I am a CSJ supporter but somehow his NUS sacking seems quite suspicious to me and I want to get to the bottom of the matter. So I was browsing the Parliamentary debates on CSJ's NUS sacking and found the following info, which I think may answer some questions people may have. In fact the defense was provided by Chiam See Tong himself.
Q) Why Chee Soon Juan didn't fight his dismissal?
A) Under the service contract NUS could dismiss candidates on two grounds, clause 4(a) for no reason whatsoever with three months' notice and clause 4(c) for misconduct. CSJ was dismissed under clause 4(a).
Since he was dismissed without case, which was within the university's legal right there was no way he could win the case! MSM failed to publish this but thankfully we have parliamentary records that cannot be erased.
If he was really dishonest then why was he not dismissed under clause 4(c)?
Q) Why did Chee Soon Juan send his wife's thesis to the United States?
A) His wife was conducting research which was relevant to his and he wanted to send the dissertation over to be validated so he could incorporate the information into his own research. He was forthcoming about this reasons and used it to justify his $226.00 mailing fee. He even provided communication records between him and his PhD advisor who supported the relevance of his wife's research.
The funds were approved by his direct supervisor who sacked him later.. Below I quote from Chiam See Tong on the Parliamentary Record:
"Bills and Claims for payments must be certified by the principal investigator and approved by the Head of his Department before they are submitted to the Bursar's Office for payment. The vote chargeable and the item No. must be indicated. Only original copies of the bills are accepted for payment.
As far as we know, Dr Chee has complied with this condition. His bills comprising delivery notes and invoices were obviously checked by the principal investigator and approved personally by Dr Vasoo himself. Then they were sent to the Bursar. Payments were made. The whole matter was over because it was duly approved by the Head of Department."
Q) How about the inflated taxi claims?
A) In the end, the taxi claims did not play at part at all in determining his dismissal because NUS administration thought that the misuse of research funds was sufficient.
In the end whether or not CSJ should have been sacked hinges on whether sending his wife's thesis which was relevant to his research was indeed a misuse of funds. Chiam See Tong believed that NUS guidelines were not clear while PAP believed that it was a misuse and grounds for dismissal. If it was the latter, why did they not dismiss him on clause 4(c) for misconduct and dishonesty? You be the judge.
And another quote by CST: "During the drive [in 1990], Dr Chee asked casually what would happen to a NUS lecturer if he joined an Opposition party. Dr Vasoo replied that he would probably be sacked, or asked to resign."
Source: Singapore Parliamentary Reports (Hansard).
Details are below because I can’t post links.
Sitting Date: 13-04-1993
Section Name: MOTIONS
Title: DISMISSAL OF DR CHEE SOON JUAN
Q) Why Chee Soon Juan didn't fight his dismissal?
A) Under the service contract NUS could dismiss candidates on two grounds, clause 4(a) for no reason whatsoever with three months' notice and clause 4(c) for misconduct. CSJ was dismissed under clause 4(a).
Since he was dismissed without case, which was within the university's legal right there was no way he could win the case! MSM failed to publish this but thankfully we have parliamentary records that cannot be erased.
If he was really dishonest then why was he not dismissed under clause 4(c)?
Q) Why did Chee Soon Juan send his wife's thesis to the United States?
A) His wife was conducting research which was relevant to his and he wanted to send the dissertation over to be validated so he could incorporate the information into his own research. He was forthcoming about this reasons and used it to justify his $226.00 mailing fee. He even provided communication records between him and his PhD advisor who supported the relevance of his wife's research.
The funds were approved by his direct supervisor who sacked him later.. Below I quote from Chiam See Tong on the Parliamentary Record:
"Bills and Claims for payments must be certified by the principal investigator and approved by the Head of his Department before they are submitted to the Bursar's Office for payment. The vote chargeable and the item No. must be indicated. Only original copies of the bills are accepted for payment.
As far as we know, Dr Chee has complied with this condition. His bills comprising delivery notes and invoices were obviously checked by the principal investigator and approved personally by Dr Vasoo himself. Then they were sent to the Bursar. Payments were made. The whole matter was over because it was duly approved by the Head of Department."
Q) How about the inflated taxi claims?
A) In the end, the taxi claims did not play at part at all in determining his dismissal because NUS administration thought that the misuse of research funds was sufficient.
In the end whether or not CSJ should have been sacked hinges on whether sending his wife's thesis which was relevant to his research was indeed a misuse of funds. Chiam See Tong believed that NUS guidelines were not clear while PAP believed that it was a misuse and grounds for dismissal. If it was the latter, why did they not dismiss him on clause 4(c) for misconduct and dishonesty? You be the judge.
And another quote by CST: "During the drive [in 1990], Dr Chee asked casually what would happen to a NUS lecturer if he joined an Opposition party. Dr Vasoo replied that he would probably be sacked, or asked to resign."
Source: Singapore Parliamentary Reports (Hansard).
Details are below because I can’t post links.
Sitting Date: 13-04-1993
Section Name: MOTIONS
Title: DISMISSAL OF DR CHEE SOON JUAN
