Best American and Canadian Universities in Academic Reputation and Research Performance

The United States has a total of 2,774 4-year degree granting institutions (source).

The range in quality of these institutions is astonishingly large.

The top 113 (4%) among the 2774, according to Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2011-2012 (source), are listed below.

(Even the very best of US liberal arts colleges, such as Williams College, Swarthmore College, and Wellesley College, fail to make the THE list, due to their low research profile. See here for a ranking of US liberal arts colleges.)

The bottom 50 US universities ("dropout factories") by graduation rates can be found at the end of this post.


____________________________________________



THE (Times Higher Education) List of the top 131 Universities in North America (113 in USA, 18 in Canada)

The number preceding a university's name is its world ranking. Canadian universities are marked with [Canada].

* marks a university not on the ARWU lists below.


1 California Institute of Technology
=2 Harvard University
=2 Stanford University
5 Princeton University
7 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
----
9 University of Chicago
10 University of California Berkeley
11 Yale University
12 Columbia University
13 University of California Los Angeles
----
14 Johns Hopkins University
16 University of Pennsylvania
18 University of Michigan
19 University of Toronto [Canada]
20 Cornell University
----
21 Carnegie Mellon University
=22 University of British Columbia [Canada]
=22 Duke University
24 Georgia Institute of Technology
25 University of Washington
----
26 Northwestern University
27 University of Wisconsin-Madison
28 McGill University [Canada]
29 University of Texas at Austin
31 University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
----
33 University of California San Diego
35 University of California Santa Barbara
38 University of California Davis
41 Washington University in St Louis
42 University of Minnesota
----
43 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
44 New York University
49 Brown University
51 Pennsylvania State University
54 Boston University
----
55 University of Southern California
57 Ohio State University
59 University of Pittsburgh
64 University of Massachusetts
65 McMaster University [Canada]
----
70 Vanderbilt University
72 Rice University
75 Emory University
=77 University of Colorado Boulder
=77 Tufts University
----
=81 University of Rochester
=81 Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
86 University of California Irvine
89 University of Notre Dame
90 Dartmouth College
----
93 Case Western Reserve University
94 University of Maryland, College Park
96 Michigan State University
97 University of Arizona
98 Purdue University
----
100 University of Alberta [Canada]
104 University of Montreal [Canada]
110 University of California Santa Cruz
113 University of Utah
114 Stony Brook University
----
123 Indiana University
125 University of Florida
127 Arizona State University
=135 George Washington University
=135 University of Virginia
----
138 Georgetown University
141 University of Iowa
143 University of California Riverside
144 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
146 College of William & Mary *
----
150 Brandeis University
154 Yeshiva University
=162 Medical University of South Carolina
=162 Wake Forest University
164 Texas A&M University
----
167 University of Illinois at Chicago
172 University of Miami
173 Queen's University [Canada]
177 University of Victoria [Canada]
180 University of Delaware
----
184 Iowa State University
185 University of Ottawa [Canada]
195 Boston College
197 Georgia Health Sciences University *

________________________________
Rank 201-225

University at Buffalo
University of Cincinnati
Colorado School of Mines *
University of Georgia
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey
----
Northeastern University
University of South Carolina
Tulane University
University of Waterloo [Canada]
University of Western Ontario [Canada]
_________________________________

Rank 226-250

University of Calgary [Canada]
Carleton University [Canada]
Colorado State University
Creighton University *
Dalhousie University [Canada]
----
Drexel University
University of Missouri
Simon Fraser University [Canada]
State University of New York Albany - University at Albany
__________________________

Rank 251-275

University of Hawaii at Manoa
University of Texas at Dallas
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Wayne State University
___________________________

Rank 276-300

University of Guelph [Canada]
University of Kansas
University of Kentucky
University of Texas at San Antonio
York University [Canada]
___________________________

Rank 301-350

Binghamton University, State University of New York *
George Mason University
University of Houston
Kent State University
Lehigh University
----
University of Manitoba [Canada]
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
University of Oklahoma
University of South Florida
Washington State University
_______________________

Rank 351-400

Auburn University
Clemson University
Georgia State University *
University of Idaho *
Kansas State University
----
Michigan Technological University *
New Jersey Institute of Technology *
Old Dominion University *
University of Wyoming

__________________________________
##########################


Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) 2012 (here) focuses exclusively on the universities' research strength, and publishes the top 500 universities by research strength in the world. Amongst these 500, 150 are in the USA, and 22 are in Canada.

