We refer to the commentary “Posters too cre-AIDS-ive”, by Mr Dennis Nilsson (Campus Observer, 27 Oct 06).
The author mentioned that HPB had declined comment on the issue of abstinence when he contacted HPB.
We would like to highlight that HPB had not been contacted by Mr Dennis Nilsson or any other journalist from Campus Observer on this topic. [See editor’s comments below.] We had only received an email dated 27 Oct 06, 12.56 am enquiring the aims and objectives of the STOMPAIDS Challenge. HPB replied on 27 Oct 06 at 3.24 pm. Please refer to the attached email correspondences.
We thank your writers and readers for the feedback about the controversial messages and graphics and we welcome this opportunity to clarify the objective of the Challenge and HPB’s messages regarding HIV/AIDS. HPB’s focus for its HIV/AIDS message includes both the abstinence message and the use of condom for a comprehensive message. Firstly, practising high-risk sexual behaviour (e.g. casual sex, having sex with sex workers and sex with multiple partners) increases your risk of getting STI/HIV infection; secondly, the best protection against STI/HIV infection is to abstain from high risk sexual behaviour and thirdly, using a condom to protect yourself if you are already sexually active to reduce your risk of infection.
We are mindful that it is ultimately an issue of personal choice. Hence, we had informed the students that their marketing strategies should include messages on abstinence as well as safe sex to give youths a holistic message on protection and prevention against infection, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions.
We share your concern about some of the messages of Cre-Aids-ive being controversial. Hence, we had stipulated that all the participating teams of the STOMPAIDS Challenge, including Cre-Aids-ive, seek clearance from their respective educational institutions which would be able to better ascertain if the messages would be too controversial for their students. Cre-Aids-ive had received clearance from the relevant authorities in NUS before executing their ideas and putting up the posters to publicise their event.
On the poster of a group of men behaving intimately, HPB had communicated, through its agency commissioned to organise this challenge, to the students to remove this poster from the Challenge. However, there was a lapse of communication and it was unfortunately not omitted.
We understand that Cre-Aids-ive had formulated their marketing ideas after gathering informal feedback from fellow students on what they felt was important and would catch their attention to motivate them to reduce high-risk activities.
We hope this clarifies the issues. We request that this reply be published in the Campus Observer, in print and on the website. We feel that it is imperative that it should be clarified and put on record that HPB had not declined comment and also to reply to your readers’ queries and concerns.
Thank you.
Yours sincerely
PATRICIA WOO
Deputy Director, Corporate Communications
Health Promotion Board Editor’s Note: The reporter stands by his story. The first contact he made with the Health Promotion Board was via a telephone call to the HPB general access phone line, where his request for an immediate comment or to speak to somebody who would be in a position to do so was turned down. He was instead told to send an email request, which he did. HPB did eventually reply to the reporter’s email request, but that reply came after the story was published. A subsequent email communication to the reporter from the HPB acknowledged that telephone call. |
