Donaldson Tan / Head, TOC International
A curious term appeared on the Straits Times last Thursday – Academic Freedom. Academic Freedom is the belief that the freedom of inquiry by students and faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy. Some hail this as a human right; others call it a privilege. In his commentary, Senior Writer Dr Andy Ho of the Straits Times made an interesting remark on Academic Freedom:
“Academic freedom does not confer on academics special speech rights beyond their work. What academic freedom does undoubtedly confer is freedom from reprisals that disable academics from doing their jobs as academics per se. An academic has the right to allow his data and arguments to lead where they might, regardless of official views.
In practice, this broad theoretical right translates mainly into the right of professors to choose what content to teach and how to teach it in courses they propose or are assigned. Generally, no supervisor can tell a professor, even a freshly minted one, what the content of his course should be or how to teach it. So also with their research agendas. By contrast, almost all other types of employees can be told what they must do and how it must be done.”
In exercising freedom, it is always about mutually pushing boundaries to discern what is acceptable and what isn’t. Freedom is a slippery slope. On one hand, we have the Constitution that guarantees the fundamental liberties. On the other hand, Parliament make laws to outlaw specific acts of freedom. Society further limits freedom by establishing Out-of-Boundary (OB) Markers. OB markers evolve with the moral understanding and sensitivity of Society over time.
Opposing Academic Freedom in the Academic’s Field
Dr Andy Ho wrote: Academic freedom does not confer on academics special speech rights beyond their work. This statement also implies that academics have special speech rights in their field of specialisation. Let’s consider the validity of the aforementioned statement by looking up history. In December 1994, the Jakarta Post published an essay by NUS Political Science Lecturer Dr Bilveer Singh titled “Singapore Faces Challenges of Success”. In his article, Dr Bilveer Singh wrote:
“Many, including the Government, were profiteering as a result of the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax in April. What is now emerging in Singapore is a society that is faced with growing impoverishment even though a fortunate minority is still reaping profits and the queue for a Mercedes 320 is still very long.
What the statistics hide through the law of averages and generalisation, is that the majority of Singaporeans are basically living hand-to-mouth and it is these Singaporeans, who constitute the majority, that have become increasingly alienated with the Government.”
The Singapore Government rebuked Dr Bilveer Singh in a letter to the Jakarta Post through Simon De Cruz, the Charge d’Affaires at the Singapore Embassy in Indonesia. Simon challenged Dr Bilveer Singh to either substantiate his allegations or withdraw them, particularly on the claims that the government is profiteering from the introduction of GST, that Singapore is a society that is faced with growing impoverishment and that “a majority of Singaporeans are basically living hand-to-mouth”. De Cruz also said that as an academic, Dr Bilver Singh could not “merely assert the conclusion to be proven and ignore facts to the contrary”. Dr Bilveer Singh withdrew his allegations subsequently.
In July 2003, the Minister of Manpower Ng Eng Heng rebuked NTU economists Professor Lim Chong Yah, Dr Chen Kang and Dr Tan Ghee Khiap for contradicting the labour statistics released by the Ministry of Manpower. In particular, Professor Lim Chong Yah had said, “Out of four jobs created, only one job went to a Singapore resident, three jobs went to the intake of foreign workers”. Dr Tan Gee Giap also added, “The number of non-resident workforce is very large, runs over 700,000… the unemployment is only less than 90,000, then something is very wrong.” In response, Minister Ng said the academics were “way off the mark” and they should had consulted the Ministry of Manpower or Department of Statistics. In the end, the NTU economists published a public apology to the Minister of Manpower.
The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) at NUS invited Law Professor Douglas Sanders from the University of British Columbia to speak on “Society and Sexual Diversity: Human Rights, International Law, Western Patterns, Asian Developments’” in August 2007. He was also scheduled to deliver a talk on ‘Sexual orientation in international law, a case for Asia’ in a public forum concurrently. However, the police cancelled Professor Sander’s professional visit pass and permit to speak in the public forum.
