[Editor's note: The photograph that was used in the original article has been removed because it was deemed unfair to the student pictured.]

The media has certainly not been doing Nanyang Technological University (NTU) a lot of favours lately. Pleasant news were reported, but they were interspersed with bouts of bad press.

Just this month, the media was abuzz with talk about an anonymous blog called The Liberating Truth, which posted an “academic blacklist” against foreign NTU students. In what some see as a response to that incident, the university issued on Tuesday a circular to students listing several rules about internet postings.

While the guidelines, which were drafted in consultation with lawyers, largely made sense, one particular rule has been criticised as being ill-conceived: Students are required to seek written approval from the university for their political or religious blogs. As a result, some students and members of the public think that the university is too overbearing and authoritarian.

This state of affairs could have been easily avoided. If feedback from students were sought continually since 2007 when the advisory first surfaced, then better guidelines could have been drafted. In addition, the university’s reputation would have certainly improved had the university adopted a more hands-off approach like that of those already in place at NUS and SMU. Instead, it went the opposite route, imposing a requirement that is ill-conceived on two counts.

First of all, the rule is confusing. The vast majority of students apparently do not know about its existence, which is a surprise considering how the university claims that disseminating the rules is an annual exercise. This suggests that the administration may not be serious about enforcing it after all. And if this is true, why then is the requirement still included in the circular?

The university is also seemingly contradicting itself regarding the target group of the advisory. Common sense dictates that the rules are meant for students since the circular was drafted by the Student Affairs Office in collaboration with the Student Union. On the other hand, a Straits Times report yesterday quoted a NTU spokesperson as saying that the “guidelines apply more to faculty members”. If that is the case, why then were student-oriented bodies roped in to set restrictions that apply more to tenured professors?

Secondly, it is actually unsurprising that the university is not implementing the rule. Even if they tried, it would be a herculean task. Much has changed since 2007: While blogs and internet forums were already popular then, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter have since arisen as prominent communication tools for students. If NTU decides to go all North Korea on them, then they would need to register their Facebook and Twitter accounts with the university — a totally ridiculous idea.

Also, it is already well-established that political bloggers in Singapore tend to treat any efforts to register them with contempt. Was it not during the General Election in 2006 that the Singapore government failed spectacularly in getting bloggers to check in with the Media Development Authority? In view of this history lesson, is the university hoping for a miracle especially since it does not possess the legal and political resources that the government obviously has?

Giving credit where it’s due, we must applaud the university for reminding students about the political and legal reality in Singapore. It is true that if you scandalise the court or write comments about “burning” the minister (even if it is obviously metaphorical), then you would be arrested. The university seems to pride itself as a political organ of the state.

On a more positive note, it is all too easy for students to post defamatory remarks and violate copyright laws online, making the advisory a welcome reminder that might actually save some students from trouble.

But the rule about getting bloggers to write in to the school makes no sense. Perhaps the university had hoped that students would overlook the obvious blunder. Perhaps they felt that erasing that last line would be administratively taxing. We may never truly know. But whatever the case is, the university may like to prevent further misunderstanding by consulting students on a more regular basis next time around.

After all, lawyers only give one side of the story.

• Share

If you like this story, please consider making a donation to help further the Enquirer's cause.

Disclaimer: Comments left on articles in The Enquirer are contributions from readers and do not reflect the views of the editorial team. The Enquirer is not responsible for the comments and reserves the right to remove any comments deemed inflammatory or in bad taste.