Chitchat Cherian George New Book

[scroobal]

Vibrant political debate good for Singapore, says Cherian George
Former NTU lecturer and journalist Cherian George, who teaches at Hong Kong Baptist University, says in his book debate is good training for Singaporeans for the real competition - the outside world.PHOTOS: CHERIAN GEORGE
PUBLISHED
DEC 4, 2017, 5:00 AM SGT
FACEBOOKTWITTER

HK-based academic to launch book of essays on politics here
Elgin Toh
Insight Editor

Winter has come - to the sunny isle of Singapore.

This is how journalism academic and political observer and, yes, fan of the HBO series Game Of Thrones Cherian George characterises the state of political debate here.

In a new book of essays on Singapore politics, titled Singapore, Incomplete, he argues that after the 2011 general election, "a chill... descended" here, affecting domains such as civil society, the media, the Internet, academia and the arts.

Not everyone will agree with his thesis but the author of best-seller Singapore: The Air-conditioned Nation (2000) notes that while the Government has loosened up on the opposition - for instance, in reducing the number and size of group representation constituencies - it has "hobbled" the other groups.

The post-GE2011 playbook included "significant humanising of social and economic policy, but also a hardening of its posture in political and civic space", writes Professor George, 52.

Speaking to The Straits Times ahead of the book's launch here on Dec 9, he points to developments such as new laws that constrain websites on public affairs, legal action against netizens, tighter control of the mainstream media, and academics dabbling in activism who say it is now tougher to get jobs.



One example he cites: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong suing blogger Roy Ngerng for defamation in 2014. Mr Lee won and the courts awarded him $150,000 in damages.

Doesn't somebody whose reputation is sullied have the right to sue, as a matter of longstanding principle in Singapore politics? He does, Prof George says - but adds that settling such debates through suits alienates some Singaporeans.

He notes: "This weapon used to be reserved for professional politicians and big influential media.

"What has changed is the lowering of the threshold, the feeling that even relatively unknown individuals need to be given this treatment."

The new 216-page paperback contains 28 essays on topics such as the presidential election, xenophobia and a "fog of fear".

The book also contains personal anecdotes, including an accounting of his own taste of "fear", causing him to withdraw as an academic expert in 2014 from a trial blogger Alex Au was facing for contempt of court. Prof George frankly admits he feared jeopardising his appeal of a decision by his employer Nanyang Technological University (NTU) not to award him tenure.

Over the phone from Hong Kong, where he and his wife, former Straits Times deputy editor Zuraidah Ibrahim, now live, Prof George declines to say more about leaving NTU, where he taught journalism from 2004 to 2014.

The former Straits Times journalist failed to get tenure twice due to what he calls political pressure. NTU president Bertil Andersson later disputed this. The case is perceived by some to stem from Prof George's comments over the years criticising the Government.

In the book, he hazards a guess on why he was blocked: "I was heading the only undergraduate journalism department in Singapore and was therefore in a position to influence future journalists."

When asked, NTU said it has nothing to add to previous statements.

After what he termed "a forced exit" from NTU in 2014, Prof George joined the journalism department at Hong Kong Baptist University. This year, he received tenure and was made full professor.

Asked what his longer-term plans are and whether he intends to return to Singapore for good some day, he replies wryly: "I have felt no need to make plans for the future."

He now flies back to Singapore, where his family remains, at least once every two months.

This - and his meetings with Singaporeans who pass through Hong Kong - helps him maintain a good sense of developments here and the pulse of Singaporeans.

Prof George acknowledges many Singaporeans "aren't bothered by strictures on civil society, journalism or other democratic institutions, as long as you look after their basic needs", but that gave him even more motivation to write the book - so as to persuade them.

But if Singaporeans aren't concerned, why should the ruling People's Action Party change?

Prof George's larger argument in the book is that it is in the long-term interest of both Singapore and the PAP for political debate to become more vibrant.

First, it reduces the chances of government leaders developing blind spots like the ones that, he argues, led to policy missteps - and voter unhappiness - in the run-up to the 2011 election.

Second, he adds, debate is good training for the real competition - which Singapore is grappling with out there in the world.

"Learning to adapt to freewheeling domestic political contention isn't something our leaders cannot afford to do," he avers.

