John Tan speaks his mind

[tomoko]

A well written letter from John Tan

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Kangaroo case postponed </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top>Tuesday, 04 November 2008 </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>

Singapore Democrats

High Court Judge Judith Prakash postponed the contempt hearing today to 24 Nov. The three respondents, Mr John Tan, Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal, had asked the court for an adjournment because the AG's Chambers (AGC) had served documents on the three at short notice.

In addition, Mr Tan and Mr Shafi'ie are currently engaged in an ongoing trial at the Sub-court for illegal assembly and procession. Officials from the AGC walked into the courtroom at the Subordinate Courts last Friday afternoon and served four thick bundles of documents on the two defendants and expected them to respond in court after only one-and-a-half working days.
Judge Prakash allowed the adjournment and set 24 and 25 November 2008 as the new hearing dates.
The Attorney General has accused the three men for contempt of court because they were wearing T-shirts with the picture of a kangaroo in judge's gown within the Supreme Court vicinity during the defamation suit hearing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong vs. Dr Chee Soon Juan, Ms Chee Siok Chin and the Singapore Democratic Party. Mr Shafi'ie was represented by Lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik.

In another development we reported yesterday that Mr John Tan was suspended by James Cook University where he was teaching Psychology. We reproduce here the letter that Mr Tan had written to the CEO of the university, Dr Dale Anderson:

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Dear Dr Dale Anderson,

I want to register my deep disappointment with the way James Cook University handled my suspension over the recent news about my impending legal problem with the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC), and a supposed feedback from a student. I am also disappointed with your response thus far to the students (28 in total from my last count) who wrote in support of me.

During our recent meeting on 21 October 2008, you showed me an email from a supposed student who signed off as Collin Lim. In it, he pointed out my political activities and my association with Dr. Chee Soon Juan, a well known Singaporean dissident and secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party? You also noted to me that he had copied his email to Singapore's Minister of Education Ng Eng Hen.

In our meeting, you had expressed doubt that Collin Lim was a student of JCU. Notwithstanding, even if he was a bona fide student, it is unthinkable that a lecturer was suspended because of the feedback of a single student despite 28 opposing voices.

The Dean Mr. Noel Richards and Associate Dean Dr. Denise Dillon had handed me my suspension letter earlier that morning. In that meeting, Noel mentioned that in Australia, lecturers do not bring politics into the classroom. Perhaps he was indirectly accusing me of bringing politics to the classroom. I offer no apologies for the appropriate use of political examples as illustrations when I teach social psychology or any other topic. But no one can accuse me of politicizing the classroom, a fact clearly attested by the 28 students.

On the contrary, by suspending me on the basis of Collin Lim's email, is JCU not politicizing the classroom since the gist of Collin's complaint is my association with Dr Chee. Your expression of concern that the complaint was copied to Dr. Ng Eng Hen is instructive.

When I pointed out that you are working for a university owned by a free country, your response was that "half of the school is owned by Singapore" and that your position is directly "under the control of that half".

I am accused of donning a T-shirt depicting the picture of a kangaroo in a judge's gown. I expressed my opinion as a Singaporean over a Singaporean matter. What does this have to do with JCU? I have not committed a crime that has brought disrepute to the university. In fact one would have thought that a university would respect my right to freedom of expression.

Moreover, even before the AGC served me the charges, JCU had already meted out its sentence on me. This was done unilaterally without my input whatsoever. The letter of suspension was already printed and signed prior to my meeting with the deans. Given such a hasty and unilateral action based solely on an email copied to Ng Eng Hen when the case has not even begun leads one to only one conclusion: that JCU acted under political pressure over my suspension.

Chief among the reasons given by Noel for my suspension is "to protect the reputation of the school." Would the reputation of the school not be enhanced if it listens to 28 of its students rather than to one? Would the reputation of the school not be enhanced if it separates academics from politics, and refuses to allow itself to get embroiled in political dispute? Would the reputation of the school not be enhanced if it stands up for the bullied rather than with the bully—albeit the bully in this case is the Government of Singapore

You and your colleagues come from a nation where the freedom of expression is valued, sometimes taken for granted. Here in Singapore we face bankruptcy, endure fines and imprisonment just to make ourselves heard.

Desmond Tutu said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." As such, in my struggle for a freer society, it would have been reasonable had I asked you for help and support. Yet, I did not ask for that. All I am asking for, from you and your colleagues, is that you do not add to my struggle.

Clearly, the matter has nothing to do with my competence or performance as an academic. This is established by the 28 letters, and further confirmed by Noel and Denise in our meeting. It involved, however, the freedom of opinion that any university should respect and uphold. In fact, JCU should encourage and be proud of the diversity of opinion.

I therefore beseech you to restore my contract and standing with the university. In your consideration, may I also ask that you to take into account my good standing and the goodwill I have built over almost four years as an associate lecturer with JCU and its students?

Sincerely,
John Tan
28 Oct 2008

 

[guavatree]

soon the fuckwit cheebai kia chao ah kwa Bob Sim leetahbar

PAP cock sucking retard will be here to defend his PAP masters!