The number preceding the university's name is its USA/Canada rank, and the number following its name is its world rank.

* marks a university not on the THE list above.

ARWU List of the top 150 Universities in the USA

Country Rank	Institution	World Rank
1	Harvard University	1
2	Stanford University	2
3	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)	3
4	University of California, Berkeley	4
5	California Institute of Technology	6
6	Princeton University	7
7	Columbia University	8
8	University of Chicago	9
9	Yale University	11
10	University of California, Los Angeles	12
11	Cornell University	13
12	University of Pennsylvania	14
13	University of California, San Diego	15
14	University of Washington	16
15	The Johns Hopkins University	17
16	University of California, San Francisco *	18
17	University of Wisconsin - Madison	19
18	University of Michigan - Ann Arbor	22
19	University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	25
20	New York University	27
21	University of Minnesota, Twin Cities	29
22	Northwestern University	30
23	Washington University in St. Louis	31
24	Rockefeller University *	32
25	University of Colorado at Boulder	33
26	University of California, Santa Barbara	34
27	The University of Texas at Austin	35
28	Duke University	36
29	University of Maryland, College Park	38
30	University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill	41
31	University of California, Irvine	45
32	University of Southern California	46
33	University of California, Davis	47
34	The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas *	48
35	Pennsylvania State University - University Park	49
36	Vanderbilt University	50
37	Carnegie Mellon University	51
38	Purdue University - West Lafayette	56
39	University of Pittsburgh	58
40	Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - New Brunswick	61
41	Brown University	65
41	The Ohio State University - Columbus	65
43	Boston University	71
44	University of Florida	72
45	University of Arizona	77
46	Arizona State University - Tempe	79
47	University of Utah	82
48	Indiana University Bloomington	84
49	University of Rochester	86
50	Rice University	91
51	Texas A&M University - College Station	93
52	Michigan State University	96
53	Case Western Reserve University	99
54-67	Baylor College of Medicine *	101-150
54-67	Emory University	101-150
54-67	Georgia Institute of Technology	101-150
54-67	Mayo Medical School *	101-150
54-67	The University of Georgia	101-150
54-67	Tufts University	101-150
54-67	University of California, Riverside	101-150
54-67	University of California, Santa Cruz	101-150
54-67	University of Delaware	101-150
54-67	University of Hawaii at Manoa	101-150
54-67	University of Iowa	101-150
54-67	University of Massachusetts Amherst	101-150
54-67	University of Massachusetts Medical School - Worcester *	101-150
54-67	University of Virginia	101-150
68-85	Colorado State University	151-200
68-85	Dartmouth College	151-200
68-85	George Mason University	151-200
68-85	Iowa State University	151-200
68-85	Mount Sinai School of Medicine *	151-200
68-85	North Carolina State University - Raleigh *	151-200
68-85	Oregon Health and Science University *	151-200
68-85	Oregon State University *	151-200
68-85	State University of New York at Stony Brook	151-200
68-85	The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston *	151-200
68-85	The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center *	151-200
68-85	University of Illinois at Chicago	151-200
68-85	University of Maryland, Baltimore	151-200
68-85	University of Miami	151-200
68-85	University of Nebraska - Lincoln *	151-200
68-85	University of Tennessee - Knoxville *	151-200
68-85	Virginia Commonwealth University *	151-200
68-85	Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	151-200
86-109	Brandeis University	201-300
86-109	Florida State University *	201-300
86-109	Louisiana State University - Baton Rouge *	201-300
86-109	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute	201-300
86-109	State University of New York at Buffalo	201-300
86-109	The George Washington University	201-300
86-109	The University of Alabama at Birmingham *	201-300
86-109	The University of Connecticut - Storrs *	201-300
86-109	The University of New Mexico - Albuquerque *	201-300
86-109	Thomas Jefferson University *	201-300
86-109	University of Central Florida *	201-300
86-109	University of Cincinnati	201-300
86-109	University of Colorado at Denver *	201-300
86-109	University of Houston	201-300
86-109	University of Kansas - Lawrence	201-300
86-109	University of Kentucky	201-300
86-109	University of Medicine and Dentistry New Jersey	201-300
86-109	University of Missouri - Columbia	201-300
86-109	University of Notre Dame	201-300
86-109	University of Oregon *	201-300
86-109	University of South Carolina - Columbia	201-300
86-109	University of South Florida	201-300
86-109	Washington State University - Pullman	201-300
86-109	Yeshiva University	201-300
110-137	Brigham Young University *	301-400
110-137	City University of New York City College *	301-400
110-137	Clemson University	301-400
110-137	Drexel University	301-400
110-137	Georgetown University	301-400
110-137	Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis *	301-400
110-137	Kansas State University	301-400
110-137	Medical University of South Carolina	301-400
110-137	Northeastern University	301-400
110-137	Saint Louis University *	301-400
110-137	San Diego State University *	301-400
110-137	State University of New York at Albany	301-400
110-137	State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn *	301-400
110-137	Syracuse University *	301-400
110-137	Temple University *	301-400
110-137	The University of Montana - Missoula *	301-400
110-137	The University of Texas at Dallas	301-400
110-137	The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio *	301-400
110-137	The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston *	301-400
110-137	Tulane University	301-400
110-137	University of Alaska - Fairbanks *	301-400
110-137	University of Nebraska Medical Center *	301-400
110-137	University of New Hampshire - Durham *	301-400
110-137	University of Oklahoma - Norman	301-400
110-137	University of Rhode Island *	301-400
110-137	University of Vermont *	301-400
110-137	Wake Forest University	301-400
110-137	Wayne State University	301-400
138-150	Auburn University	401-500
138-150	Boston College	401-500
138-150	Kent State University	401-500
138-150	Lehigh University	401-500
138-150	Medical College of Wisconsin *	401-500
138-150	Montana State University - Bozeman *	401-500
138-150	Southern Methodist University *	401-500
138-150	Texas Tech University *	401-500
138-150	The University of Texas at San Antonio	401-500
138-150	University of Arkansas at Fayetteville *	401-500
138-150	University of Louisville *	401-500
138-150	University of Wyoming	401-500

