Cherian George
Prof Cherian George

Former Nanyang Technological University (NTU) professor Cherian George revealed in a blog post that his denial of tenure at the university in 2013 could have been politically motivated, when he found it necessary to respond to remarks made recently by university president Bertil Andersson that could potentially hurt his academic standing.

In an interview with Times Higher Education, Prof Andersson said, “Dr George “was subjected to the same scrutiny as everyone else” in the institution’s tenure process. He added that “one can have different opinions if that academic decision [by] our tenure committee was right or not. That is an academic decision. But the decision was not political.”

Writing in his blog post, Prof George had asked Prof Andersson to retract his statement, to which he eventually issued a clarification that “there was no intention to lower the reputation or standing of Dr George in his field of work”.

“This fails to reduce the sting of his published remarks,” wrote Prof George. “They amount to a statement by the NTU president that the reason I was forced to leave his university was that I was unable to meet its academic standards required for tenure.”

The issue here does not boil down to “different opinions”, as he suggests, but the following objective facts that contradict his quotes. First, I was assessed to have met the university’s academic criteria for promotion and tenure in 2009. Second, NTU withheld tenure nonetheless. And third, it gave only political and not academic reasons for its decision…

The positive academic assessment of the Provost’s committee materialised in my promotion to Associate Professor in 2009. However, the other half of the recommendation – to grant me tenure – was set aside.

Only political and no academic grounds were ever cited by the university leadership for this 2009 decision. I was told of a “perception” that my critical writing could pose a “reputational risk” to the university in the future.

My subsequent annual performance reviews from 2009-2012 never highlighted any deficiency in research, teaching or service that I was required to address in order to secure tenure. Instead, the only remedial actions discussed with me by any level of the university during that period were that I could perhaps try reaching out to the government, or moving to a role within the university that might be less politically sensitive than journalism education.

Prof George also revealed that NTU had earlier assured him that he would not need to reapply for tenure, as he had already met all the necessary academic criteria. The university was supposed to have reconsidered his case at the right time, but did not do so.

I accepted my school’s decision to renominate me as a way for the university to review and correct the anomaly of 2009. Instead, willful blindness set in – aided by the removal from my tenure application of six pages containing background information about the earlier round. This redaction was done without my consent or knowledge, before internal and external reviewers received my dossier.

Consequently, Prof George felt that Prof Andersson’s remarks were “incorrect, insensitive and injurious to the reputation of a Singaporean forced to reestablish his career outside his home country by his employer’s failure to treat him like other academics.” He is currently teaching at the Hong Kong Baptist University.

Prof George also indicated that he is prepared to waive his rights for personnel confidentiality, and invited Prof Andersson to stand by his interview statements by disclosing the minutes of NTU’s tenure committee in 2009, the reasons given for withholding his tenure in 2010, and his annual appraisals between his first and second tenure applications.

When Prof George was denied tenure a second time in 2013, his students started a petition against the decision that garnered over 1000 signatures, with several of Prof George’s colleagues writing letters of support for his tenure.

While at NTU, Prof George had been a critical voice speaking up publicly on media freedom and Singapore politics

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

政府邀百人组工作组 检讨“新加坡公民之旅”内容

自2011年起,新公民在领取公民证书前,都需参加名为“新加坡公民之旅”(Singapore Citizenship Journey)的活动。 活动由国民融合理事会、人民协会和移民关卡局联合推出。这些活动包括上网了解我国历史背景、政策、参观本地古迹和参与分享会等,旨在协助新公民融入我国。 据了解,目前文化、社区及青年部有意邀请100位来自社会不同背景的新加坡公民,组成工作小组,以探讨上述活动内容,收集意见。 部长傅海燕是在昨日向媒体透露,国民融合理事会在去年迎来十周年,故此探讨上述活动内容适逢其时。 她认为,对于新公民应具备哪些特征,应征询国人意见并达成共识。 例如有者反馈成为新公民定义不应仅限于与新加坡人结婚;加之也应理解我国的社会规范、在这里定居许久或已参与国民服役等。 工作小组将在今年3月至7月间,进行讨论会,而公众也能上网提供意见;之后讲提呈报告书,建议预计年底才逐步落实。 目前国人可在下月21日截止日期前,上网申请成为工作小组成员:https://www.ideas.gov.sg/public/cw_scj

听闻女童疑患病需隔离 携女逃跑双亲机场落网

两岁女儿被检测怀疑感染了武汉肺炎,父母一听立刻找理由拒绝,并逃离医院,惟最后以失败告终,一家人在机场被逮捕。 有关事件于24日晚上,发生于马来西亚柔佛州的新山苏丹后阿米娜医院。 一对中国籍夫妇于当天晚上10时许,带着两岁的女童到私人医院求诊,但是医生建议他们到中央医院去。 夫妻俩到了新山苏丹后阿米娜医院(中央医院)后,院方发现女童出现新型冠状病毒的病症,因此要求将女童送到淡杯柏迈医院的隔离病房,以便作进一步检验。 夫妻在听到女儿要被隔离,当下就向医生表示他们将于隔日乘搭飞机回国,拒绝医生的要求。 诊治负责医生见状,就在他们离去后,向新山南区警局报案。 柔佛州总警长拿督莫哈末卡玛鲁丁证实有关事件,并表示他们在接到投报后已经采取行动,于25日晚上9时20分,在士乃机场将他们逮捕,并且送到医院隔离检测。 马国卫生总监也证实此事件,并表示虽然马国已爆发四宗武汉肺炎确诊病例,但是两岁女童并不在其中。 正等待检测结果 卫生总监诺希山于26日发文告指出,马国首三起确诊病例的患者,分别是65岁的女子,以及11岁和2岁的孩童,与我国的首宗确诊病例患者是亲属。 怀疑案例共有23起,包括14名马国公民,8名中国公民和一名约旦公民。 这23起病例也被归类为“受调查患者”(Patient…

A Political Forum on Singapore’s Future

First aired on Channel News Asia, 2 April 2011 The Mandarin forum,…