LOL

 

[kakowi]

It only goes to show just how precious that regular salary is, for our well-being, self-esteem and standing in society.

In the end, the struggle against the kangaroo does Mr Tan no good.

It is not certain as to whether the university will heed his letter. But he must know that the Dean is not the owner of the university. He is accountable for the financial success and reputation of the university.

That Collin who wrote the letter that got Mr Tan sacked is probably enjoying his salary at this time.

Perhaps Mr Tan should seriously consider how he can be a model opposition party member.

In the end, his cause is not really supported by the mainstream voter, he faced prejudice in his career and now in high-cost singapore, he faced challenges in keeping the body together.

Maybe for him, it is all worth it.

But it is so unneccessary. And also sad.

If only he will change his mindset. There could be a pot of gold waiting for him as an opposition MP.

 

[Ramseth]

I know SDP members and supporters personally too. Frankly, I know them as acquaintenances but I don't understand them. When you fighting something, there must be that something to fight for. Now, what's that something?

Overthrowing government by means of protests and so-called civil disobedience? Mohandas Ghandi's civil disobedience campaign worked because he got millions in majority behind him and his campaign.

He didn't invent the cause. The people breathed the cause, and he led the fight for them, not trying to convince people to fight for him.

 

[ahbengsong]

It only goes to show just how precious that regular salary is, for our well-being, self-esteem and standing in society.

In the end, the struggle against the kangaroo does Mr Tan no good.

It is not certain as to whether the university will heed his letter. But he must know that the Dean is not the owner of the university. He is accountable for the financial success and reputation of the university.

That Collin who wrote the letter that got Mr Tan sacked is probably enjoying his salary at this time.

Perhaps Mr Tan should seriously consider how he can be a model opposition party member.

In the end, his cause is not really supported by the mainstream voter, he faced prejudice in his career and now in high-cost singapore, he faced challenges in keeping the body together.

Maybe for him, it is all worth it.

But it is so unneccessary. And also sad.

If only he will change his mindset. There could be a pot of gold waiting for him as an opposition MP.

Why is he fighting for a bunch of cowards ??

 

[Avantas]

It is precisely because of PAP moles like you in the opposition that SDP is not getting the support it needs.

Now out with it, which WP member is behind "Colin Lim" ? You, jacys, melvin tan or andrew loh ?

I know SDP members and supporters personally too. Frankly, I know them as acquaintenances but I don't understand them. When you fighting something, there must be that something to fight for. Now, what's that something?

Overthrowing government by means of protests and so-called civil disobedience? Mohandas Ghandi's civil disobedience campaign worked because he got millions in majority behind him and his campaign.

He didn't invent the cause. The people breathed the cause, and he led the fight for them, not trying to convince people to fight for him.

 

[leetahbar]

why is he openly sharing a personal letter and the one from JCU which clearly stated it is "PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL"?

fattie john has already committed suicide to his rice bowl. he breaks his own rice bowl. even if the JCU was contemplating of taking him back after the trial, it seems that john has just kaput that hope.

it's a well written suicide letter that indirectly ended the last recourse JCU might have for fattie john. time for him to read the JOBS CLASSIFIEDS.

 

[kakowi]

Why is he fighting for a bunch of cowards ??

I myself am not convinced that he is fighting for singapore, singaporeans. If sdp is indeed fighting for singaporeans, then sdp should heed what singaporeans want. The issues must be those that touches the singaporeans welfare. Political hay must be made whilst the spotlight is on.

Let's give him and sdp the benefit of the doubt - that they are indeed fighting for singapore and singaporeans.

Then the method they are using in the fight is leading themselves to destruction.

As to whether singaporeans are cowards, it is indeed hard to generalized. Some are. Others aren't.

But it is fairer to say that singaporeans (PAP, opposition, ordinary people) know how to take care of themselves.

And it is to this self-interest that Mr Tan and the SDP must know how to capture.

 

[kakowi]

Avantas, Leetahbar,

Maybe should consider supporting your fellow opposition in need?

Otherwise, who will support them?

 

[peasantJUDGE]

((((When I pointed out that you are working for a university owned by a free country, your response was that "half of the school is owned by Singapore" and that your position is directly "under the control of that half".))))


Obviously, Dr Dale Anderson has acted out of fear of that half of the school that is owned by Singapore.

And Lee Kuan Yew had asked that Ken reporter on that channelnewsasia show in 2006 to show prove that there is fear in the country and that such fear must be proven to exist...by showing him the list of people and their ic numbers!

 

[peasantJUDGE]

Whether we agree with John Tan and his actions or not is not the issue.

He has clearly been unjustly screwed by the University. No need to speculate -- the Singapore Government definitely has their hands in this. I suspect it could have something to do with Dr Anderson (and all those on the university board + the dean etc) employment contracts. Knowing the Singapore Government's paranoia, they must have given all these foreign universities which are hardup to operate here very good deals to set up shop, but in return they insert clauses such as "no interference in local politics" and so on, and any breach of such agreement would result in Dr Anderson and his gang losing lots of money. The Singapore Government is so predictable.

