is not rocket science. It just needs certain fundamental values which is that you must respect other people, respect their privacy, respect their physical space, respect their emotional space. So, we can and the AUs will be embarking, as I had mentioned in my earlier response, on better education for the students. But fundamentally, it boils down to values. That is a function partly of parents, partly schools and teachers and the individual himself or herself. Because if you adhere to that, you do not actually need to have codes and regulations.

The key thing is really making sure that individuals understand that something like this is not a light offence, is not a light thing. It will be taken seriously and it will be dealt with seriously and appropriately as well. There is also the other aspect which is rehabilitation. In some cases, either they have a problem that needs to be dealt with and it may require counselling, it may require additional treatment for those who are mentally not well, so that is another aspect that we will be looking at.

Values, education, rehabilitation.

Mr Speaker, I have a follow-up question for Second Minister Indranee on the security arrangement at the hostels. I understand that the student in the controversy of this NUS Peeping Tom incident said that he was at the hostel after midnight with the intention to stay over at his girlfriend's hostel room, even though he was not a resident of the hostel. I would like to ask what is the security arrangement for the NUS hostel and the hostels at the other Universities. Would they allow people to go into the hostels after midnight and what is the response from the Universities?

The students can and do visit their friends in other hostels. So, I think that this particular incident will be cause for the Universities to reflect on how that arrangement should be managed. Obviously, you do not want to prevent friends from coming to see each other, but the proper recording and the security arrangements for that should be in place. So, in short, as a result of this, I think the Universities will be reviewing much more closely.

I just want to add that we need to take some firm measures, but be careful not to over-react to the extent of not allowing students to visit each other or staying over. This is, after all, university campuses. I think we can have a lively campus without having all the dangers and security lapses, which we will tighten up.

Mr Speaker, I have three supplementary questions for the Minister. I appreciate the discretion that the respective AUs have to review their procedures in the light of Monica Baey's ordeal. I would like to ask the Minister would he think that there is room for some form of minimum standards that MOE could prescribe to the respective boards that are reviewing the different measures, to ensure they have some kind of minimum standards to which disciplinary actions that will be meted out. This is to send that strong signal that the Minister referred to. Secondly, on the safety measures, what would be some minimum standards where people who live in the Halls would have to observe? Last but not least, what would be some of the minimum standards on training and imparting of skills for the counsellors dealing with this sensitive matter of people being subjected to sexual harassment?

I think we also need to respect the fact that they are Autonomous Universities having their own boards and governing themselves in a fairly independent way, separate from MOE. So, for us to issue standards or codes or rules to the Universities would not be appropriate. We can do that for Polytechnics because they are Statutory Boards, and we can do that for ITE. But for AUs, they are differently incorporated and structured.

Having said that, when I first issued my public statement that the penalties are manifestly inadequate, I think they all understood the standard that I was looking for. I am sure we will work together, not by MOE issuing rules and regulations but through discussion, moral suasion, I am sure we can come up with something feasible, workable and effective.

Mr Speaker, just two questions for the Minister. The first is on the issue of standards. The concern here is that what attracts a suspension in one University might only attract a reprimand or expulsion in another. Then, there would be a sense of injustice that the Universities differ significantly on the standards. And that is why I think it is important that MOE does come in with this suasion and coordinated approach.

The second question is that I think when we look at the disciplinary committees, there is some concern that they may not have the right expertise or skills to discharge all of their functions because, frankly, they are not the Police or the Attorney-General's Chambers. They are not professional adjudicators or finders of facts. So, I wonder what can the Ministry do here to ensure that these committees have the skills necessary to interview the parties concerned, to investigate and to assure the public that justice is being done here.

The first question of inconsistencies across AUs, I would not call it inconsistencies. Different AUs may well have slightly differently disciplinary actions, just as different companies would have different disciplinary actions when there are offences. Having said that, researchers and academics stick to the discipline of peer review very closely and I have no doubt in this aspect, there will be some peer review going on.

The second question is expertise. The disciplinary boards of the review committees will need to have certain members, including having student representatives. But of course, if they need enforcement or legal advice, I am sure they can ask for it and they are able to tap on it. After all, it is a university; lots of different talent in different expertise. So, I think we need to give them some time, some space to get their work done.