Missing from table: 138-150 Utah State University * 401- 500


________________________________________

ARWU List of the top 22 Universities in Canada

Country Rank	Institution	World Rank
1	University of Toronto	27
2	University of British Columbia	39
3	McGill University	63
4	McMaster University	92
5-6	University of Alberta	101-150
5-6	University of Montreal	101-150
7	University of Waterloo	151-200
8-17	Dalhousie University	201-300
8-17	Laval University *	201-300
8-17	Queen's University	201-300
8-17	Simon Fraser University	201-300
8-17	The University of Calgary	201-300
8-17	The University of Western Ontario	201-300
8-17	University of Guelph	201-300
8-17	University of Manitoba	201-300
8-17	University of Ottawa	201-300
8-17	University of Saskatchewan *	201-300
18	University of Victoria	301-400
19-22	Carleton University	401-500
19-22	University of Quebec *	401-500
19-22	University of Sherbrooke *	401-500
19-22	York University	401-500

***********************************************************


The Center for Measuring University Performance (University of Florida) determines the Top American Research Universities (2010 report, here) by their rank on nine different measures: Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Giving, National Academy Members, Faculty Awards, Doctorates Granted, Postdoctoral Appointees, and SAT/ACT range. 

The tables (below) group research institutions according to how many times they rank in the top 25 on each of these nine measures. The top category includes those universities that rank in the top 25 on all nine indicators. The bottom category includes universities with only one of the nine measures ranked in the top 25.

Within these groups, institutions are then sorted by how many times they rank between 26 and 50 on the nine  performance variables, with ties listed alphabetically. A similar methodology produces a second set of institutions—those ranked 26 through 50 on the same nine measures.


Top American Research Universities

Rank 1-53

Rank 54-76

***********************************************************

50 US Universities with highest dropout rates

(source)

Below are the Washington Monthly's 2010 rankings of the 4-year public and private not-for-profit colleges in America with the worst graduation rates. To read the story "College Dropout Factories" click here.

* Indicates a public school. † Crichton is now the for-profit Victory University.
††, ⊕ These symbols denote post-release edits to chart: Read footnotes.