"Top football clubs in the European Champions League wouldn't be half as good if they didn't face strong opponents in their domestic competitions. Every wannabe Real Madrid needs a Barcelona."

He says he is not holding his breath on the message getting through in the short run to the PAP - which is needed to turn winter into spring. But he also believes that in the long run "an internally-reformed PAP is still one of the best-case scenarios for Singapore".

He adds: "The PAP is not just another party, a potted plant that can easily be substituted with another.

"It's a movement intimately tied to state and society, like a banyan that grew out of a crack in a building and has now spread so much that it's hard to rip it out without damaging its host."

 

[scroobal]

Well-known figures sign appeal over NTU lecturer
PUBLISHED
MAR 5, 2013, 7:26 AM SGT
FACEBOOKTWITTER

They urge university to reconsider Cherian George's tenure application
Feng Zengkun
Environment Correspondent

Nearly 100 well-known academics, artists, and civil activists have penned an open letter to the Nanyang Technological University (NTU) asking it to reconsider a tenure application by a prominent professor.

This comes as Dr Cherian George, 47, is likely to leave the school within a year after being denied tenure a second time.

The letter, posted online yesterday, said the rejection of Dr George's tenure application "raises important concerns regarding the place of Singapore's universities in fostering independent discourse in and about our society".

It affirmed Dr George's intellectual contributions, such as his books, journal articles and work as head of the Temasek Foundation-NTU Asia Journalism Fellowship.

"If NTU's tenure criteria are not seen to support such engagement, it will impoverish Singapore's intellectual community and raise a troubling future scenario," said the letter, which bore the names of economics professor Linda Lim, theatre doyen T. Sasitharan and architect Tay Kheng Soon, among others.

While NTU declined to comment on Dr George's case, it said "those who do not obtain tenure on the second attempt can continue to teach for up to one more year at the university".



It also said that the tenure nomination process is initiated by the schools. "Each year, it is very common for the school's nominations to be rejected at the college and higher levels of review."

Dr George joined NTU in 2004 and teaches courses on media in Singapore. He was first rejected for tenure - which for academics means job security rather than renewable contracts - in 2009.

His second rejection last month led to widespread speculation that the decisions were politically motivated due to his past criticism of the Government.

Two external reviewers of his application have decried the decision, saying it was contrary to his strong teaching and research record. He had won a teaching excellence award from NTU in 2010.

Since news broke about Dr George's failure to be granted tenure, two meetings have been called by colleagues at NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, where he is an associate professor.

Said one of the professors in e-mails obtained by The Straits Times: "In the longer view, the question is the long-time viability of the promotion and tenure process of NTU, because if the right people are not tenured but the wrong people are, the reputation of the institution can only be adversely affected."

Last week, students organised an online petition to ask NTU to explain its decision. That petition has garnered nearly 950 signatures.

Dr Philip Howard, a reviewer of Dr George's application, from the University of Washington in the United States, told The Straits Times in an e-mail: "Dr George was very deserving of tenure, and among the most internationally known faculty at NTU. There was a lot of evidence about research productivity and teaching skills."

When asked, Dr George confirmed that he had received NTU's standard offer of a one-year extension on his contract when his tenure was denied last month, but declined to comment on whether he would accept it.

 

[scroobal]

Tenure denied due to “reputational risk”: Cherian George
Published on 2015-01-07 by Howard Lee

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

 

[scroobal]

Denial of a journalism associate professor's tenure has sparked debate on academic freedom in Singapore.


COMMENT

By Lin Jun Jie" data-reactid="24" style="margin-bottom: 1em;">By Lin Jun Jie

Last month, we learnt that journalism associate professor Cherian George's tenure at the Nanyang Technological University was denied for a second time.

But I want to take a step back, to more than two years ago, when the university made a hasty decision not to renew George's term as the head of journalism in the Wee Kim Wee School.

Hasty—because there wasn't even a replacement lined up for him at the point the decision was made.

Instead, what happened was a series of temporary replacements.

Today—almost two-and-a-half years after his term as head of journalism was not renewed—there remains no permanent head of journalism.

Quite on the contrary, we now have the head of the broadcast and cinema studies division, professor Stephen Teo, doubling up as the acting head of division at journalism and publishing.