Popular Opinion against Academic Freedom
In November 1996, Professor Chan Kai Lok from the NUS Department of Biological Science was ordered to make a public apology and to accept 6-month pay-cut over remarks he made about Christianity and Islam at the campus event “Creation: Fact or Fiction” organised by the Varsity Christian Fellowship. He was subsequently fired from the university.
In October 2008, John Tan’s lectureship at the Singapore Campus of James Cook University was suspended while awaiting trial over the “Kangaroo T-Shirt” Fiasco. John Tan is the Assistant Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. Dr Dale Anderson, CEO of the Singapore Campus, revealed that a “Collin Lim” had emailed the university administration informing them of Dr John Tan’s association to Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. The same email was copied to the Minister of Education. When John Tan appealed on the basis of academic freedom, Dr Anderson replied that “half of the school is owned by Singapore” and there was nothing he could do because he was under the employment of Singapore.
Exercising Academic Freedom
Where does academic freedom begin? Where does it end? In Singapore, it goes beyond rebuking academics who disagree with status-quo or publicly confront government policies. Essentially, academics criticising public policies or social development are controlled by the Government’s monopoly on statistics and data. Michael Hwang, President of the Law Society, noted in January 2009 Edition of The Law Gazzette:
On a more practical note, Singapore is sadly lacking a principled and transparent penal policy. Our universities barely cover the study of criminology, and even less the more important study of penology.
Possibly, this is because Government has not published detailed statistics of crime and punishment so that social scientists can undertake adequate research on the causes of crime and the effects of current penal policies on prisoners (especially recidivists).
One traditional justification for the lack of such statistics is that these are sensitive figures which could be interpreted as indicating that certain communities might be more prone to commit certain crimes, but we cannot continue to put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study by objective scholars in order to improve our society.
Only rigorous research with full access to relevant information can help us determine important penological questions such as:
- Is the death penalty effective in preventing murder and other capital crimes?
- Do strict liability offences achieve their object of deterring anti-social behaviour?
- What kind of punishments best deter what kind of behaviour?
- Should we follow the UK in adopting indeterminate sentences?
- Is corporal punishment an effective deterrent against the crimes for which it is imposed as a penalty?
Thio Li-Ann’s academic freedom in the USA is only a red-herring to the real issue affecting robust public discourse on government policies in Singapore. Academics are well-informed contributors who can shape public discourse on topics such as CPF adequacy for retirement and HDB affordability . Academics play an important role in informed citizenry for effective use of our civil and political space. We need to expand academic freedom in Singapore in order to promote public dialogue on government policies.
—-
budamax,
Please refrain from making personal attacks.
Your last comment has been disallowed.
9/8/09
Hi Jeremy Chua
Good to hear from you. Yes, I am no Bootlicker of the PAP and the PAP government, and i write without fear or favour but as I see it. I am ok with budamax posting as we are no longer in the Dark Ages and Budamax can write what he wants.
Half Baked and Quarter Baked are very dangerous and they can be bought with money and they are opportunist which our Modern Singapore must keep them out of our Parliament. As I said, I can live with Moron-Stupid MPs which we had seen in our Parliament since our Modern Singapore independence.
Modern Singapore is our only place we called Our Home and come next General Election exercise our votes and if we feel that time to give the PAP MPs a run for their money, let us vote in as many Moron-Stupid MPs but not Half Baked and Quarter Baked. We had seen Half Baked and Quarter Baked Opposition politicians who are traitors, Running Dogs and mouth pieces of the Foreign NGOs, inreturn taking monies from these Foreign NGOs.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
To KopitiamApek :
You just need to do a simple data collection and you can have an idea if the data on the student not returning to S’pore and all the other questions.
The fact is nobody question why the number is so large here.
Goes to show how evident the situation is.
Trying to charge people doesn’t help to stop this from circulating.
Please wake up.
Charging a prof for making political comments or thinking he is making an inappropriate comment because he is speaking outside his usual role (for he is a engineer), is a typical.
No developed countries have done that.
People is entitled to make his comments in all those countries and you don’t see upheaval.
He maybe a professor but he is also a citizen.
The only party that loses out in this area (giving rights to people to criticise the govt) is the govt.