	Institution
		Graduation Rate
1	Southern University at New Orleans (LA)*, ⊕	5%
2	Allen University (SC)††	6%
3	Martin University (IN)	7%
4	Bellevue University (NE)	7%
5	Calumet College of Saint Joseph (IN)	7%
6	Baker College of Auburn Hills (MI)	7%
7	University of the District of Columbia*	8%
8	East-West University (IL)††	9%
9	Haskell Indian Nations University (KS)*	9%
10	Crichton College (TN)†, ††	9%
11	Jarvis Christian College (TX)††	10%
12	Edward Waters College (FL)	11%
13	Oglala Lakota College (SD)*	11%
14	Baker College of Clinton Township (MI)	12%
15	Heritage University (WA)	12%
16	Davenport University (MI)	12%
17	Texas College	12%
18	Texas Southern University*	13%
19	Chicago State University*	13%
20	Purdue University, North Central Campus (IN)*	13%
21	Macon State College (GA)*	13%
22	West Virginia University at Parkersburg*	13%
23	Mountain State University (WV)	13%
24	Saint Paul's College (VA)	13%
25	Nevada State College*	13%
26	University of Houston, Downtown (TX)*	14%
27	Louisiana State University, Shreveport*	15%
28	Utah Valley University*	15%
29	University of Alaska Southeast*	15%
30	Boricua College (NY)	15%
31	University of Great Falls (MT)	16%
32	Bryn Athyn College of the New Church (PA)	16%
33	Coppin State University (MD)*	16%
34	Paul Quinn College (TX)	16%
35	Holy Names University (CA)	17%
36	Huston-Tillotson University (TX)	17%
37	University of Texas at Brownsville*	17%
38	Bacone College (OK)	17%
39	Marygrove College (MI)	17%
40	Rogers State University (OK)*	18%
41	Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus (NY)	18%
42	Miles College (AL)	18%
43	Western New Mexico University*	18%
44	Sul Ross State University (TX)*	18%
45	Northeastern Illinois University*	18%
46	Life University (GA)	19%
47	CUNY New York City College of Technology	19%
48	Harris-Stowe State University (MO)*	19%
49	Stillman College (AL)	19%
50	Mitchell College (CT)	20%

†† The original version of this table listed several schools—Concordia College at Moorhead, Saint Augustine’s College, Nyack College, Visible School—Music and Worship Arts College, and Idaho State University—as dropout factories based upon graduation rate data they reported to a database maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. We have since determined that those schools reported incorrect graduation rate information to the government; had they reported accurate data they would not have been included in the table. We have corrected the rankings accordingly. ⊕Southern University's low graduation rate reflects the effects of Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the campus. The average graduation rate of the four cohorts of students who graduated prior to Katrina was 11 percent; at that rate the school would rank 13th on our list.

*****************************************

Related:

* Best British and Irish Universities in Academic Reputation and Research Performance (here)

* Best Australian and New Zealand Universities in Academic Reputation and Research Performance (here)

Legal scholar critical of Singapore politics and law charged with corruption

Public Prosecutor v. Tey Tsun Hang: AGC denies link to Professor’s politically charged academic publications

Published by The Online Citizen on July 28, 2012 (source)

Tey Tsun Hang

Tey Tsun Hang

Tey Tsun Hang

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) has denied any link between the politically charged academic publications of NUS Law Faculty’s Associate Professor Tey Tsun Hang and the prosecution against him for corruption for allegedly sleeping with law student Darinne Ko in return for improving her grades.

In response to media queries, the AGC said in an emailed statement:

“There is no link between these charges and Mr. Tey’s academic publications and writing,”.

Speculation started after Prof Tey said in a statement to the press:

“I am known to speak up, amongst other things on the Singapore legal system”. He further went on to state that his writings are in good faith with no ill intent and his defense will be in a similar vein.

Despite being mainly an academic specializing in equity and trusts, Prof Tey has also been known to publish articles containing critiques of the Singapore political system.

Recently (on Apr 2, 2012), a blog, The Singapore Consensus, has been started that has republished some of Professor Tey’s more politically charged articles.

Prof Tey obtained first class honours from Oxford University (ed. should be King's College, London) and practised law in Malaysia before being hired by then Dean of the Faculty of Law Professor Chin Tet Yung to teach at NUS Law faculty.

Subsequently, Prof Tey left academia to enter the legal service in the Supreme Court as a Justice Law Clerk during the tenure of the then Chief Justice Yong Pung How.

Prof Tey subsequently left to practice in the top litigation firm in Singapore, attaining the rank of Associate Director.

