Vetting of invited speakers raises academic freedom fears

The requirement by the arts and social sciences faculty at Singapore’s top university that anyone invited to speak on campus be assessed for perceived political risk has raised concerns about subjective or politicised judgements that could threaten academic freedom.

The faculty at the National University of Singapore (NUS) issued a confidential administrative form dated September 2024 (seen by University World News) intended for faculty members to fill out in order to enable the vetting of prospective speakers for events organised by NUS for their likelihood to address topics deemed ‘controversial’ or ‘sensitive’ for Singapore or the region.

Risk levels

The form requires faculty members to provide numerical scores on a prospective speaker’s research area, proposed presentation topic, profile – including their past record of presenting potentially sensitive and-or controversial topics – that could classify the invitee as a ‘risk’.

This points scheme classifies invitees as ‘lower risk’, ‘moderate risk’, or ‘high risk’ to determine what “administrative formalities would be required”, including – for those deemed ‘high risk’ – approval from the dean.

Event organisers must “do a mandatory Google search to identify the speaker’s profile and look for any past controversies”, according to the document.

Risk points increase if the invitee will be speaking at an event or conference “which will be highly publicised externally and/or has a potentially wide audience reach”.

For events deemed sensitive or with significant public reach, organisers must submit detailed justifications and mitigation plans “to address potential controversies”.

Opaque criteria

An NUS faculty member who spoke on condition of anonymity told University World News: “It remains unclear how to ascertain risk and controversy, or what criteria people should be using.”

He added: “Academic work is supposed to spur debate”. He pointed out that some things Singaporean ministers have said have prompted “strong responses” from academics.

Singaporean academic Linda Lim, professor emerita at the University of Michigan, United States, and co-founder of AcademiaSG, an academic collective focused on Singapore that also champions academic freedom and civic engagement by academics, told University World News: “This is not best practice for inviting speakers at any university. Speakers should be chosen only on the basis of scholarly value as assessed by their academic peers … not some shadowy administrative figure.”

She added: “How are faculty going to assess ‘political risk’ if that is not their speciality?”, noting it was unclear whether the risk is to the country, the ruling party, the university department, or faculty member who invites the speaker.
“Ambiguity and opacity are the problem [and] lack of transparency and accountability by an institution which should be … upholding these principles – let alone academic freedom,” Lim said.

Academics noted the requirement “formalises and makes official” measures barring particular speakers.
Sol Iglesias, an assistant professor of political science at the University of the Philippines, maintains she was barred from a conference held at NUS last year after being invited to speak on a panel on “Public Intellectuals, Populism and Power: Perspectives from Southeast Asia”.

“Based on what I have been told, I understand that it is because I am married to Dr Thum Ping Tjin (‘PJ’), a Singaporean historian and democracy activist whose work and integrity had been previously viciously attacked by the Singaporean government,” she said at the time, noting that the university’s actions were “part of a persistent failure … to protect and uphold academic freedom”.

A ‘warning’ to NUS staff

Speaking to University World News this week, Iglesias said: “This is not a common academic practice, at least as far as I know, when it comes to universities in open democratic societies,” adding the new form-filling “boils down to the subjective assessment of, say, an individual faculty member.”

“It is like a grading system. But ultimately, the issue is: Why is it even necessary? It doesn't seem compatible with the role of a university in society.”

Iglesias said restrictions, including on academics and dissidents, were not new in Singapore. “As someone who studies democracies and autocracies, to me it just seems like more of the same.

“I am familiar with my own treatment by NUS, which I believe probably predates this new measure. There's this pattern of them curtailing academic freedom in different ways.”

“It's very strange to see these kinds of guidelines and scoring when it comes to something like invitations. I don't think it's necessarily targeted at foreign influence,” she said, noting there was a “blanket exception” on the form relating to prominent individuals, including Nobel Prize winners.

That might allow provocative but well-known individuals such as Donald Trump or Elon Musk to speak at the university, she said.“My sense of it is that it serves as a warning to [NUS] faculty to be more diligent and avoid this kind of brouhaha,” she said, referring to her own case. “It’s NUS faculty that are targeted more than anyone, which is also alarming.

NUS is trying to intimidate their own academic staff.” NUS did not respond to a request for comment.