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

国会:选区范围检讨委员会仍未成立

选区范围检讨委员会仍未成立。 贸工部长陈振声是在今日(8日)代表李显龙总理书面答复工人党秘书长毕丹星的提问。这已是毕丹星第二度询问上述委会是否已成立。 选区范围检讨委员会的成立,旨在于选举前划分选区,也是迈入大选前进行的例行工作。 在2006年和2011年,该委会用了四个月时间提交报告。在选区划分地图公布后,下一步就是解散国会,召开选举。 2011年选举,从公布选区划分地图再到提名日,有62天的差距。 在2015年7月24日公布新的选区地图,提名日则是在9月1日,从公布选区划分到提名,只有39天。 总理曾在2016年1月表示,将建议选区范围检讨委会缩小集选区规模,划出更多单选区。 直到总理李显龙宣布成立选区范围检讨委员会、该委会在选举前公布选区划分报告之前,潜在候选人都不会知道,下届选举的选举划分会是怎样的。 今年3月1日,工人党议员毕丹星曾质问,为何不在上述委会成立后政府自行作出宣布,但贸工部长陈振声则代总理回答,惯例是让委会专业地进行工作,不受不必要媒体关注或公共压力影响。

Singapore's deepest female freediver: Anqi Lim represents her island in the Freediving World Championships in August

Freediving – to dive underwater without standard scuba gear. Historically, freediving was…

K Shanmugam: Foreign Domestic Workers contract COVID-19 from their employers, not from other workers outside

Despite the majority of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Singapore are linked to…

涉假冒中国政府官员 警今年接获逾400宗诈骗案

警方数据显示,警方自今年初至11月,一共接获401宗涉及假冒中国政府官员的诈骗案件,导致受害人损失了至少1880万新元。 仅仅下半年8月至11月就占了242宗案件,涉案款项高达1080万新元。 警方于上周五(13日)指出,类似案件在今年下半年剧增,而在今年1月至5月期间,警方也接获多达92起类似诈骗案件的投报。 当局指出,骗子通常会假冒快递公司、电信服务供应商或政府官员的职员,对受害者行骗。 他们的套路多数是:指受害者所注册的手机号码涉及罪案、或他们扣查了注明受害者为收货人士,装有非法物品的包裹、或有针对受害者的法庭案件、又或者指受害者涉及刑事案件,需要协助调查。 然后,骗子就会以为了方便调查,要求受害者提供网上银行户口的个人资料,以及一次性密码(OTP)。 甚至在一些情况下,他们还会将有关电话转接给另一名自称是“中国保安(或警察)”的人士。 骗子会向受害者展示“中国保安”所持有的逮捕令副本,并威胁受害者,若不配合调查将会有牢狱之灾。 受害者在提供了有关个资后,不久就会发现他们银行账户内的资金,已经被转账到未知账户了。 有的骗子会采用另外一种方式,即让受害者扫描一个二维码(QR Code),然后使用比特币自动贩卖机转移款项。 在某些情况下,受害者会被要求自银行账户中提款,然后转交给假政府官员,已进行审核。…