The Vagueness Of Law

The Confidential Information clause commonly found in a template contractual agreement defines what the parties deem to be proprietary and protected by the terms of the agreement. The clause usually defines what is, and what is not, confidential.

While the definition of the excluded items may be fairly consistent, the definition of the scope of information covered by the provisions tends to be highly variable. For instance the Microsoft non-disclosure agreement (NDA) defines Confidential Information as any non-public information that Microsoft designates as being confidential or which, under the circumstances surrounding disclosure ought to be treated as confidential by Recipient (italics mine). The clause may even attempt to cover anything the discloser wants to be treated as confidential, such as “ information that any Party desires to maintain as confidential or secret, which is supplied or provided to any other Party.” Whether this is too vague to be enforceable, it's for the lawyers to have their day in court. Of course, if a Minister deems it confidential - such as the terms for the Formula One Night Race extension - the conversation ends right there.

The National University of Singapore (NUS) decision to stonewall public demands for the details of the punishment meted out to Asean scholar and sex fiend Alvin Tan of Malaysia, we are given to understand, is protected by a confidential undertaking. For all we know, the contracting parties could be construed as the NUS, the dean of law, the sex blogger or even members of the public, if the latter's interest in the matter is even considered material at all.

What is not vague is that a precedent was set when provost Tan Eng Chye did detail the fine ($3,000) and community service obligation imposed on another scholarship holder without actually disclosing the name of the offender (spoiler alert: Sun Xu), thus maintaining the "confidentiality" agreement with that scallywag. He was simply referred to in the internal circular distributed to students as "an undergraduate at the Faculty of Engineering" who "posted offensive remarks about Singaporeans online".

The bar, for reasons best known to the faculty training the new batch of lawyers, has been raised (lowered?) for this rogue who NUS has admitted to be detrimental to its international reputation and dignity. By pushing the envelope of the vagueness of law, the confidence in NUS can only be shaken, if not (already) stirred.