cg

“Only political and no academic grounds were ever cited by the university leadership for this 2009 decision,” academic and professor, Cherian George, wrote on his website on 24 December 2014.

He was referring to the decision by the Nanyang Technological University that year to grant him a promotion but to deny him tenure as recommended by its own 2008-09 promotion and tenure committee.

The committee had judged that Prof George, who joined the NTU in 2004, “deserved promotion and tenure.”

Referring to the decision not to grant him tenure, he wrote, “I was told of a ‘perception’ that my critical writing could pose a ‘reputational risk’ to the university in the future.”

From 2009 to 2012, Prof George revealed, the annual performance reviews “never highlighted any deficiency in research, teaching or service” that he 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 wrote.

After a new provost took over NTU in 2012, he was again renominated for tenure.

“I accepted my school’s decision to renominate me as a way for the university to review and correct the anomaly of 2009,” Prof George said. “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.”

Prof George reiterated twice in his clarification that the reason for denying him tenure was not an academic but a political reason.

Prof George’s clarification on his website was a response to a remark in the Times Higher Education website by his former provost at NTU, Bertil Andersson, who had claimed that the denial of tenure to Prof George “was not political”.

The controversy has led to questions about NTU’s integrity as an academic/tertiary institution in general, and of how it had treated Prof George, in particular.

Some have accused the NTU of censorship, or silencing those whose views it may find politically uncomfortable.

Prof George had been vocal about government policies on the media, for example.

But NTU’s action with regards to Prof George is not the first time that it has wielded the heavy axe of censorship for political reasons.

In September 2008, the university yanked an article and a news clip from a student campus newsletter and a broadcast programme respectively.

The reports were to feature the visit by opposition party leader, Chee Soon Juan, who had visited the campus a month earlier.

As The Online Citizen (TOC) reported then:

“After much negotiation between the paper’s teacher-advisors and the university, NTU president Su Guaning gave the article the go-ahead. However, he changed his mind at the last minute, and the article was removed just one day before the newspaper’s publication on Monday (15th September). Many of the student editors at the Chronicle were clearly indignant when they learnt about this.”

TOC also added:

“According to Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, Chair of NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI), which runs both campus media, the university’s position is that the story was killed because “there was a feeling of concern over the use of student media to publicise and promote the unsolicited views of an uninvited person to the campus.”

The incident resulted in the setting up of a Facebook group, the draping of a “Media Blackout” protest banner within the School of Communication & Information (SCI) compound by the students, as well as the setting up of an independent online newspaper called “The Enquirer” by a separate group of SCI students.

The students also took to Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park to protest against the university’s actions. (See here.)

ntuprotest

In 2009, another incident of censorship occurred in NTU.

This time, student Loo Zihan had wanted to have a poster displayed during the convocation ceremony, but this was denied by the school.

“The original draft of my speech was composed of words like “integrity” and “breaking new boundaries” , said Mr Loo Zihan in his valedictorian speech at the Nanyang Technological University graduation ceremony then, “but a recent incident put a reality check on what I have to say.”

He was dismayed by the university’s decision as the poster had earlier been displayed at the school for two weeks without any problems.

looAccording to the Straits Times, “the poster for his film “Threshold” shows a shirtless man standing at a basin while hands from behind hold his left shoulder and waist. A mirror in front of him shows the reflection of another man.”

Mr Loo withdrew the poster rather than subject it to any changes for it to be exhibited.

“As artists, we should not only strive to produce great art – but also bear responsibility for the art we produce. Otherwise, we betray ourselves, and our audiences,” he said.

The film was created as part of his thesis.

[Read the report here: “NTU student protests against school’s censorship in graduation speech”]

Meanwhile, Prof George left Singapore last year for a post at the School of Communication in Baptist University in Hong Kong.

The controversial incidents have raised serious questions of the NTU’s integrity as an institution of academic excellence, and how talented Singaporeans are driven away to other pastures through no fault of their own, and for simply holding differing views from that of the university, or its management.

Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

为建人行桥拆圣淘沙鱼尾狮 网民询问:值得吗?

为建造耗资9000万元的大型户外活动景点“圣淘沙心之音”,具标志性雕像之一的圣淘沙鱼尾狮难逃为发展让路的命运。但是人们不禁问道,“花这么多钱,拆除地标,值得吗?”。 作为重新塑造岛屿,并与邻近的布拉尼岛一起打造成为休闲和旅游胜地的长期计划之一,这项决定并非一时决定的。高达37米的鱼尾狮塔位居圣淘沙中心点,因其体积规模无法被移走重置。 圣淘沙发展公司(SDC)执行长Quek Swee Kuan表示,因为鱼尾狮塔太大而无法搬迁,目前正考虑纪念它的方式。“岛上管理层正在考虑为圣淘沙竖立新的标志。” 该公司指出,这著名地标将运营至10月20日,而该区的建筑工程将在今年年底开始,而鱼尾狮塔拆除日期取决于敲定的建筑计划中。 将耗资9000万元的圣淘沙新景点,占地约5个半足球场,即3万平方米,将通过多感官体验,将北部的圣淘沙名胜世界(RWS)于南部的圣淘沙海滩链接起来,以取代现有的行人通道。 SDC管理层于上周五(9月20日)的媒体发布会上透露,新项目将具有某些功能,包括观景台、水景以及其他的建筑元素,将为游客透过行人通道获得多种感官体验。 圣淘沙和布拉尼岛皆为未来的南部海滨区域的一部分,该区30公里长的海滩将被改造为生活、工作和娱乐场所。 努力提高地区价值 Quek Swee…

WP town council to go back to court – again

The Workers’ Party-run town council, Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC), is seeking the…

New Media – Do you agree with PM Lee?

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the following, as quoted in the…

工人党市镇会风波:质疑AHTC决策 发展部要求解释

针对工人党主席林瑞莲与议员刘程强继续参与市镇会所有财务事务,国家发展部表示质疑,并指出会持续关切。 今年10月,林瑞莲与刘程强被指涉及在监管市镇会时雇用市镇会前管理代理公司FM Solutions and Services(FMSS)以不诚实、有违受托责任,使阿裕尼-后港市镇会蒙受损失。 对此,副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰在上月初的国会上提出“诚信动议”,要求二人回避所有AHTC相关财务事项。 直至11月30日,周六阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会(Aljunied-Hougang Town Council ,简称AHTC)发表声明,经投票后,以17票对1票的表决,宣布主席林瑞莲与议员刘程强无需回避市镇会所有财务事务。 国家发展部表示,尽管高院已判决刘程强和林瑞莲违反受托责任,但阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会仍宣布二人无需回避市镇会的财务事务。 该部门于周三致函至阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会,要求阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会解释二人无需回避市镇会财务事务的原因。…