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

YouthQuake – Transportation road map by youths

7 June, 2 – 4 pm, WP HQ.

为辩论贸易课题 中美主播隔空“舌战”

美国霍士财经频道女主播翠西(Trish Regan),于今早八时邀请中国环球电视网(CGTN)女主播刘欣作为其节目《黄金时间》嘉宾,针对中美贸易战课题展开公开辩论。 翠西一开始说明,这是难得的机会,让美国观众在此课题上聆听不同的观点,翠西表示自己不代表美国政府,而其“辩论对手”则代表中国共产党,惟她在节目中愿意欢迎各种异议。 刘欣一开始则澄清,本身并非中国共产党员,不应假定她是为中国政府说话,而她是作为一名中国环球电视网记者与特里斯对话。不过翠西则嘀咕说其实CGTN也是共产党的一部分。 翠西首先询问刘欣意见,即中美之间有没有可能达成协议,对此刘欣称自己没有内部消息,所以不清楚中美贸易谈判会有往哪进展,但认为中国政府已经非常明确地表明立场,除非美方也对中国谈判团表达尊重,愿意谈判而不是利用外部施压,那么协议还可能达成,否则恐怕对立还会持续。 翠西则回应自己也不认为贸易战对谁会有好处,“我真的希望可以解决,”但她也抛出知识产权问题,也列举出一些中国企业盗窃知识产权的例子。他说美国企业可能投入钜资、耗费十几年才研发成功,又如何让他们承担在中国概念、研究被盗窃的风险。 刘欣则回应,翠西可访问那些到中国营业的美企他们的看法,“但据我了解他们当中许多都盈利颇丰,而且大部分也愿意继续投资在中国,然而川普政府却让前景增添不确定。” 刘欣不否认又出现盗窃知识产权、商业机密的问题,但中国政府和人民对于知识产权保护是有共识的;再者,盗窃产权问题在各国都有,在美国也有企业相互诉讼对方盗版,不能以偏概全。 当翠西问道有关华为是否愿意与美国共享它的先进技术,刘欣认为若双方互惠互利、相互学习,照规矩付费是没问题的,中美都在彼此学习。“我们可以互惠互利,就我个人而言,我学习英文,因为我有一个美国的老师,我跟美国的朋友去学。” 翠西:何时中国才会停止跟世界银行借钱 接下来翠西再抛出一个辛辣问题,她指中国已然是全球第二大经济体,但何时才肯放下发展中国家身份,不再向世界银行借钱? 刘欣则回应:“我们也想壮大,不想被一直看扁成侏儒、贫穷国家,但视你如何定义发展中国家,中国有14亿人口,是美国的三倍,人均GDP还不到美国的六分之一,甚至还不如欧洲一些发达国家。”…

原定本月15日 新加坡前进党推介礼展延

新加坡前行动党议员、新加坡前进党创党人陈清木,透过脸书告知支持者,新加坡前进党的正式推介仪式将展延。 他早前在上月27日表示,在等候警方批准当儿,该党的推介仪式将定于本月15日,于新加坡博览中心第五大厅举行。 不过,他表示目前仍在等候警方准证和公共娱乐准证的发放,所以只能遗憾地告知大家推介仪式将展延。 “我告知我的筹备团队无论多少,都必须取得所有必要的准证。目前我们还在商讨在本月底或7月进行推介。” 此外,他感谢一些支持者也有传播呼吁大家出席15日推介仪式的讯息,惟他澄清有关信息并非来自新加坡前进党的公告。 另一方面,陈清木也透露在上周六该党已进行了第三次的会见人民活动,获得150人踊跃出席。其中还有支持者在陈清木的额头点上圣油,为他祈求平安,令后者深受感动。他感谢大家的热心支持和祝福。 新加坡前进党在两个月前正式获得注册。去年12月31日,陈清木既已表示“挂起听筒”,正式结束50年的行医生涯,有意“从服务病人到服务人民”,“国家和人民福祉将是他的优先使命”。 陈清木在今年1月16日,和12名志同道合新加坡人(包括几位前人民行动党干部),向社团注册局申请注册新加坡前进党。

MPA: Collision between Singapore and Gibraltar registered container vessels to be investigated

Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) has announced that it was…