The indoor Burma candlelight vigil held at the Bukit Timah Campus on Oct. 03 was meant to be a closed-door affair.

The gathering was confined to a lecture theatre and opened only to the university community of students and faculty staff so that it would be exempted from acquiring a Public Entertainment license.

The Office of Student Affairs denied a request for a similar vigil to be held at the Kent Ridge campus citing that it was not in line with the “academic nature” of a university.

Tan Ern Ser, associate professor and vice dean of students at NUS, clarified this initial reason given by OSA.

He said the administration was responsible for its students, faculty staff and the outcome of the vigil, but had lesser control if the public was also involved and was careful not to violate the law.

“Even the area just outside the lecture theatre is considered public,” Tan said. “A public entertainment license is required.

“It is hard to control who comes in outdoors, (the gathering) may be hijacked,” he said. “We need to keep it a university thing, not to say that they’ll be havoc (if we open it up).”

A PE license is required for an outdoor gathering of more than five people. Indoor gatherings were exempted from this requirement in 2004.

Tan also said the university encourages students to take a measured response.

“This is a university, we prefer students to get together to have a discussion, rather than have an emotional response.

“(The situation in Burma) is a clear-cut case of oppression, which we do not condone. We also believe in political consciousness. We do want people to be thinking, to be involved.

“We want to be helpful, we want to facilitate. Our first instinct [when someone approaches us with a request to hold an event] is not to say no, but to say yes within acceptable guidelines,” he said.

Public safety was not the sole concern.

The indoor vigil was allowed only after modifications. Glow sticks were used instead of candles in response to fire safety concerns.

Initially, some students were unhappy with OSA’s response.  

Leow Zi Xiang, a first-year law student, wrote to the Straits Times Forum on Oct. 06 expressing his discontent with the response given by OSA.

“I find this extremely troubling,” he wrote. “In our famously apathetic society, such a move ought to be encouraged as a sign that we are progressing as a people.”

In a phone interview with The Observer, Leow said the issue of the vigil was not political in nature, but instead a moral one.

“(The situation in Burma) is something so wrong that everyone should be taking a stand,” he said.

Choo Zheng Xi, a second-year law student and organiser of the vigil, said he was unsurprised by OSA’s rejection of their vigil request at the Kent Ridge campus.

“I kind of expected it. I was fully prepared for their response,” he said in a phone interview. The Burmese students, however, were “very upset” at the denial of their request.

“(They think) your government has expressed revulsion, why not take a stand?” Choo explained. “What is… a university if you can’t hold a peaceful vigil?”

Leow also questioned the reason given by OSA for denying permission for the vigil to be held.

“NUS should be up front about the real reason for denying the request,” he said. “What is the ‘academic nature’ of a university?”

Choo said he will definitely continue to organise similar events in the future, despite the difficulties he has encountered with organising the vigil.

“This is the reality of (our) social structure,” he said, referring to the response from the university administration. “We don’t want to alarm (the administration,) we want to play by the rules.

“The onus is on student leaders to wean the powers-that-be off their inherent mistrust of student activities in relation to political causes,” he said.