Breaking Laws in Bid for Top World Universities Ranking

Did NTU break Laws to win Top Universities Ranking?

The Great Purge of Singaporean Professors and Lecturers was somehow deemed necessary in order to meet a Key Criteria – “International Staff Ratio” - of bogus World Universities Ranking Standards of Dubious Excellence. The Great Purge took place from 2007-2010.

A little Background History will provide some Context for understanding. NTU Global Ranking had plunged 16 places from 61 in 2006 to 77 in 2008, or 29 places from 48 in 2003, to join the ranks of relative unknown and undistinguished Universities.  A study into the Ranking Criteria easily revealed the actions needed to climb to the “Top” (of what?).  Never mind that these Criteria are bogus and invalid factors having no bearing on teaching or research excellence and learning impact on the students.   

The great Purge was conducted under the pretext of Tenure Evaluation from 2007-2010, during which mostly Singaporean Professors and Lecturers, including many already qualified for Tenure previously, were dismissed.  And when the dusts settled in 2010 after the Purge, NTU proudly announced that Singapore citizens including new citizens formed ONLY 44% of the faculty; 56% of NTU faculty are foreigners from 56 countries worldwide including Singapore PRs. Never mind the fact that most Universities in the World actually have a majority of local Professors.

ALL Singaporeans have the SAME inherent and inalienable rights to Non-Discrimination during employment. The violated rights as enjoyed by Singaporean Professors and Lecturers were found in the following Laws, among others:

1. The Constitution of Singapore
2. The Retirement Age Act 2006 [Renamed in 2012]
3. The NTU (Corporatisation) Act 2006
4. International Labour Conventions – United Nations

The outcomes of the Tenure 2007-2010 Exercises discriminating and separating tenured academic staff into those retiring at 65 years old and 55 years old respectively was illegal, according to Section 4 and 5 [Invalidity of term of contract of service] of the Retirement Act.  

NTU action in setting differential mandatory retirement age of 55 and 65 years old without any job relevance or distinction for tenured academic staff had discriminated arbitrarily and therefore violated the “equal protection” provision of Article 12 of The Singapore Constitution.  It was again Unlawful, and illegal.

NTU also demanded that those staff desiring to continue working beyond 55 years old, if they had not already been selected for the 65 year old retirement age group, MUST accept a Mandatory 50% pay reduction.  This forced a Hobson’s choice especially for Singaporeans rooted here with families and children attending local schools.   

In doing so, NTU contravened the International Labour Conventions of the United Nations of which Singapore is also a signatory. The 50% Mandatory pay reduction was a clear violation of the Core ILO Convention 100 on Equal Remuneration. No staff, whether Singaporean Professors or foreigner, should have been forced to take a 50% paycut just to be able to report the day after “retirement at 55 years old” to teach the SAME subjects to the SAME Classes of students and perform the SAME duties.  That’s the employment abuse addressed by ILO Convention 100, which was ratified by Singapore, was designed to Prevent.

Kopi Level - Green

Read Full Analysis with References here:

Laws broken for Top World Universities Rankings