Now, you know why we don’t see the general public sueing people for libel and only the govt in s’pore. They have something to lose (at least they think so)
I don’t see LKY sueing the british govt for the potential libelous comments in the MI5 files released not long ago.
The reasons are either the comments are true or LKY cannot hurt those brits.
You decide.
To KopitiamApek :
The fact is nobody here question why the number is so large. That number is credible.
Honestly, even if the number is 30%, it is still big and it is still credible. Goes to show how evident the situation is.
It is credible because s’poreans think it is more interesting to stay and work overseas than Singapore.
Trying to charge people from releasing these numbers doesn’t help to stop this from circulating.
all the more so when they have an idea how true those numbers by looking around.
Please wake up.
Hi Andrew Chuah;;; Since you have clarified your position that you are not a bootlicker of the PAPies, i hereby forward my apology to you for making a personal attack on you. Thank you.
50) marketplace-thiologist
Thank you for your enlightenment.
The source asiaone reported :
“According to the survey of 153 Singaporean undergraduates at 15 top US universities, as many as 79 per cent prefer to work in US after they graduate. Only 18.1 per cent want to return to Singapore immediately after they complete their studies.”
If according to you Mr Cheong Wing Lee quoted this in his artcle , but this is what he wrote:
“Does Mr. Brooks know that 79% of Singapore students after studying overseas do not return to Singapore? Are they not grateful too?”
To andrew:
//Academic freedom simply refers to successfully development and churning out of quality graduates who can be employed immediately upon graduation and suceessfully research in specialised fields that are relevant and ready for commercialisation for world markets, and not a based for both academics and students to hit out at our government of the day by holding protests in campus.
with this kind of definition of academic freedom, no wonder there is no professor in Singapore that is revered. A professor is no different from a factory worker. This is the standard of our public servant?
With regard to Taiwan, the protest are legitimate because Chen really is corrupt.
So why can’t the students and prof exercise their rights as citizen?
To 60) FPC
Chen Shu Bian’s corrupted amount is “peanuts” compared to what Ho ching lost and compared to the salaries our ministers are comanding
But SG people diam diam. You know why?
In SG, there is freedom of speech and no freedom AFTER speech.
Hi Creducator,
The NTU-CSJ Fiasco involving student journalists was quite unfortunate. When did the NTU-MCYS incident took place? I am not exactly sure if the NTU Professor was infringing his student’s academic freedom or looking out for his student. It boils down to whether the essay was a coursework or an article for publishing in a journal. The student’s essay should have been rsubmitted/published unabridged since it contained a factual informed view on the state of public childcare centres in Singapore. However, the professor is definitely sending out the wrong message on the appropriate standard of academic freedom. No wonder Warwick University refused to set up a campus in Singapore.
59) KopitiamApek on August 9th, 2009 6.22 pm
If according to you Mr Cheong Wing Lee quoted this in his artcle , but this is what he wrote: “Does Mr. Brooks know that 79% of Singapore students after studying overseas do not return to Singapore? Are they not grateful too?”
Do you know what is the meaning of estimation?
73) Oxford Dude
//////Do you know what is the meaning of estimation?////////
No I do not know what has estimation gotta do with what I wrote, Please clarify.
Hi (53) theonlinecitizen,
“budamax, Please refrain from making personal attacks. Your last comment has been disallowed.”
Well done! Finally TOC has done some moderation here to stop posters from resorting to personal attacks instead of addressing issues mentioned in the articles. Please do more of this, especially for articles that are sensitive such as the one at http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/god-sneaks-into-our-classrooms/ .
Thank you.
Actually, one of my friends who study at NUS Dept of Economics tell me that their professors discourage them to criticise government’s economic policies and goes to the extent on setting essay questions that would avoid a potential situation whereby the student will criticise the government’s economic policies.
Simply because it is “safer” to avoid the controversy. But at least things are not so jia-lat. There is actually an Indian student who put in a lot of effort in organising weekly forum on economic policies under the NUS Economics Society and this has stimulated a sizable interest among economics students.
to Andrew Chuah:
whatever dr. chee has done to s’pore is peanuts compared to ms. ho?
