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

公开观察名单将“适得其反”?杨莉明推论前后矛盾

外籍PMET(专业人士、经理、执行员与技师)争议闹得沸沸扬扬,人力部称已加大力度对各企业进行审查,并将更多公司列入公平考量框架。 坊间有呼声要求,应公开那些违规雇主,遗憾的是人力部长杨莉明认为,将名单公开反而会“适得其反”,可能降低部分公司聘雇本地人的意愿。 他当时解释,目前有约400家企业,因聘请外籍雇员等问题,被列入公平考量框架的监督名单。人力部调查发现,部分雇主确实不熟悉本地招聘管道,或他们需遵守海外总部的指示。 由于观察名单旨在解决不公平招聘的问题,但匿名的用意似乎又与宗旨言行不一。公开不就是能震慑相关雇主遵守规则,避免更多公众的反弹和负面评价吗?看似合情合理,但这么一说,杨莉明的推理似乎又出现前后矛盾。 其次,为何将名单公布于众会损及国人利益,让公司惧怕聘雇本地人?如果公司真的被列入名单内,他们应该会聘雇更多本地人,尽早让自己脱离观察名单。与此同时,这也传达一项讯息,即本地人反而可以开始向这些公司申请,因为公司内必定有空缺可填补。如此一来,杨莉明的逻辑似乎又出现矛盾。 观察名单若在没有公众的监督下,那观察名单又有何意义?而且公众又该如何确保其问责制和透明度。 杨莉明指出,“如果我们的目的在于希望他们有所改进,那什么方法最有效?公开他们还是持续暂停他们的申请工作证?” 可是为何不能双管齐下?显然其二措施是能够同时进行的。难道双管齐下会显得更无效吗?政府的种种措施真的是在确保公平招聘吗?部长似有若无的行为,无意中散发政府不透明的做法。若真如此,为何部长还要持续模糊不清的做法呢?

Chinese Fugitive hiding in Singapore for 4 years deported

Story from Hainan Phoenix Channel Translated by Terry Xu/ Image by Chen…

疑药方致病患死亡 医生面控

今日,媒体报导一名在小印度一所诊所行医的医生哈利达斯(Haridass Ramdass),因涉嫌导致病患死亡而在法庭面控。 2014年11月24日,病患萨瓦利木都(Savarimuthu Arul Xavier),到哈利达斯的诊所求诊。当时他被注射地塞米松(dexamethasone,一种治疗过敏、呼吸或皮肤问题的类固醇)。 但是,哈利达斯被指未安排病患进行检测,就为他开药方,给他10片的“灭杀除癌锭”(methotrexate (或MTX))。 MTX是化学治疗剂和免疫系统抑制剂。 据了解,哈利达斯医生开的剂量也不符合既定指南的规定。 除了MTX,哈利达斯还领了名为“泼尼松龙”的药(勇于治疗癌症的疾病)和用于对应过敏症状的“氯苯那敏”(chlorpheniramine)。 而因为医生的“轻率判断”,导致病患出现嗜中性白血球低下症(Neutropaenia),没有足够的白血球对抗感染,结果,病患出现粘膜炎和消化系统发炎的症状。 这导致病患在向哈利达斯医生求诊的16天后,侵略性真菌感染而死亡。相信这也是在刑事法典第304A(a)条下,有医生被控因鲁莽行为导致病患死亡。…

【冠状病毒19】教育部:校园五例确诊!四学生一非教职员

据教育部今日(7日)发文告,本地圣公会中学、圣婴加东修道院女校、圣婴德兰女中、崇文中学以及华侨中学,出现五例冠状病毒19确诊。 其中四人是学生,一名是非教职人员,出现轻微症状。教育部指出,这些病例是当局从6月2日开始,为师生进行积极检测时发现的。那些出现急促呼吸道感染(ARI)的教职员和年满12岁的学生,都会接受冠病检测。 虽然上述学生对冠病19呈阳性反应,不过检测显示病毒载量较低,二度检测时也出现阴性反应。共有29名职员、100学生曾与这些确诊病例接触过,他们必须遵守14添缺席假和居家隔离。 这些病例也不列为感染群,五所学校的复课安排也不受影响。 教育部称,学校已制定防疫措施,并展开消毒工作,也指有证据证明这些病例是在阻断措施末期感染,而不是6月2日学校复课后。