According to a Jul. 11 report by The Ridge, the next National University of Singapore Students’ Union Executive Committee (Exco) elections will be held on Sept. 17.
In view of the approaching elections to determine the 32nd NUSSU Exco, The Campus Observer will run a three-part series of retrospective articles reflecting on how the NUSSU 31st Exco fared on key issues during the past academic year.
The first in the series, this perspective piece examines the controversy earlier this year over the editorial independence of The Ridge, one of NUSSU’s standing committees.
In February 2009 an apparent disagreement between NUSSU and one of its standing committees The Ridge raised questions within the NUS student community.
The Ridge, a monthly student-run magazine, had ceased publication of its print edition for three months since October 2008.
In a terse statement on its website, The Ridge stated that “NUSSU can also bring any events which it deems newsworthy to The Ridge’s attention, but The Ridge is in no way shape or form bound to run the story.”
Led by a new editorial board, The Ridge has since returned in print this semester.
A statement posted on the publication’s online edition in June read: “After months of disharmony, The Ridge and the NUSSU Executive Committee (Exco) will work in unison towards promoting a vibrant environment for student journalism on campus.”
In an apparent negation of its statement in February, The Ridge also stated that “NUSSU can also bring any events which it deems newsworthy to The Ridge’s attention and if the subject matter would be of interest to the student populace, The Ridge will bring it to the university’s attention.”
Speaking to The Campus Observer in February, NUSSU president Ho Jun Yi said that the controversy was a matter of returning NUSSU to its constitutional roots.
“We’re trying to change the Union, the perspectives of students of the Union from an events organiser...to a representative institution of the students, which is what we’re constituted for,” he said.
Ho wanted The Ridge to recognize that it is a standing committee, and not an “independent ...media body,” he said.
Rather, The Ridge should see themselves as “a union publication.”
One of the changes Ho wanted to implement was to return to appointing the leaders of the respective standing committees, as opposed to holding elections.
“The next NUSSU president would appoint and all the NUSSU committees, we assist the president in the union in whatever way they can,” he explained.
Ho said that such a move while seemingly controversial will return NUSSU to its original “constitutional condition.”
However, it remains to be seen if this is a move that will aid Ho in his goal of making NUSSU a more representative body.
Firstly, while such a move is indeed constitutionally sound according to the letter of the law, previous administrations have interpreted this clause differently, preferring to open these positions to democratic elections.
Ho acknowledged this, but argued that this tradition is purely a “historical accident,” which has led to “mismanagement and misdirection,” leading the standing committees to see themselves as independent.
Ho’s position is derived from a literal interpretation of Clause Three of Article Six of the constitution which as he acknowledges, lacks little historical precedent.
Such a literal interpretation of the article however, seems at odds with his claim to “set the foundations right” for the future of the union.
The call in February 2009 for editorial independence from The Ridge chief editor Hurrairah bin Sohail reflected dissatisfaction from the way the incumbent NUSSU administration handled this matter.
While Ho’s emphasis on representation through the Standing Committees is important, it seems as though Ho is sacrificing another important value in any representative organisation: accountability.
“I think The Ridge’s function is not to police the union,” he said, arguing that NUSSU cannot afford a situation where “the union (is) slamming on the union, it just doesn’t make sense.”
Yet, given the limited resources of independent media organizations, The Ridge is best placed to give an objective account of events within the union.
Furthermore, by insisting on appointing the leaders of the various standing committees, Ho risked alienating students he needed to engage with the most: those who feel as though NUSSU is doing little in the way of gathering feedback and acting as a representative body.
It is only in light of NUSSU being able to respond effectively and swiftly to these concerns can Ho’s administration can be said to be “strengthen(ing) the union” and “safeguard(ing) students’ interests.”
In order to adequately address this issue, Ho’s administration must not just see The Ridge controversy as part of a larger resistance towards change.
Rather, the situation marked a larger debate over the nature of the Exco’s relationship not only with the standing committees, but the student population at large.
Ho wanted to leave the “nitty gritty” details of his restructuring of NUSSU from discussion in The Ridge to be able to push through these changes without having them being debated within the student population.
Yet, these very details are not as irrelevant as it seems on paper. Rather, they hinge on a critical interpretation of NUSSU’s constitution.
Given the sensitive nature of any attempt to move from an established tradition of electing Standing Committee leaders, Ho should have publicly dealt with any concerns, and The Ridge itself would have been an ideal medium to do so.
In the final analysis, The Ridge controversy has highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in NUSSU Exco’s dealings with the student body, a lesson the 32nd Exco will doubtlessly bear in mind.
|