Constitution changes all the time, which one guarantees freedom? certainly not the current one. since you may have x amt in your cpf acc but cpf life can choose not to pay you.
you must be dreaming.
The new opposition not fit to lead?
As long as u r a citizen, you can lead.
yeah track record is no assurances.
Look at Ms. Ho. As a fund manager she sucked but she is still there. her track record before is great, according to SM. somemore.
Whoever says we need the “right” track record people to lead in s’pore, especially when we expect them to produce no results.
we actually just need genuine elections
to marketplace thiologist :
The whole NTU manpower argument was a hoax.
To dupe s’poreans into believing that foreign workers are not a threat before they open the floor gate.
We now know how false that govt stance then was.
I have no respect for ntu professors for participating in this hoax.
to Oxford dude:
don’t need to argue with apek.
He doesn’t even know what is estimation and couldn’t google that.
Wasting time arguing with him.
And he expects to regulate the feelings of the people by posting one sentence reply.
he is paid to be dumb.
64) Kopitiam Apek on August 9th, 2009 9.45 pm
No I do not know what has estimation gotta do with what I wrote, Please clarify.
The original statistics said that 79% of Singaporeans studying top US universities don’t intend to return. Since there is no actual survey on every Singaporean studying in the USA, we can only use this figure as a representative figure of all Singaporeans studying in the USA. Given that USA is a major popular destination, we can assume that actual figure is pretty close to 70%. This is analysis. Let me ask you a simple problem: how would you estimate the average number of people in a public bus during peak hours?
69) FPC on August 10th, 2009 12.30 am
I have no respect for ntu professors for participating in this hoax.
The Government’s stance was a hoax. But at least give the Professors some benefit of the doubt. Have you not heard of “人在江湖，身不由己”?
Oxford Dude & the likes of Kopitiam Apek:
Even if the number had been at 50%, it is still a loss to Singapore and goes to show that Singapore is not attractive.
It cannot be the people because we work hard.
It must be the fat politicans who are lazy.
Can TOC please explain the criteria for posts moderation. Is it words count? frequency of post? targeted posters? or what?
My post “(73) creducator on Your comment is awaiting moderation. August 10th, 2009 1.41 am
Hi (62) Oxford Dude,” is still not reflected.
creducator,
For our guide on posting comments, please see here: http://theonlinecitizen.com/moderation/
creducator,
I am not sure which comment of yours you are referring to but one of your comments is 1,300 words long with several url links.
Comments are suppose to be less than 500 words. Thus, we have disallowed your 1,300-word long comment.
Thanks for ur clarification, TOC.I shall break my comment up into “not exceed 500 words” each.
creducator,
Thanks for your understanding…
Everyone,
Please keep your comments to within 500 words. And also, please refrain from making personal attacks. Several of your comments have been disallowed for this.
While we may all disagree with each other, lets try and keep it civil.
Thanks!
Hi (62) Oxford Dude,
“The student’s essay should have been rsubmitted/published unabridged since it contained a factual informed view on the state of public childcare centres in Singapore. However, the professor is definitely sending out the wrong message on the appropriate standard of academic freedom. ”
Unfortunately, the cited student had to retract the statement the professor deemed as ‘defaming’ even though it is factual.
Just to clarify that it was a coursework. I guess the professor is just ‘doing his work’ as directed from the dean or higher management in NTU to warn students or prevent students from writing or saying anything that are deemed as not in favor of the gov.
The cited student also questioned why the school did not practice about they preached about the code of journalism ethics, more than the lack of academic freedom. So should journalists write ‘tell it like it is’ or tell what gov want to hear’? This is definitely a bad role model for these students.
Education could be used by the ruling political party for power and control if parents do not know what have been taught and the practices in our schools/universities.