In fact, Teo was not even part of the journalism division until his very curious appointment.


I can think of two reasonable explanations why an institution would abruptly replace the head of a division.

One, they have already found a better person for the job.

We can rule this out by now. Clearly, the fact that no other journalism professor has taken up the job, and that the University couldn't even find a suitable full-time head after two years of search, says that George was, and is, the best person for the job.

Two, the head has made a grave mistake and must leave, like, immediately (think Michael Palmer).

The Straits Times who has spoken out against media control. If there was, perhaps the university could shed some light on it.

That only leaves us with an unreasonable, but definitely more plausible, explanation: whoever made that decision not to renew George's term, and to deny him of his tenure, clearly does not like him very much at all.



The university said it counts distinction in research and scholarship, and high quality teaching as criteria for granting tenure, suggesting that the reviewers believed George was either bad at teaching, had subpar research, or both.

His calibre as a teacher

The chair said in the meeting that the school had endorsed George's tenure on both occasions, nominated him for the teaching excellence award in 2009, and recommended him to be reappointed head of the journalism and publishing division in 2010. He said that it was the university that had turned down the recommendation.


Students of George, both current and past, have also come out in droves to express indignation over suggestions that his teaching was not up to scratch.

The massive outpouring of support for the professor is not surprising.

Having been taught and supervised by George, starting from my first lecture at the Wee Kim Wee School in 2006, my experience corroborates with what many others have already said of his teaching.

In the course of my study and the interactions that I had with students from various schools across the university, the common gripe is that many professors seemed to value their research over their teaching and supervising commitments.

 

[scroobal]

Journalism professor Cherian George rebuts NTU's comments
Journalism professor Cherian George has rebutted comments made by his former employer, the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), that imply he was forced to leave the university as he was unable to meet its academic standards. -- PHOTO: ST FILE
PUBLISHED
JAN 6, 2015, 11:18 PM SGT
FACEBOOKTWITTER

Danson Cheong
SINGAPORE - Journalism professor Cherian George has rebutted comments made by his former employer, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), that imply he was forced to leave the university as he was unable to meet its academic standards.

NTU president Bertil Andersson, in an interview with Times Higher Education last month, had said the decision to deny Dr George tenure was an academic decision and not a political one.

Dr George, who lectured at NTU's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, was twice denied tenure - in 2009 and in 2013. NTU's decision led to speculation that it was politically motivated due to Dr George's past criticism of the Government.

Dr George, 49, left for a post at the Hong Kong Baptist University last year and has described his move as a "forced exit". In a blog post last month, he wrote that he could not let Professor Andersson's comment stand uncorrected as it suggested that he "had to leave NTU because of academic shortcomings".

Prof Andersson has since issued a clarification to Times Higher Education, saying he had "no intention to lower the reputation or standing of Dr George in his field of work".

But Dr George, who had originally asked for a retraction of the comment, wrote that the clarification failed to "reduce the sting of his published remarks". "The fair and gentlemanly thing to do would have been to retract his remarks and ensure that no NTU official repeat such words," he wrote.

He added he was assessed to have met the criteria for promotion and tenure in 2009 but was denied that, and given political reasons for the university's decisions.

Dr George in his blog invited NTU to disclose his tenure documents so that the matter could be put to rest. Speaking to The Straits Times from Hong Kong on Tuesday night, he said: "I have moved on, but unfortunately the NTU president's out-of-the-blue remarks could not be left uncorrected."

NTU in a statement on Tuesday night said it has already stated its position on several previous occasions and will not be making any further comments.

 

[scroobal]

Let’s Be Realistic about Cherian George Complaining that He was Denied Tenure on Non-Academic Grounds
Posted on Jan 7 2015 - 4:22pm by Redwire Singapore
« PREVIOUS
|
NEXT »





Let’s call a spade a spade.

To the extent that Prof Cherian George was denied tenure at NTU due to non-academic grounds, lets just accept that it is so, unless the university takes the traditional (Singaporean govt) route of calling in Ms Sue to persuade the good professor to retract his statements and publish an apology.

So what?

Does anyone think that tenure should be awarded purely on job performance?

In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs for reasons other than job performance. Remember a guy who complained about how filthy Singaporean public transport was when his Porsche was in the workshop? What happened to him and his wife? Not only did he lose his job, they had to flee the country, right?

