This is a formal challenge to NTU’s statement in the Straits Times Article:
Before I show all our collated evidence and dispute the misrepresentation NTU has put out, I would just like to update everyone that NTU has not reached out to us this whole time.
STATEMENT 1: NTU misframes our work as ‘non-existent academic references’
This is not true.
All three of us have sent EXISTING references and corrected our typos (e.g. misspelling of titles, or misspelling author names) to Professor Sabrina Luk, which she acknowledged.
FYI: Professor Sabrina Luk’s HA4040 Course Syllabus for our module has the following broken web link: “https://www.ntu.edu.sg/404 ” . Does this also constitute academic misconduct, since it’s “non-existent”?
Screenshots:
(Further proof sent to both Professor Sabrina and the school. All three of us sent documents, such as the screenshots above, where we corrected our human typos, showing that we were willing to learn from our genuine mistakes made)
In the email appeals, I have even included a full timelapse of my essay recorded by Draftback extension, which also has a final report that I had 16 distinct writing sessions:
And yet, NTU chooses to ignore an entire video of my writing process, and dismiss everything as AI-generated.
In one of our appeals, the student even talked about the university’s definition of academic fraud, and compared it to her typos, and the fact that she used real sources. However, this document has been ignored by NTU as well.
Overall, for NTU to characterise human typos as ‘non-existent citations’ is false information and incredibly lazy, as it shows their lack of ability to properly check through student evidence and defend their students, to the extent where they would misrepresent their students just to save their reputation and pin it on their students.
STATEMENT 2: NTU said we were given the opportunity to present our cases, but all NTU did was to neglect our case.
This is NTU over-exaggerating that we were given a proper due process, when said “opportunity to present their cases” is….an email exchange.
In one student’s case, he was not even given an online hearing.
All three of us received the following email from NTU notifying us on the outcome:
There was not a single in-person meeting scheduled this entire time for us to present our cases in a fair manner, we were just simply struck by this email.
I would also like to bring up the fact that throughout NTU’s statement to the press, they did not acknowledge, nor apologise for the fact that we have been ghosted by the school for two months.
Screenshots of NTU ghosting us:
- A string of emails one of us sent to NTU’s academic integrity officer, Professor Ye Junjia who simply said she sided with Professor Sabrina over email, without giving us an explanation as to why we committed academic fraud.
As seen in the emails above, the professor did not even reply, in spite of the urgency of the matter and proof that we did not use Generative AI.
- In an email exchange with the School of Social Sciences Dean, he did not look through the evidence, and just concluded with seeking University welfare services:
(his response)
- We have been ghosted by the NTU President as well, without a response.
- One of us has called Prof Junjia (SAIO in charge of the investigation) and Prof Chia Wai Mun (Prof supplementing investigation), even visiting the school and their offices several times, but each time they were either "not in" or "on holiday". We have also attempted to call them several times, but to no avail.
Therefore, it is not right for NTU to defend themselves and claim that we were given the chance to ‘present our cases’.
STATEMENT 3: NTU is aware that I used a citation sorter, and yet, it states to the press that I used an “AI powered essay writing service” to mispaint the situation.
Screenshot of NTU knowing that what I used was a citation sorter:
(The above is an email from NTU school of social sciences)
The above is the website I’ve used, where one can plainly see that there’s no Gen AI tools. It’s literally a website to arrange citations in A-Z.
The reason why I used the website, and you can try this as well, is because if you google ‘citation sorter A-Z’, this is one of the top results.
Therefore, NTU intentionally misrepresented my case to villainise students, instead of acknowledging that a citation sorter is a form of technology that existed way before GenAI. This shows that NTU is willing to throw students under the bus just to evade accountability.
STATEMENT 4: Professor Sabrina Luk has never prohibited the usage of GenAI in citations/the bibliography
This is the slide she presented in class:
It states that ‘the use of ChatGPT and other AI tools are (is – her grammar is wrong here) not allowed in the DEVELOPMENT or GENERATION of the essay.”
Note that in our cases, we were arrowed for our citations, but not for our entire essay content itself. Therefore, we would like to challenge NTU’s statement that the professor ‘explicitly prohibited’ AI tools.
It is deeply unethical for an institution like NTU, entrusted with the responsibility of protecting its students, to mischaracterise legitimate student concerns and grievances, effectively distorting the truth to protect its own image.
Instead of providing transparent and empathetic support, the university has demonstrated a troubling pattern of institutional neglect, including failing to acknowledge its own shortcomings and outright ignoring students who sought accountability from upper management.
Such actions not only betray the trust students place in the university but also perpetuate a culture where vulnerability is met with silence, systemic failures are ignored, and students feel punished for speaking up.
We would like to end off with one final challenge for NTU:
Please check every student essay ever in the history of essays submitted under NTU’s system, did everyone else do their citations perfectly?
Even Singapore’s legal system is based upon the consistency between judgments and due process, so why is NTU exempt from it?