6th Day of Trial
22 August 2017
The hearing today was a half-day hearing.
The trial tomorrow, 23 August 2017, will be a full-day hearing.
Earlier in the morning, NUS' (former) Vice-Provost Lily Kong was re-examined by the NUS lawyer for a short while and released from the witness stand.
The 2nd NUS witness is Assoc Prof Ang Siau Gek. She was University Registrar and Head of the Registrar's Office from 2004 to 2016. Her cross-examiantion will continue tomorrow.
I believe that Dr Wong Yunn Chii (now Associate Professor) would be called to the witness stand tomorrow.
Today's hearing
One of the issues that A/P Ang Siau Gek was cross-examined on was an NUS internal email, which is exhibited below. The email is a discussion related to my complaint against my MA thesis supervisor.
Background:
(1) The Registrar's Office (RO) processed my admission to NUS in 2002, processed the examination of my MA Thesis in 2005-06, processed the termination of my MA candidature in 2006.
(2) As Head of the RO, A/P Ang Siau Gek was involved in dealing with my complaint against my supervisor Dr Wong.
(3) I have written about my complaint against Dr Wong in earlier posts. I had requested for a change of supervisor due to a conflict of interest between Dr Wong and myself. Dr Wong had successfully received an MOE (Ministry of Education) grant by using the content of my MA Thesis to generate the project and grant application.
(3) I had asked NUS to allow me to change my supervisor and let the new supervisor select my MA Thesis examiners.
(4) At that time, around April 2005, NUS refused to change my supervisor. Vice-Provost Lily Kong warranted to me that my supervisor (Dr Wong) would not be involved in the selection of the examiners of my MA Thesis, in any case, even if he remained my supervisor.
(5) I did not believe that my supervisor, Dr Wong, would not be involved in the selection of the examiners as long as he remained my supervisor. The supervisor is the person who is most well-acquainted with the supervisee's thesis. When we discussed the possible examiners for my thesis before I submitted my thesis, Dr Wong discussed the selection as if he was selecting the examiners.
(6) In any case, it is now confirmed, through this litigation that the two examiners chosen/recommended/selected/suggested/nominated by Dr Wong to NUS in the first instance, were the two examiners approved by NUS to grade my thesis.
The hearing today was a half-day hearing.
The trial tomorrow, 23 August 2017, will be a full-day hearing.
Earlier in the morning, NUS' (former) Vice-Provost Lily Kong was re-examined by the NUS lawyer for a short while and released from the witness stand.
The 2nd NUS witness is Assoc Prof Ang Siau Gek. She was University Registrar and Head of the Registrar's Office from 2004 to 2016. Her cross-examiantion will continue tomorrow.
I believe that Dr Wong Yunn Chii (now Associate Professor) would be called to the witness stand tomorrow.
Today's hearing
One of the issues that A/P Ang Siau Gek was cross-examined on was an NUS internal email, which is exhibited below. The email is a discussion related to my complaint against my MA thesis supervisor.
Background:
(1) The Registrar's Office (RO) processed my admission to NUS in 2002, processed the examination of my MA Thesis in 2005-06, processed the termination of my MA candidature in 2006.
(2) As Head of the RO, A/P Ang Siau Gek was involved in dealing with my complaint against my supervisor Dr Wong.
(3) I have written about my complaint against Dr Wong in earlier posts. I had requested for a change of supervisor due to a conflict of interest between Dr Wong and myself. Dr Wong had successfully received an MOE (Ministry of Education) grant by using the content of my MA Thesis to generate the project and grant application.
(3) I had asked NUS to allow me to change my supervisor and let the new supervisor select my MA Thesis examiners.
(4) At that time, around April 2005, NUS refused to change my supervisor. Vice-Provost Lily Kong warranted to me that my supervisor (Dr Wong) would not be involved in the selection of the examiners of my MA Thesis, in any case, even if he remained my supervisor.
(5) I did not believe that my supervisor, Dr Wong, would not be involved in the selection of the examiners as long as he remained my supervisor. The supervisor is the person who is most well-acquainted with the supervisee's thesis. When we discussed the possible examiners for my thesis before I submitted my thesis, Dr Wong discussed the selection as if he was selecting the examiners.
(6) In any case, it is now confirmed, through this litigation that the two examiners chosen/recommended/selected/suggested/nominated by Dr Wong to NUS in the first instance, were the two examiners approved by NUS to grade my thesis.