Prof Tey then went on to become a District Judge, after which he returned to academia at NUS Law Faculty.

The recently started blog, entitled “Singapore Consensus”, collates the writings of Prof Tey, a Malaysian citizen, that are directly critical of the Singaporean legal system.

In a 2010 article entitled “Judicial Internalising of Singapore’s Supreme Political Ideology” published in the Hong Kong Law Journal, Tey argued that “Right from the beginning of Singapore’s nationhood, an obvious and unbridgeable disconnect appeared – between its leadership’s political ideology and the aspirations on human rights and constitutionalism of its legal community.

In another article published in 2010 in the Hong Kong Law Journal entitled “Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary”, Tey argued:

“The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) of Singapore legitimises its authoritarian political regime – and insulates it from substantive scrutiny – via a three-pronged strategy: first, through its tightly controlled media and communications channels; secondly, by delivering an admirable economic performance and, creating and maintaining an awe-inspiring standard of living; and thirdly – and most importantly – through its legal institutions. However, there are profound logical flaws and stark absences of consistency in the judgments that help secure this legal state of affairs”.

The other articles Professor Tey has written in a similar vein are likewise equally critical of the Singaporean political and judicial system.

One of his articles is titled “Death Penalty Singapore-Style: Clinical and Carefree”.

In this article, Prof Tey argues that “Singapore has developed a jurisprudence that death penalty and capital proceedings are no different from other minor criminal proceedings. Instead of scrutinising criminal legislation on their substantive fairness, the courts have instead consistently restricted their adjudicative function to one of procedural assessment. In so doing, formalistic and textualist techniques are employed to achieve crime control ends at considerable expense of due process”.

In another article dealing more directly with the political system in Singapore titled “Singapore’s electoral system: government by the people?”, Prof Tey critiques the Singapore deviation from the Westminster political model as follows:

“In its post-independence constitutional development, the dominant People’s Action Party political leadership had made a series of constitutional amendments to its original electoral system, introducing innovative schemes such as Group Representation Constituencies, Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, Nominated Members of Parliament and the Elected Presidency.

These changes have resulted in an electoral system that is so different and divergent from the Westminster model that it should be regarded a unique regime of its own. This paper advances the view that the constitutional evolution of its electoral system is reflective of a political vision structured along elitist lines – underscored by a desire to restructure the voting behaviour of its citizens, and ensure predictability and the preservation of the status quo. It has been driven by paternalistic assumptions about what is beneficial for its citizens.”

In light of questions Yale University faculty have raised about academic freedom in Singapore, the AGC’s next steps to ensure that the case of Public Prosecutor v Tey Tsun Hang is not perceived as political persecution will probably be almost as important as securing a conviction against Prof Tey.

****************************************

NUS law professor faces corruption charges

Yahoo!News, July 25, 2012 (source)

National University of Singapore associate law professor currently being investigated in a sex-for-grades scandal has been identified as former district judge Tey Tsun Hang.

According to a The New Paper (TNP) exclusive on Wednesday, the equity professor was arrested in April and is now out on bail.

The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau has him under probe for allegedly having sex with a 23-year-old law student – who has since graduated – in exchange for better grades for an elective course she was enrolled in last year.

It is understood that the student made the first move in approaching the professor and the pair allegedly had sex on more than one occasion.

The student was not arrested, although her statements were taken. According to TNP, the student is currently a pupil at a local law firm.

Other local media reported that she had told some of her friends about her deal with Tey, believing it had blown over.

From government service to academia

Before starting work at NUS Law, Tey was a district judge with Singapore's Subordinate Courts, and had even spent time as a state counsel at the legislation division of the Attorney-General's Chambers.

He did his postgraduate civil law degree at Oxford University, as well as his undergraduate law baccalaureate at King's College London, and had been practicing for a number of years at a top firm here.

Current students at NUS Faculty of Law described Tey as “charismatic”, “nice” and “eccentric”.

One of his former students told Yahoo! Singapore that he had a "peculiar habit of walking around the lecture hall and interacting with individual students" on topics that were not at all related to equity, a second-year course he taught.

She added that he was "somewhat odd" at times, although acknowledging that some of her classmates did find his lectures entertaining.

An upper-level law student, who declined to be named, similarly described Tey as one who “likes to make jokes in lecture and has a quirky sense of humour.”