 

[guavatree]

it's a well written suicide letter that indirectly ended the last recourse JCU might have for fattie john. time for him to read the JOBS CLASSIFIEDS.

bapok PAP dog non of your blooming biz why you so fucking kaypohji!

have you book your mandai date yet?

LOL

 

[leetahbar]

Avantas, Leetahbar,

Maybe should consider supporting your fellow opposition in need?

Otherwise, who will support them?

avantas always attack wp and their members. his other nick should be LIMTUAKANG aka aviation lim. i believe he's mixed up with F4 and their motive is similar: TO DISCREDIT AND DESTROY WP.

since gohmengseng - ex wp is now in nsp, unwittingly this also comes under their attack cos gms is quite direct at exposing the discord sower fishmonger troll.

all the characters and elements really inspire a great story full of twists, turns and suspense.

 

[leetahbar]

Whether we agree with John Tan and his actions or not is not the issue.

He has clearly been unjustly screwed by the University. No need to speculate -- the Singapore Government definitely has their hands in this. I suspect it could have something to do with Dr Anderson (and all those on the university board + the dean etc) employment contracts. Knowing the Singapore Government's paranoia, they must have given all these foreign universities which are hardup to operate here very good deals to set up shop, but in return they insert clauses such as "no interference in local politics" and so on, and any breach of such agreement would result in Dr Anderson and his gang losing lots of money. The Singapore Government is so predictable.

the uni hasn't descided to sack him. they just "suspended" his services temporary. GUILT has made the most out of john tan. he decided to strike first before the next course the uni could take. that has indirectly ended any recourse and unwittingly confirmed the uni's final decision.

john according to the report is NOT a full-time employee but a contractual one giving a limited number of lessons only. if he's so invaluable to the uni, he would have been upgraded to a full-timer with all the fringe benefits.

his little antics seemed childish and unbecoming of a lecturer in "psychology" some more. what contradiction!!

 

[leetahbar]

blaming gov when they finally gotta to answer to the law is such convenient excuse.

who started the who scenario? they were mischievous in their action but they did not aniticpated the seriousness or the repercussion.

so who really have to be blamed? right, not anyone else but the gov again.

 

[guavatree]

his little antics seemed childish and unbecoming of a lecturer in "psychology" some more. what contradiction!!

paranoid chao ah kwa

you're fucking jealous!

unemployed and too lazy to work

go get a job and stop being a fucking kaypohji!

your appalling gay behavior is worse than a menopause woman!

did you had your menses lately chao ah kwa?

LOL

 

[leetarsah]

blaming gov when they finally gotta to answer to the law is such convenient excuse.

hypocrite chow ah kua

you created havoc at home when you beat up your father bloody when he threw away your gay porn!

you created havoc in the temple when you stole the temple's donated money!

you created havoc when you cheat and con ppl when start to know them!

you're a moron!

 

[ahbengsong]

As to whether singaporeans are cowards, it is indeed hard to generalized. Some are. Others aren't.

at least 66% are cowards... the rest are hopless... what a society in pap singapore...

 

[chinkangkor]

Whether we agree with John Tan and his actions or not is not the issue.

He has clearly been unjustly screwed by the University. No need to speculate -- the Singapore Government definitely has their hands in this. I suspect it could have something to do with Dr Anderson (and all those on the university board + the dean etc) employment contracts. Knowing the Singapore Government's paranoia, they must have given all these foreign universities which are hardup to operate here very good deals to set up shop, but in return they insert clauses such as "no interference in local politics" and so on, and any breach of such agreement would result in Dr Anderson and his gang losing lots of money. The Singapore Government is so predictable.

Agree bro. This is how the PAP govt maintains the climate of fear on the populace.

 

[scroobal]

Whether we agree with John Tan and his actions or not is not the issue.

He has clearly been unjustly screwed by the University. No need to speculate -- the Singapore Government definitely has their hands in this.

I doubt it. The last people this govt would approach would be the australains as they will sure make a song and dance about it on the world stage. OZ lecturers are notoriusly rebellious even to their own admin. Also remember Stuart Littlemore making a hue and cry about GCT getting preferential treatment in court etc.

Furthermore, John has very little impact in the political scene. Lets be frank on his electability and his influence.

Some decades ago, the PAP publicly asked for the removal of a opposition candidate who was a NTUC part-time lecturer and the NTUC obliged claiming symbiotic relationship and similar national agenda. That was after the elections. So itg is not beyond the PAP, but the chap obviously influenced the poll.

I suspect that FCU was using this as an excuse to get rid of him for other reasons as John has been known to be on the abrasive side. You can also tell from his letter that he did not know what to reveal publicly and what to keep confidential until the very last. I am also sure they were not trying to be altrustic where the students were concerned and got a replacement lecturer because if that was the case, the message conveyed would be very different.

On a silly note, using their national icon to equate to our judiciary must have offended them deeply.