Despite NTU’s best efforts to kill the story on Dr Chee Soon Juan’s visit to the campus, it simply refuses to die.
The latest twist to the saga came Tuesday morning when two students draped a black banner across a wall in the School of Communication and Information (SCI) meant for showcasing students’ photography work.
Painted on the black cloth was “no media blackout” in capital letters. Black trash bags covered the rest of the showcase. Another banner was hung nearby with a web address on it that pointed to a Facebook group protesting the censorship of news pieces on Dr Chee in the university’s press.
When quizzed about their purpose, the banner makers said they wanted raise awareness about the issue of press freedom in the campus.
“It is foolish to blackout the media especially when there is a media school in NTU,” said Mr Thaddaeus Wee, a 22-year-old student from the communication school.
The other student, Mr Scott Teng, said pulling the article that was originally meant to fill a quarter page in the student-run but university-funded newspaper went against the media school’s lectures about the role of the press to inform.
“The banner is a symbol that we media students do not take this matter lying down,” said the 23-year-old communications student.
Back in early September, controversial opposition figure Dr Chee Soon Juan had dropped by the campus on two occasions and had distributed fliers calling for students to speak up about politics and national issues.
Student reporters from the university newspaper and broadcast media, the Nanyang Chronicle and Nanyang Spectrum, covered Dr Chee’s visit and students’ reactions to it.
The stories were due to appear in September but the print article was pulled from the Chronicle just one day before publication and the broadcast news package was edited out of the news programme.
In protest, students set up Facebook groups about the muzzling of the press. Another student broke the news of the incident on the Online Citizen, a website that aims to highlight issues in Singapore not covered by the mainstream press.
More dramatically, signs deriding the university for the media blackout were placed anonymously on September 18th at the university’s entrance and the student services centre in the dead of the night. They were removed within half an hour by patrolling security guards.
This time, campus security reacted equally swiftly to the banner in SCI. Security guards were already patrolling the premises as Mr Teng and Mr Wee put up the banner.
Again within half an hour of the banners going up, additional guards had arrived on the scene, photographing the banners before taking them down.
One security guard who asked not to be named revealed that they had received a tip-off about the possibility of a protest the night before and had stepped up patrols in the media school.
When contacted about the banner protest, assistant chair of SCI, Associate Professor Lee Chun Wah, said it was understandable from “a student’s perspective to feel authority has clamped down”.
But he stressed the school was in step with the university stand on the whole issue.
“The Chronicle is a student newspaper but it does not have the right to demand what to publish,” Professor Lee said. “Ultimately the owner of the newspaper is the president of NTU.”
The chair of the school, Associate Professor Benjamin Detenber, could not be interviewed by press time.
Professor Lee also dismissed the ideals of press freedom that the banner makers were calling for.
“University is not an idealistic place. It’s an institution where we teach students in a practical manner,” he said.
As for the banner, “it was a waste of time and resources as its impact was very low,” said the promotional communication expert. He also believed that students should move on from the incident and that the situation would not escalate.
But the assistant chair just might be wrong. Mr Teng is planning a demonstration for campus media freedom at the Speakers’ Corner on Sunday. Already he has prepared a press release and plans to inform the national media.
The saga continues.
If you like this story, please consider making a donation to help further the Enquirer's cause.
Students protest Nanyang Chronicle censorship « Satsueisha
says:October 5th, 2008 at 11.46pm
[...] The Enquirer reported Friday that media students in the Wee Kim Wee School of Information and Communcation had put up a banner saying “Media Blackout” over a wall of photographs meant to exhibit students’ works. [...]
Protest on campus censorship continues « The Wayang Party Club of Singapore
says:October 6th, 2008 at 1.04am
[...] Source: The Enquirer [...]
hello
says:October 6th, 2008 at 9.31am
In the principal office. Principal picked up the phone and keyed in the familiar number of his master.
Principal (P): Morning Sir. Think u knew what happened already. What shall I do Sir?
Master (M): U idiot. U do not know what to do? What is your high salary for? U better know what to do.
P: I did. I pulled it out. But, I did not expect them to retaliate. Now, they have taken one step further.