Remember another woman who made some remarks about Malay weddings? She lost her job at NTUC too right? Where is she now?

Remember some Speaker of Parliament who had an affair and had to quit his post and his party, prompting a by-election?

And so on.

In other words, job performance is not the only factor in a company deciding to retain the employment of any employee. What the employee does outside of work matters too, if it embarrasses a company or creates a liability for the company by their continued association.

No company wants to be seen as ‘condoning’ unacceptable non-work behaviour of an employee, even though technically it has no right to interfere in a person’s private affairs outside of work. They do not want to offend their stakeholders (customers and the public in general). This is what the public expects, more so in a social media age.

And so it applies in Prof George’s case.

He is a veteran journalist. He knew the political players. He knew the system. He knew the boundaries.

Yet he chose to take the PAP on.

Did he really expect NTU to stand on his side? Offer him tenure, despite his criticisms of the PAP govt? How could NTU do so, as a public university that looks to the very same PAP govt for funding? How can NTU offend its major stakeholder? In the same way that companies fire undesirable staff to avoid stakeholder backlash (or worse, a public boycott of their products), so too NTU cannot afford to offer Prof George tenure if it wants to maintain good relations with the PAP Govt.

Is this fair?

That depends on whether one has double standards. One can take the view that ntu should not do so, despite real-world examples which show companies can and do fire employees who embarrass them. One can claim that educational funding is public money, not PAP money, and thus should not be affected by political criticism.

However, if one is realistic and accepts that no Govt willingly funds its critics, the PAP least of all, then one will see that the NTU’s actions are no different from those of real-world companies and organisations.

A similar practice is seen in the case of the National Arts Council, which does not fund PAP critics, and in fact, occasionally even requires arts productions to be toned down before funding is given. Of course, those denied funding complain big time. But realistically, it is how the world operates. You want freedom of speech—no issue, but don’t expect the PAP to pay for it.

Prof George knew all this, yet he chose to continue his stand in an institution that could not support him. He chose to gamble his career in Singapore on it, believing that he would be awarded tenure despite his strong criticisms of the PAP.

Principled, I’m sure, but highly unrealistic.

This commentary was first published on Political Writings.

 

[scroobal]

"He received his Ph.D. in Communication from Stanford University. He has a Masters from Columbia University’s School of Journalism and a B.A. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University. He is an old boy of St Andrew’s Junior and Secondary Schools, and Hwa Chong Junior College.

He served his full-time National Service as a corporal in the Singapore Armed Forces, never managing to pass the standing broad jump.

He is married to Zuraidah Ibrahim, a fellow journalist."

 

[zhihau]

He's always welcomed to post in SBF using his own name :p:p:p

 

[scroobal]

Singaporean university denies tenure to controversial Stanford alum
April 1, 2013 0 Comments
Justine Moore


The decision of a Singaporean university to deny tenure to Cherian George Ph.D. ’03, an associate professor of journalism and publishing known for his controversial political views, has sparked international outrage among academics amidst broader concerns for freedom of speech in Singapore.

According to Nanyang Technical University (NTU)’s tenure contract policy, George will have to leave the university within a year after being denied tenure twice within three years. George, who said that he could not speak to the media until his appeal is decided, has written three books and numerous articles on censorship in Singapore.

Professor of Communication Theodore Glasser, George’s dissertation advisor at Stanford, said that he believed George was denied tenure for “offending the political powers in Singapore.”

“We know what his record is and there’s no good reason to deny him tenure,” Glasser said, adding that George’s work at Stanford was “top-notch.”

Glasser questioned why George’s tenure application was first rejected in 2009, when NTU had promoted George to associate professor in a move that Glasser said reflected a positive assessment of George’s record.

“Usually a promotion and tenure go hand-in-hand,” Glasser said. “There was no reasonable public explanation for why he was promoted and at the same time denied tenure. If he didn’t have a good record, why promote him?”

Several external reviewers selected by NTU to evaluate George’s tenure application, including Karin Wahl-Jorgensen M.A. ’97 Ph.D. ’00, professor at Cardiff University, have spoken out against the decision to deny George’s application.

