Silence is golden, NUS? I am disappointed.

Sometimes I wonder if the National University of Singapore (NUS) values good press above doing the right thing. I understand that managing the corporate profile is important, and that for a school such as the NUS that relentlessly chases the rankings, avoiding bad press is important. But there are other ways of managing your reputation than just avoiding difficult issues.

Here the imposed silence on student blogger Alvin Tan's punishment says a lot about NUS character and maturity. I am not interested in the sordid details about what the blogger did, but the consequences of what he did especially while he was a scholarship holder. Whatever NUS's disciplinary decision was, there are important lessons for everyone. Transparency in dealing with such a difficult issue will show to the world the heart and soul of the university. We need to know what value systems, the NUS stands for. If the disciplinary action was fair and honest, why is there a reluctance to make it known? There are lessons for everyone.  As a world class university aspirant, the NUS should not fear engaging in public discussions and debate, even about its own corporate decisions.

But I am disappointed. Because it seems clear that the NUS has opted to hide behind zipped lips and walls of silence rather than bravely engaging the public. This has been how the NUS has chosen to manage previous incidents - from research malpractices to spectacular lab accidents. To date, the public remains in the dark about what mistakes were made and what actions taken. Valuable opportunities to learn from these incidences have been lost. This over-reliance on the strategy of retreating behind walls of silence is very damning, and I believe in the longer term, will stunt the intellectual growth of the university. Perhaps some timely advice from the managing editor of the SPH who sits on the NUS Board of Trustees is appropriate here.

It's time the NUS grew up.

Is Justice blind in Singapore?

Recent happenings have prompted many to ask if justice is indeed blind in Singapore. Intriguing question, since I wasn't at all sure how the idea that justice should be blind actually came about.

The only Greek goddess that regularly had a blindfold was actually the goddess of fortune/fate (Fortuna, Tyche/Dike). It really wasn't until about the 15th century that a number of goddess imageries were conflated to give the idea that justice is scaled, sworded and also blind. Even so, the goddess of justice (Justitia) is not always portrayed outside our courthouses as being blind. For example, outside the Old Bailey in London, Justitia is clearly sighted. Outside the Legislative Council Building in Hong Kong, on the other hand, Justitia is presented as wearing a blindfold.

Interestingly, On top of our old Supreme Court Building, the tympanum carries a scene conceptualized by artist Rodolfo Nolli, where Justitia is represented. The scene apparently depicts: "......the central figure represents Justice; to the left is a person begging for mercy (or protection), and next to him are the legislators with books in hand, representing the Law. On the other side of Justice is a figure showing gratitude, then a man and a bull, and two children holding a sheaf of wheat, all representing Wealth, Prosperity and Abundance where Law and Justice prevails."

But the scene looks too intriguing to just refer to official interpretations. In the spirit of the book Da Vinci's Code, I tried my hand at explaining the scene as I saw it. Firstly it should be noted that the Singapore version of Justitia is similarly scaled, sworded but fully sighted. On the right of Justitia are two very sorry looking figures. At the extreme end, the one with the snake is probably Adam wallowing in his sin, unforgiven. Just next to Justitia is another unforgiven figure begging for mercy. Between them, a pair of very conspiratorial looking figures, plotting to throw the book at the guilty ones. On Justitia's left however, by the hand that holds the sword, is a very grateful forgiven woman. One can only guess at why she has been forgiven. Following her however, is an entourage bearing icons of power and prosperity - cattle and grain.

Was the artist trying to make a statement about how justice operates? Here clearly justice is not blind. Does wealth and prosperity feature in the dispensing of justice? I leave it to your interpretation of this very interesting and oft overlooked piece of public art. After all art, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.

Oscar Wilde did write that "Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life".