M: Your performance bonus is gone. A simple task like this also do not know what to do. Every little thing u called me. Trying to drag us in ….
P: OK Sir. I know now. I will call these bunch of gangster students to my office. Suspend them from campus. Stop them from graduating… Call up their parents… threaten them with unemployment… Yes Sir, Yes Sir… I know what to do…
k
says:October 6th, 2008 at 11.52am
why is the newspaper owned by the president shouldnt it be owned by the students
y
says:October 7th, 2008 at 2.14am
Oh right, LCW. Pride of SCI.
leen
says:October 7th, 2008 at 10.04am
Because the paper is university-funded.
z
says:October 7th, 2008 at 10.40am
University is paid for half by students and other half funded by external sources such as private funding, government funding, alumni funding.
So technically the paper belongs to the students and the alumni and other funders IF we take only funding into question.
and yeah LCW is the pride of SCI man, so cool i mean, like really.
[视频] 理大学生抗议校方审查学生媒体 « 淫民行冻档 · mYpaP
says:October 7th, 2008 at 10.52am
[...] 与此同时，鉴于校方控制学生报，一群学生近日设立了独立的学生新闻网站The Equirer。由于新网站不依赖校方资源，学生们希望公众捐款支援。 [...]
y
says:October 7th, 2008 at 12.10pm
Such impartiality.
clarence
says:October 9th, 2008 at 12.45am
“University is not an idealistic place. It’s an institution where we teach students in a practical manner,” he said.
Then let’s also dismantle the humanities school, ethics committees, think tanks. While we’re at it, let’s throw away our books on Mill, Sontag, Aristotle.
Ideals and practicality are not mutually exclusive. How can they be? Even the PR Prof Lee teaches is founded on the ideals of market capitalism.
“He also believed that students should move on from the incident and that the situation would not escalate.” — Reminds you of another Lee? Bee Wah’s table tennis ‘let’s move on’ high-handedness appalled many. Andnow this? It seems students care more about the media than the vice chair of the media school.
Absurd!
old padawan
says:October 12th, 2008 at 12.17am
Clarence,
Eloquently put.
I hope you appreciate the two incidences of irony and their implications, and manage to find constructive avenues to make your practical ideals count.
Firstly, for a media school, the assumptions underpinning “publicity in furtherance of a political objective” bear the signs of the so-called third-party effect (pun unintended).
Secondly,
“He also believed that students should move on from the incident and that the situation would not escalate.” — Reminds you of another Lee?
You’re barking up the wrong Lee.
piscesc2
says:October 12th, 2008 at 10.40am
Oh, come on. We all know that this world is not idealistic. The ideal world can only be found in textbook. what we are taught for is to strive for it.We all jolly well knew that no matter how much freedom is given for, there are rules to play along and within. You cant have all the freedom on the expense of stability etc.
i admire the protestors’ spirit and i think it’s good. However i felt it should end there. I felt they fail to look at bigger picture. Are they exploiting this opportunity to make their own voices heard? How about other considerations? Why is Dr.Chee there in thhe first place which he is not given permission… Perhaps for pubilicity? Then i bet he’s must be a happy man now.
Shouldn’t you at the same time thinking about the question of media freedom be critically thinking about the whole incident? I just feel these ppl is not giving enough thot abt it. Also, lets keep this place a high regarded source. Refrain from calling names….It’s just so irrational abt it….
The Rot Within :: The Aims of Education :: October :: 2008
says:October 12th, 2008 at 1.28pm
[...] the university application season, I thought I’d post some things to countervail the notion that “University is not an idealistic place. It’s an institution where we teach students in a [...]
bluewonders
says:October 15th, 2008 at 12.05pm
I totally agree with piscesc2. Indeed, it’s good for student to be forthcoming and idealistic, however, there is only one little thin line between having the rights of speech and being a pawn on CSJ Chessboard.
Mockingbird
says:October 16th, 2008 at 3.16pm
Ha, ha, ha…! :D A pawn on CSJ’s chessboard. That’s both an amusing and apt description of someone who is convinced and persuaded by CSJ’s fiery speeches against the gahmen.