According to Wahl-Jorgensen, the external reviewers were asked to examine a “pretty hefty file” of George’s work and determine whether or not it met international standards for tenure. Wahl-Jorgensen said that George’s tenure application was “by far the most outstanding that I’ve ever seen.”

“When I looked at it, I thought, ‘This person should be a full professor and would probably easily be able to get a job as a full professor at other institutions,’” Wahl-Jorgensen recalled.

Several of George’s students, including Eve Yeo Yu Ping, were similarly distressed by the decision to reject George’s tenure application. Yu Ping and three other NTU students started a petition, which has gathered nearly 1,000 signatures, asking administrators to explain the decision to deny George tenure.

Yu Ping, who took an introductory journalism class from George and who collaborated with him during a reporting trip to Bhutan, said that the petition organizers decided last year to express their sentiments if George’s tenure application was denied for a second time.

“We agreed that if it didn’t go well again, we wanted to raise it up in a public sphere and hopefully get it right,” Yu Ping said.

While Yu Ping described George as a “very sharp” teacher who made his students “think outside the box,” she was hesitant to blame NTU for the decision to deny him tenure.

“We don’t want to be accusing the school of anything,” Yu Ping emphasized. “When we started the petition, it was never [meant] to reverse the University’s tenure decision. It was [intended] to ask the University for transparency and get it to clarify what it meant by saying that Cherian’s teaching was subpar.”

Yu Ping and the other petition organizers met with several NTU administrators, including Benjamin Detenber, chair of the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI), and Provost Freddy Boey.

According to Detenber, WKWSCI endorsed George’s tenure application in 2009 and again this year. George’s application was then sent to Liu Hong, Chair of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, as well as NTU’s tenure review committee and the Academic Affairs Council.

Yu Ping said that the petition organizers were not able to determine exactly why George’s application was rejected at higher levels of review, as Boey has a policy of not commenting on specific cases.

Detenber, Booey and several other NTU administrators did not respond to requests for comment.

Although George may be forced to leave NTU, he may be able to continue teaching in Singapore. Students at the National University of Singapore (NUS) have written an open letter to NUS administrators asking them to “proactively seek out Dr George and have him on our campus.”

“NTU’s loss can be NUS’ gain,” the letter states. “We urge NUS’ leadership to offer Dr Cherian George a post in NUS’ Communications and New Media Department, where we believe he will be able to contribute much in terms of research, teaching and service to the community.”

Glasser also expressed optimism about George’s career possibilities moving forward, saying that his tenure application would likely have been accepted at “just about any other university in the world.”

“I can’t think of one that wouldn’t be exhilarated and ecstatic to have Cherian on the faculty,” Glasser emphasized.

 

[CoffeeAhSoh]

He's always welcomed to post in SBF using his own name :p:p:p

/

his name is Indian or Eurasian ? :(


http://www.cheriangeorge.net/

/


SHORT BIO

Cherian George is professor of media studies at the journalism department of Hong Kong Baptist University, where he also serves as the director of the Centre for Media and Communication Research. He is the author of four books, the latest of which is Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and its Threat to Democracy (MIT Press, 2016). He received his Ph.D. in Communication from Stanford University. Before joining academia, he was a journalist with The Straits Times in Singapore.

/
ABOUT ME

Cherian George is professor of media studies in the journalism department of Hong Kong Baptist University, where he also serves as the director of the Centre for Media and Communication Research.

His research interests centre on freedom of expression, especially in connection to journalism and public discourse. He studies censorship, media systems and alternative media. His current research focuses on religious intolerance and its implications for freedom of expression. His latest book is Hate Spin: The Manufacture of Religious Offense and its Threat to Democracy (MIT Press, 2016).

He is the author of three other books: Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation(Landmark, 2000); Contentious Journalism and the Internet: Towards Democratic Discourse in Malaysia and Singapore (National University of Singapore Press and University of Washington Press, 2006); and Freedom From The Press: Journalism and State Power in Singapore (National University of Singapore Press, 2012). Since 2013, he has been the editor of the journal, Media Asia.

Until February 2014, he was an Associate Professor at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University. He ran its journalism division for a few years, and in 2010 received a Nanyang Award for teaching excellence. He launched and ran the Asia Journalism Fellowship, an initiative of Temasek Foundation and NTU. He left Singapore for Hong Kong in 2014.