Philosopher and Physician John Locke’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke ) essays are still very relevant today and they could help us understand more regarding his philosophy on education, government, tolerance, etc. The excerpt of John Locke’s philosophy below are quite similar to some of the issues that are discussed at TOC:
Some Thoughts Concerning Education: Virtue and reason: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Some_Thoughts_Concerning_Education )
“….Locke was convinced that children could reason early in life and that parents should address them as reasoning beings. Moreover, he argues that parents should, above all, attempt to create a “habit” of thinking rationally in their children…”
Two Treatises of Government: Book II: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government [The "Second Essay"]
Chapter 18, Of Tyranny: (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-218.htm\ or http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr18.htm )
“199. … tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”
(…to be continued in my next post)
Hi TOC,
Is the moderation based on words count or character count? I have reduced my post to 419 words but I still get “80) creducator on Your comment is awaiting moderation. August 10th, 2009 1.19 pm”
Continuation on the excerpts of John Locke’s philosophy.…
Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government: (http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm or http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-219.htm )
“221. … another way whereby governments are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative, or the prince, either of them, act contrary to their trust. First, The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the community, masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties, or fortunes of the people.”
“222. The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence. Whensoever therefore the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who. have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society. What I have said here, concerning the legislative in general, holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him, both to have a part in the legislative, and the supreme execution of the law, acts against both, when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law of the society. He acts also contrary to his trust, when he either employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society, to corrupt the representatives, and gain them to his purposes; or openly preengages the electors, and prescribes to their choice, such, whom he has, by sollicitations, threats, promises, or otherwise, won to his designs; and employs them to bring in such, who have promised before-hand what to vote, and what to enact….”
Continuation on the excerpts of John Locke’s philosophy.…
“227. …when either the legislative is changed, or the legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion: for if any one by force takes away the established legislative of any society, and the laws by them made, pursuant to their trust, he thereby takes away the umpirage, which every one had consented to, for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them.”
“229. The end of government is the good of mankind; and which is best for mankind, that the people should be always exposed to the boundless will of tyranny, or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed, when they grow exorbitant in the use of their power, and employ it for the destruction, and not the preservation of the properties of their people?”
“233. But if any one should ask, Must the people then always lay themselves open to the cruelty and rage of tyranny? Must they see their cities pillaged, and laid in ashes, their wives and children exposed to the tyrant’s lust and fury, and themselves and families reduced by their king to ruin, and all the miseries of want and oppression, and yet sit still? Must men alone be debarred the common privilege of opposing force with force, which nature allows so freely to all other creatures for their preservation from injury? I answer: Self-defence is a part of the law of nature; nor can it be denied the community, even against the king himself: but to revenge themselves upon him, must by no means be allowed them; it being not agreeable to that law…”
“243. To conclude, The power that every individual gave the society, when he entered into it, can never revert to the individuals again, as long as the society lasts, but will always remain in the community;…. But if they have set limits to the duration of their legislative, and made this supreme power in any person, or assembly, only temporary; or else, when by the miscarriages of those in authority, it is forfeited; upon the forfeiture, or at the determination of the time set, it reverts to the society, and the people have a right to act as supreme, and continue the legislative in themselves; or erect a new form, or under the old form place it in new hands, as they think good.”
You can read the rest http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr19.htm or http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-219.htm by yourself.
Hi Creducator,
I share your concern about our education system being used to perpetuate PAP hegemony by systematically denying students a stake of their environment and encouraging students to defer to authority unthinkingly.
One good example is how student unions operate in Singapore. They are glorified student associations to organise school events for the school administration and not adequately representing student interest to the school administration. With such student union, it is hard not to think why NTUC is worsening with each new generation of leaders.
Our press is also tightly controlled to maintain the positive image of the Government.
83) Oxford Dude
////Let me ask you a simple problem: how would you estimate the average number of people in a public bus during peak hours?//////
Every single bus/train trip utilising TransitLink card is captured by and stored in TransitLink’s databank to give you the EXACT number of passengers in every bus at any time.
There is no need for estimate, like in the past.
Similarly, the number of vehicles passing at pre-selected points on our exprressways are captured and stored using detector loops under the road surface, no estimate.
79) creducator on August 10th, 2009 1.19 pm
Unfortunately, the cited student had to retract the statement the professor deemed as ‘defaming’ even though it is factual.