But whether Dr CSJ succeeds in winning the minds of the undergraduates is really another story from that of the campus’ media wanting to make it appear as if Dr Chee was not even there at all.
Scott
says:October 16th, 2008 at 6.46pm
Thank you Mockingbird! The line is not that thin actually.
There is a yet another story which is about Dr Chee and what he promotes, and the yada yada yada, which is rightly very different from NTU’s blatant reversal of stand and censorship on an article written about the visit (this article could also be on his illegal visits – if it is such the case).
Also NTU has yet to respond to WHY after initial agreement, there was a sudden reversal on Sunday night, aside from the official ownership rights to refuse exploitation of the student media.
In today’s forum, what was a long long letter to the forum was met with a 1 sentence answer from Prof Er Meng Hwa. hrmmmmm
hmm
says:October 17th, 2008 at 2.30am
I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Zhong Zewei, ‘It should’ve been the students’ call’.
Nanyang Technological University will not allow our media platforms to be exploited to provide publicity for uninvited people who enter our campus to draw attention to themselves. This is our right and responsibility as publisher.
Professor Er Meng Hwa Senior Associate Provost
Nanyang Technological University
Wonder if this right would have been exercised with such aplomb had the publicity been negative.
Robert L
says:October 17th, 2008 at 4.02pm
[Quote:] As for the banner, “it was a waste of time and resources as its impact was very low,” said the promotional communication expert. [Unquote]
This inept comment should serve as a challenge to students.
Next time, take photos of the banners and post them on the internet. Better still, show photos of the security guards removing the banners. Let the power of the internet do the rest. We’ll see what this communication expert thinks about the impact then.
Raymond
says:November 22nd, 2008 at 8.06pm
“The Chronicle is a student newspaper but it does not have the right to demand what to publish,” Professor Lee said. “Ultimately the owner of the newspaper is the president of NTU.”
I think this is pretty damning.
Does this mean that Singapore Press Holdings has the right to censor any articles which are deemed to be detrimental to its interests? I think this fight should be fought till the end until the University backs down on this issue. This should be a case study for all future media students in NTU.
“it was a waste of time and resources as its impact was very low,” He being a communications expert, hit the nail on its head here. I think we require more publicity to show that he is dreadfully wrong in saying that “students should move on from the incident and that the situation would not escalate”
We must not be muzzled like this!
Mind Sharing
says:November 23rd, 2008 at 10.37am
Piscesc2, well said. The univeristy is like any other organisation with its own set of rules and regulations. First, the students must understand that Dr Chee came uninvited to the university with his own set of political agendas and views. No other organisation would be able to tolerate the fact that there are uninvited controversial speakers coming forth to speak to its members. Let alone, allow the visit to be covered by the university’s press.
Like it or not, there is no complete press freedom in Singapore and in many other countries and would never will in the near future. Think about it. Do you think that Dr Chee would allow complete press freedom to happen in Singapore if he assume the top political role? He has its own agenda and he knows very well how to tap on the passionate students to help him to fulfil his objectives. The University is NOT an idealistic at all. The students can have its own ideals but need to adjust the ideals accordingly in order to adapt to the real world. However, this would take time and training in the real corporate world.
I would urge some students to think big and see things from a wider angle.
Eng ah por
says:October 27th, 2009 at 2.22pm
Most of what Chee Soon Juan has to say is said and not done.Not because of lack of trying but just attention seeking and sheer boring with no solutions insight except to excite youngsters who may be rebels with a cause.
Look for constructive avenues from new Parties and true wannabee politicians and hear what THEY HAVE TO OFFER FOR A CHANGE.
Law
says:March 23rd, 2010 at 2.51am
Most of what Dr Chee has to say is said and it done by some, and has the capacity to by done by many more!
What is hindering those who are already receptive to his ideas is the culture of fear and the repressive laws that have only gotten worse with the newly enacted Public Order Act.
The SDP does have hundreds of constructive articles and dozens of videos on their website expressing sound and workable alternatives to the PAP system in social, political and economic spheres.
But that’s only if one can remain objective and not believing the slander coming from the government controlled mainstream media in Singapore. People like Eng ah por before me wouldn’t be interested in mentioning any of that would he?