“He does seem a little eccentric, but you can tell he is a very intelligent person," he said. "He’s nice enough, though, and is always willing to entertain students’ questions after lectures."

A fourth-year NUS law student, who declined to be named, agreed and said that Tey “was very approachable for consultations … [and] has his quirks but generally, he’s a really really nice person”, and added that most of her friends were in agreement with her.

She also commented that competition in the law faculty is strong as “everybody wants to get a second upper [degree] so they can go to bigger and better firms”. The law fraternity here recognises its "Big Four" firms as Allen & Gledhill, WongPartnership, Drew & Napier and Rajah & Tann.

The 22-year-old also speculated that the undergraduate in question had probably agreed to have sex with her professor after yielding to the pressure of getting into an established law firm.

What are the charges?

According to Shashi Nathan, director of Inca Law, the undergraduate’s act could be seen as gratification – which is a corruption act to show favour or reward. “[Corruption] doesn’t always have to be an exchange of money; providing sexual service is also a form of gratification,” he said.

However, Nathan noted that the case may not be as straightforward as it seems, as the intention to act corruptly may not be enough to prove corruption in the eyes of the law.

There are two terms to fulfill in order to prove corruption – (1) a corrupt element must be present in the transaction itself and (2) the person under investigation must intend to act in a corrupt manner, he said.

The criminal lawyer also said that since there is an “element of trust in him (the professor) and the institution, he may face a higher sentence” although that depends on the number of charges he is slapped with.

When contacted, a NUS spokesperson said that the university is aware that there is an ongoing investigation regarding an NUS staff member.

“In this case, we have not started our own inquiries, pending the results of the investigations initiated by the authorities, which are ongoing. But we will continue to co-operate fully with the authorities in the meantime,” said the spokesperson.

“When addressing questions of wrongdoing, NUS has a Code of Conduct to which its staff must adhere. Possible consequences of violating the Code of Conduct range from a warning to dismissal.”

*********************************************************

Yahoo!News, July 27, 2012 (source)

National University of Singapore associate law professor Tey Tsun Hang was charged Friday (July 27, 2012) morning with six counts of corruption in a sex-for-grades scandal.

In two of the charges, Tey, 41, a former district judge, was accused of having corruptly obtained sexual gratification from a Darinne Ko Wen Hui in July 2010, when she had been a student at NUS, as inducement for showing favour in assessing her academic performance, court documents showed.

In the other charges, Tey allegedly obtained from Ko from May to July that same year a Mont Blanc pen worth S$740, two tailor-made shirts valued at S$236.20, an iPod Touch worth S$160 and payment of a bill amounting to S$1,278.60.

Later in the afternoon, Tey asked for permission to leave the country on 30 August for one academic year starting from September to teach at Hong Kong University's faculty of law.

The district judge that heard Tey's application, however, called it “premature” and fixed a date for further mention to 23 August, the same date as the pre-trial conference for the charges against Tey.

According to Tey’s lawyer Peter Low, who spoke to reporters after the afternoon court session, Tey has already “committed to the (Hong Kong University’s law) faculty and students”.

In the morning, after his court appearance, Tey spoke to reporters and noted the seriousness of the charges and allegations against him.

"At stake is my liberty, integrity and livelihood. My reputation has been tarnished and my family suffers a as result," he said.

"I am known to speak up, amongst other things, on the Singapore legal system. I write in good faith, and with no ill intent. In similar vein, I shall fearlessly defend myself against the charges, and vigorously.

"I have no illusion about the arduous journey ahead of me.

"I pray for a worthy trial -- a trial that allows the truth to come to light, a trial that allows me to vindicate myself," he said.

Tey appeared at the Subordinate Courts close to 930am Friday with a walking stick and accompanied by a team of lawyers.

The pre-trial conference has been set for 23 August. His passport has been impounded.

It was disclosed in court on Friday that Tey had been taken in for questioning by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau on Thursday morning and released only after midnight.

On Friday, an NUS spokesperson said that the university has started an investigation into the case and suspended Tey from active duty.

"The University takes a very serious view of breaches of its regulations. NUS has a Code of Conduct to which its staff must adhere. In the event of breaches, appropriate action will be taken including dismissal for serious violations of the Code of Conduct," the spokesperson said.

It is understood that the Ko made the first move in approaching the professor, who is married with a daughter.

