On March 20, 2020, the National University of Singapore Press abruptly withdrew the publication of a new volume, Coup, King Crisis: A Critical Interregnum in Thailand (Pavin Chachavalpongpun, ed) and cancelled its publishing contract. This was not a case of a “desk rejection,” where an editor decides that a book does not have academic merit or does not achieve the marketing goals of the press: Coup had received glowing peer reviews, and a publication contract with NUS Press had already been signed (on August 29, 2019). The book had been designed and was even available for pre-order online. Instead, what Mr. Schoppert related to Dr. Pavin was that “stakeholders within and outside the university community” had exerted their influence to cancel the book’s publication. The decision was sudden, opaque, and out of keeping with good academic practices.

This is a clear violation of academic freedom. Academic presses base their decisions to publish or not on the academic merit of the works involved, and on the peer reviews that scholars in the field provide. Indeed, as a testament to Coup’s merit, it was readily accepted and is now published by Yale Southeast Asia Studies. Academic presses should not be beholden to political pressure, either from within the university or from other actors. NUS Press has been in the past a valuable resource, especially for scholars in and of Southeast Asia. Its deference to unnamed “stakeholders within and outside the university” is disturbing to say the least and calls into question the reputation and independence of the Press.

We are calling for a moratorium on reviewing new manuscripts for NUS Press, for five years. This is for a number of reasons. We feel that a boycott of NUS Press books would only hurt the scholars who have in the past published with the Press. Additionally, NUS Press cannot reverse its decision on Coup; the book has a happy home now at Yale. But we cannot have faith in NUS Press’s independence and commitment to academic freedom moving forward. It is a sad day indeed when a university press that has served the academic world so well acts so cravenly in response to anonymous pressure. It sets a dangerous precedent that the directors of other presses will have good reason to fear. We hope that NUS Press will carry out a public inquiry staffed by independent observers as the one way to reassure the academic world that it is interested in regaining its hitherto stellar reputation. Once the Press has clearly stated at whose behest the book was withdrawn from production, an end to the moratorium will be announced.

Bernard Formoso (Université Paul Valéry)
Tyrell Haberkorn (University of Wisconsin-Madison)
Michael Herzfeld (Harvard University)
Philip Hirsch (University of Sydney)
Charnvit Kasetsiri (Thammasat University)
Saskia Wieringa (University of Amsterdam)