From my understanding, "abstinence" is the key message under requirements of the StompAIDS competition guidelines. I believe we should step back from being moralistic on the issue and focus on how to persuade people most likely to be at risk of infection.

I agree with Mr Sim we should not "raise awareness of a social problem using another social problem as a backdrop" , research have shown that the incidence rate of AIDS and other STDs is indeed increasing in the particular age group under 25 years old in Singapore. I am part of a
research team which submitted our proposal for the StompAIDS project.
 
Our conducted research is on the perceptions, knowledge and sexual behaviour of NUS students based on 1% of student population (240 NUS students across faculties).  Our results have shown that NUS students are sexually active. Six-in-ten (60%) students have had or know somebody who has had casual sex.

There is also indication that NUS students are likely to engage in risky sexual behaviours. Six-in-ten (61%) students have engaged or know somebody who had engaged in unprotected sex. Many do feel that it is normal to have sexual intercourse.

The problem is that when these people practice risky sexual behaviour without any protection. Left unchecked or unaddressed, they end up infecting themselves, their partners and future spouses.

In my opinion, there will never be a proper anti-AIDS campaign. I feel that this one is not afraid of showing the hard facts of life. We should not be living in our shoeboxes. What we do not see happening, does not mean is not happening.  

It goes the same for issues like homosexuality and sexual activity. It is the brutal fact of NUS students isn't it? Should we pretend such behaviour is not happening and go our merry world in our sanitized bubble?

All in all, unless anyone conduct a longitudinal post-test, it remains to be seen whether the anti-AIDS message is being received by theaudience caused corrective behavioural change whether in protecting themselves or abstaining totally.

I don't believe the poster did more damage. I believe they reflect to a certain extent what is possibly happening in real-life among NUS students. By reading the posters as stereotypical will be taking a "moral stance" raised up by Mr. Sim. 

The poster's aim is not to make homosexuality or prostitution synonymous with AIDS. These group of people form a significant number that are high-risk to infection should they not protect themselves.  And the general public must know that.

I do not feel there is a climate of fear instilled simply by these 3 ads.  I will like to see to what extent "a moral panic" has been created in the general public. NUS students are discerning and mature enough to make their informed decisions and will not be so quick to condemn just because of the posters.

Like Mr. Sim, i believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one should enforce them lest we become moralistic zealots. I agree we should promote the message of abstinence, but we must take great care not to slap down the moralistic sentence on those who don't subscribe to our beliefs. Whether the posters do that is up to the level of each individual's level of competence and clarity of mind in reading it.

On a side-note, with this furore over the StompAIDS campaign, can we say that the organisers and Health Promotion Board have reached their aim?