Ko, who has since graduated from NUS, was not arrested, although her statements were taken. According to The New Paper, which broke the story, Ko is currently a pupil at a local law firm.

Other local media reported that she had told some of her friends about her deal with Tey, believing it had blown over.

Before starting work at NUS Law, Tey was a district judge with Singapore's Subordinate Courts, and had even spent time as a state counsel at the legislation division of the Attorney-General's Chambers.

He did his postgraduate civil law degree at Oxford University, as well as his undergraduate law baccalaureate at King's College London, and had been practicing for a number of years at a top firm here.

Current students at NUS Faculty of Law described Tey as “charismatic”, “nice” and “eccentric”.

**************************************************

Tey Tsun Hang (source)

Designation Associate Professor

Qualifications BCL (Oxford), LL.B (KCL), AKC, Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore), Advocate & Solicitor (Malaya), Barrister (Gray's Inn)

Appointment(s) Director, Centre for Commercial Law Studies

Research Interests Trusts International Trusts Regulation of Wealth Industry

Subjects Taught Equity & Trusts International & Comparative Trusts Personal Property International & Comparative Insolvency Financial Regulation & Reform

Brief Biodata T H Tey directs the Centre for Commercial Law Studies and edits the Asian Journal of Comparative Law.

Representative Publications Books (2010) 1. Trusts and Asset Protection 2. Trusts and Forced Heirship 3. Trusts and Shared Property 4. Trusts Credit Security and Trading 5. Trusts Trustees and Equitable Remedies - Text and Materials

******************************************

The Singapore Consensus (source)

Singapore’s jurisprudence of political defamation and its triple-whammy impact on political speech

Public Law, Autumn 2008, 452-462

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang


ABSTRACT

Singapore’s governing People’s Action Party (PAP) leadership has always been sensitive towards political criticism. Singapore has a highly sophisticated legal framework that imposes close and strict regulation on the local press and media system. The foreign media is also subject to considerable political control. Informal “out-of-bounds (OB) markers” had been mentioned and reported in the local press, in an attempt to give some clarity to the boundary of what the Singapore political leadership considered to be legitimate political criticism.

There have been consistent criticisms that the frequent use of defamation actions by the Singapore political leadership against opposition leaders and newspapers has the effect of silencing political dissent from within or without. It has been argued that this trend of political defamation actions is a violation of the fundamental constitutional right to freely hold and peacefully express one’s political opinions, and that it amounts to severe restrictions on freedom of expression that cannot be justified under international standards, seriously compromising the fundamental right to make political expression freely in public without fear of reprisal.

[ FULL TEXT PDF (1.3MB) ]

________________________________________________

Criminalising Critique of the Singapore Judiciary

Hong Kong Law Journal Vol 40, Part 3 (2010) , 751-785

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang

ABSTRACT

Despite its small size, Singapore occupies a position of special significance in the debate on the relationship between economic development and political, social and legal institutions. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) of Singapore legitimises its authoritarian political regime – and insulates it from substantive scrutiny – via a three-pronged strategy: first, through its tightly controlled media and communication channels; secondly, by delivering an admirable economic performance and, creating and maintaining an awe-inspiring standard of living; and thirdly – and most importantly – through its legal institutions. However, there are profound logical flaws and stark absences of consistency in the judgments that help secure this legal state of affairs. This article confines its analysis to the criminal offence of scandalising the judiciary, in the context of critical reporting of the judgments in political defamation cases in Singapore.

[ FULL TEXT PDF (4.2MB) ]

___________________________________________________

Singapore’s electoral system: government by the people?

Legal Studies, Vol 28, No 4, Dec 2008, pp 610-628. Blackwell Publishing

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang

ABSTRACT

Singapore’s Westminster parliamentary system of government was adopted as a historical result of it being a British colony. In its post-independence constitutional development, the dominant People’s Action Party political leadership had made a series of constitutional amendments to its original electoral system, introducing innovative schemes such as Group Representation Constituencies, Non-Constituency Members of Parliament, Nominated Members of Parliament and the Elected Presidency. These changes have resulted in an electoral system that is so different and divergent from the Westminster model that it should be regarded a unique regime of its own. This paper advances the view that the constitutional evolution of its electoral system is reflective of a political vision structured along elitist lines – underscored by a desire to restructure the voting behaviour of its citizens, and ensure predictability and the preservation of the status quo. It has been driven by paternalistic assumptions about what is beneficial for its citizens. This paper examines the subsequent implementation of the schemes, before reflecting on how it is a system that has the potential to affect adversely the development of political participation and political pluralism, and dilute democratic politics in Singapore.