Just to clarify that it was a coursework. I guess the professor is just ‘doing his work’ as directed from the dean or higher management in NTU to warn students or prevent students from writing or saying anything that are deemed as not in favor of the gov.
Based on the Professor’s standard, TOC must have published a lot of defamatory articles. However, defamation has one qualification other than it could damage someone’s reputation – the remark has to be false too. So TOC articles and the student’s essay are not defamatory. I think the professor chose to avoid the controversy on his own count. I believe this is a problem of over-zealous censorship amplified by the culture of fear.
Hi (84) Oxford Dude,
I like your adjective, “glorified student associations”. They really have no power, nether do we. As a concern citizen, I somehow feel helpless of the situation, that we couldn’t do much except to voice our opinions here, hopefully someone or the gov themselves would do something to change things.
That’s why when I read the philosophy of John Locke at Chapter 19: Of the Dissolution of Government: (http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/locke/loc-219.htm ), I felt there there is still some hope, like in the case of the People Power Revolution (also known as the EDSA Revolution and the Philippine Revolution of 1986). That was “a series of nonviolent and prayerful mass street demonstrations in the Philippines that occurred in 1986″ ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution )
Hi (85) Oxford Dude,
“I think the professor chose to avoid the controversy on his own count. I believe this is a problem of over-zealous censorship amplified by the culture of fear.”
I think so too. I guess all professors must have been warned and asked to censor any essay or article that may not put the gov in good light. This kind of brain washing through fear tactic will pass down from generation to generation if nothing is done about it. Sad, sad….
Why Singaporeans are worse than cigarettes?
Someone in this blog declared that it is difficult to control immigration and therefore the govt cannot control immigration and by consequence, should let any tom dick and harry in.
Every country that tax smoking cigarettes heavily has the problem of people smuggling cigarettes in.
The reason is obvious: the money is too good.
Singapore have the same problem. However, the govt has invested into new technologies and have imposed new rules on the look of the cigarettes sold in singapore.
Evidently, this is make obvious those jokers who smoke illegally smuggled cigarettes in Singapore and charge them and embarrass them.
The reasons for the investments and new rules are obvious: taxation from these cigarettes are a large revenue for the govt. In view of the current failure in investment in GIC and TH, we know the govt needs the money and it is doing something in its interest.
the downside of the immigration policies of the last few years had been much lamented and even the minister GY claimed that some enterpreneurs have been feeding off the immigrants. Anyway, S’poreans are worse off. That’s for sure.
But we don’t see the govt investing in new technologies and rules to stop people flowing into singapore?
So, Singaporeans are less important to the govt than cigarettes.
TEACHING POLITICAL THEORY IN BEIJING
By Daniel A. Bell DISSENTMAGAZINE.COM
Spring 2006
Few Western academics would aspire to teach political theory in an authoritarian setting. Surely the free, uninhibited flow of discussion is crucial to our enterprise.
When I tell my Western friends that I gave up a tenured, high-paying job in relatively free Hong Kong for a contractual post at Tsinghua University in Beijing, they think I’ve gone off my rocker.
I explain that it’s a unique opportunity for me: it’s the first time Tsinghua has hired a foreigner in the humanities since the revolution; Tsinghua trains much of China’s political elite, and I might be able to make a difference by teaching that elite; the students are talented, curious, hardworking, and it’s a pleasure to engage with them; the political future of China is wide open, and I’ll be well placed to observe the changes when they happen.
Still, I do not deny that teaching political theory in China has been challenging. This has to do partly with political constraints.
But it’s not all about politics.
Even if China became a Western-style liberal democracy overnight, there would still be cultural obstacles to deal with. In this essay, I will discuss some of these political and cultural challenges.
Political Constraints
The willingness to put up with political constraints depends partly upon one’s history. In my case, I had taught at the National University of Singapore in the early 1990s.
There, the head of the department was a member of the ruling People’s Action Party.
He was soon replaced by another head, who asked to see my reading lists and informed me that I should teach more communitarianism (the subject of my doctoral thesis) and less John Stuart Mill.
Naturally, this made me want to do the opposite.
Strange people would show up in my classroom when I spoke about “politically sensitive” topics, such as Karl Marx’s thought.