He has had visiting positions at Singapore Management University and the University of Hong Kong. He was a post-doctoral fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, and an academic writing resident at the Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Center, Italy.

Before joining academia, he was a journalist at The Straits Times, where he wrote mainly on politics and served as the art and photo editor for three years. Early in his career, he twice won the company's Feature of the Year Award. He continues to practise professional journalism as the editor and publisher of What’s Up, an independent monthly current affairs newspaper for children, which was honoured for editorial excellence by the Society of Publishers in Asia in 2006.

He takes an interest in media policy and reform, and is actively engaged in forums on freedom of expression in Asia. He blogs on Singapore media and politics at freedomfromthepress.info and airconditionednation.com, and on Asian media issues at mediaasia.info. He was a member of the Media Literacy Council under Singapore's Ministry of Communication and Information (2012-14), and part of “Bloggers 13”, a group lobbying for greater internet freedom. His other civil society contributions include serving as a founding member of The Roundtable in the 1990s.

He received his Ph.D. in Communication from Stanford University. He has a Masters from Columbia University’s School of Journalism and a B.A. in Social and Political Sciences from Cambridge University. He is an old boy of St Andrew’s Junior and Secondary Schools, and Hwa Chong Junior College.

He served his full-time National Service as a corporal in the Singapore Armed Forces, never managing to pass the standing broad jump.

He is married to Zuraidah Ibrahim, a fellow journalist.

 

[Debonerman]

Zuraidah Ibrahim is once in 50 years Yalkut the Hispanic's sister. Lee Hsien Loong is a political bully. And we know what bullies are in their hearts. They feel vulnerable. No real inner strength. They are propped up by ugly women. Things cannot change in Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew had seen to that in laying the solid foundation of dictatorship. We can only hope lymphoma will return or the woman gets face cancer.

 

[zhihau]

his name is Indian or Eurasian?

as long as he's a true patriot, he's a Singaporean.

 

[scroobal]

Singapore Indian, forefathers from state of Kerala like Devan Nair.

/

his name is Indian or Eurasian ? :(

.

 

[kingrant]

Since the reason NTU gave for non renewal of his tenure was performance, it is only fair that CG called out the university on the same excuse. There is too much hypocrisy in our establishment. Why cant NTU just say that they were arm-twisted or expected to do the right thing by the powers that be? It's not as if this government is shy about its political record.

Let’s Be Realistic about Cherian George Complaining that He was Denied Tenure on Non-Academic Grounds
Posted on Jan 7 2015 - 4:22pm by Redwire Singapore
« PREVIOUS
|
NEXT »





Let’s call a spade a spade.

To the extent that Prof Cherian George was denied tenure at NTU due to non-academic grounds, lets just accept that it is so, unless the university takes the traditional (Singaporean govt) route of calling in Ms Sue to persuade the good professor to retract his statements and publish an apology.

So what?

Does anyone think that tenure should be awarded purely on job performance?

In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs for reasons other than job performance. Remember a guy who complained about how filthy Singaporean public transport was when his Porsche was in the workshop? What happened to him and his wife? Not only did he lose his job, they had to flee the country, right?

Remember another woman who made some remarks about Malay weddings? She lost her job at NTUC too right? Where is she now?

Remember some Speaker of Parliament who had an affair and had to quit his post and his party, prompting a by-election?

And so on.

I

 

[scroobal]

Its disgraceful. The external reviewers and his school within the faculty endorsed him but it was stopped at the final hurdle. Not once but twice.

In 1964, old man attempted to force Singapore University Vice Chancellor Dr Sreenevasan, father of literary figure and neurosurgeon Gopal Baratham to refuse admission to Chinese Ed students unless they had security clearance letter even when they qualified academically. Sreenevasan refused to accept the condition and fought until he was forced to resign. Gone are the days when men had backbones.

Sadly it was an FT that heads NTU that was explaining to the press.

Since the reason NTU gave for non renewal of his tenure was performance, it is only fair that CG called out the university on the same excuse. There is too much hypocrisy in our establishment. Why cant NTU just say that they were arm-twisted or expected to do the right thing by the powers that be? It's not as if this government is shy about its political record.