[ FULL TEXT PDF (3.2MB) ]

_____________________________________________

Judicial Internalising of Singapore’s Supreme Political Ideology

Hong Kong Law Journal Vol 40, Part 2 (2010) , 293-336

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang

ABSTRACT

Right from the beginning of Singapore’s nationhood, an obvious and unbridgeable disconnect appeared – between its leadership’s political ideology and the aspirations on human rights and constitutionalism of its legal community. Singapore’s political leadership has spent much energy articulating a “pragmatic” ideology on political governance – placing primacy on economic progress, good governance and nation-building and emphasising a “communitarian” approach to human rights instead of individual rights. The political leadership’s conception of the rule of law smacks of a “thin” one. The government religiously adheres to legal formalities,rather than substantive theories of political morality, to legitimise its actions, if primarily for the instrumental role of rule of law in economic prosperity. This article examines the government’s response to the seminal Court of Appeal case of Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs, where the government’s immediate and hard-hitting constitutional and legislative amendments – overruling the court’s decision on a preventive detention case – clearly demonstrated its intent to ensure that the Singapore judiciary accept its limited role and that the judiciary accept a concept of the rule of law which should not be substantially different from that understood and accepted by the political leadership. This article examines in detail how the Singapore judiciary’s acceptance of the government’s “thin” conception of the rule of law has a direct bearing on the approach taken towards constitutional adjudication in Singapore.

[ FULL TEXT PDF (6.8MB) ]

________________________________________

Confining the Freedom of the Press in Singapore: A “Pragmatic” Press for “Nation-Building”?

Human Rights Quarterly 30(2008) 876-905

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang

ABSTRACT

Singapore’s political leadership has molded a sophisticated press control regime that befits its “pragmatic” political ideology on the primacy of executive leadership and limited freedom of expression. This article – setting Singapore’s constitutional and legal framework and political system as a backdrop – delves into the legal structure that has been constructed, fine-tuned, and consolidated over decades of legislative amendments to explore its essential features and strictures. This article advances the view that the legal framework is reinforced with a non-legal combination of an ideological construct of a hegemonic culture and consensus politics through strategic political co-optation. The court litigation that was resorted to for vindication also seems to have produced a reinforcing effect. The article also reflects on how the unique press control regime has turned Singapore’s de-constructed Fourth Estate into an established political institution.


[ FULL TEXT PDF (6.1MB) ]

____________________________________________

Death Penalty Singapore-Style: Clinical and Carefree

Common Law World Review 39(2010) 315-357

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang

ABSTRACT

Singapore has developed a jurisprudence that death penalty and capital proceedings are no different from other minor criminal proceedings. Instead of scrutinising criminal legislation on their substantive fairness, the courts have instead consistently restricted their adjudicative function to one of procedural assessment. In so doing, formalistic and textualist techniques are employed to achieve crime control ends at considerable expense of due process. This paper seeks to discuss the jurisprudence that has been moulded, and examines how much it has deviated from other Commonwealth jurisprudence.


[ FULL TEXT PDF (5.1MB) ]

______________________________________________________

Excluding Religion from Politics and Enforcing Religious Harmony – Singapore-style

Singapore Journal of Legal Studies (2008) 118-142

by Assoc. Prof. TEY Tsun Hang

ABSTRACT

The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is a unique feature in the legal landscape of Singapore. The statute – an important part of the Singapore government’s large and extensive arsenal of legal instruments to regulate inter-ethnic-religious relations in the country – gives the executive untrammelled discretion to curb political expression and political activity in the interests of maintaining religious harmony. Placed against the backdrop of its political developments, this article explores the political motives for the introduction of the statute, examines the exact nature of its structure and scope, and compares it against other legal instruments that perform similar political control. A particular focus is upon how the statute underscores the thinking behind Singapore-style state paternalism, and reflects its political leadership’s deep distrust of the electorate, and instinct to restructure voting behaviour and party politics. This article also reflects on the adverse effect of such enforced stricture on otherwise legitimate political activities by religion-linked organisations in Singapore.


[ FULL TEXT PDF (4.5MB) ]


__________________________________________________________