Students would clam up when I used examples from local politics to illustrate arguments. It came as no surprise when my contract was not renewed.
In comparison, China is a paradise of academic freedom.
Among colleagues, anything goes (in Singapore, most local colleagues were very guarded when dealing with foreigners).
Academic publications are surprisingly free: there aren’t any personal attacks on leaders or open calls for multiparty rule, but particular policies, such as the household registry system, which limits internal mobility, are subject to severe criticism.
In 2004, state television, for the first time in history, broadcast the US presidential elections live, without any obvious political slant.
(I suspect that the turmoil surrounding the 2000 US presidential elections, along with the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, discredited US-style democracy among many Chinese, and the government has less to fear from the model.)
More surprisingly, perhaps, I was not given any explicit (or implicit, as far as I could tell) guidance regarding what I could teach at Tsinghua.
My course proposals have been approved as submitted. (Truncated)
For full article: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=418
There is just no academic culture in our nation. Matriculating to an institution doesn’t necessarily impact one’s epistemology, does it? Ask the average Singaporean if he is interested in the truth and he will ask, ” Need to pay anot?”
Hi OriginalResonance,
Academic freedom has no direct relations with the average Singaporean. In its core, it is the freedom for inquiry for academics (ie. your professors) specifically to conduct unbiased research. It is particularly important in the social science arena where it extends into public policy. Are you suggesting only the government should study the structure and fundamentals of our economy?
Hi Donaldson,
In the 15 August weekend issue of Today, there is an interesting article by Simon Tay entitled “The Thio Li-Ann debate”. I quote one paragraph from it:
“Is there more academic freedom in Singapore? Some years back, one foreign university reneged on plans to establish a Singaporean campus because of fears that such freedom was not guaranteed. To justify this decision, they cited comments made by Prof Thio that Singapore imposed limits on free speech for academics. This now seems ironic”
Simon Tay is subtly dissenting that the limits of academic freedom in Singapore is ludicrous. Even Tommy Koh also made that point earlier this year at a public speech. That foreign university is Warwick University and I had actually had the honour of meeting the professor who the led the faculty campaign against establishing the Singapore campus 1+ year ago. He said the attitude of Singapore government officials at the discussion table was not re-assuring about their concerns of academic freedom.
Donaldson, thanks for clarifying. I thought the reference was to the pull-out of the University of New South Wales, which was heavily publicised a couple of years ago.
On second thought, UNSW and Warwick University aren’t the only universities approached by the Singapore Government to set up local campus. Just look at James Cook University practising 2 different standard of academic freedom – a high standard in Australia and a low standard in Singapore.
what a waste….
please refer to below:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2009/09/contrast-of-cultures.html
(mein apologies to the author for taking it from his/her blog)
If einstein was born in singapore…he would either become a comformist drone else leave singapore too.
If another einstein is born in singapore…the local education system will probably have destroyed his natural born intelligence to make sure he becomes another borg [star trek].
I use to have a friend who is really intelligent…too bad he left singapore 14 years ago cos his intelligence was not appreciated…now he is a space scientist in NASA : ) … happy for him.
Hi,sturmtruppen, there are more wastes – not just children but able adults.
Just look around and see the latest so-called livable city or sort of research centre with multi-million dollars funding to cool the city. You would think otherwise but actually a teaching track lecturer (not even an associate professor) has been chosen to be the director of the centre. Just look at this director’s cv, you will wonder why such person without any good research track records was chosen to lead the research team. Take a look at the research team, who are these people there? Almost none of them makes the mark. Many able people are sidelined because they are not the faces that someone in power likes – an unique culture in Singapore. Many able people would choose to leave. So, what do you expect? So far, is there any breakthrough in research? The answer is obvious.
Hi,sturmtruppen, there are more wastes – not just children but able adults.
Just look around and see the latest so-called livable city or sort of research centre with multi-million dollars funding to cool the city. You would think otherwise but actually a teaching track lecturer (not even an associate professor) has been chosen to be the director of the centre. Just look at this director’s cv, you will wonder why such person without any good research track records was chosen to lead the research team. Take a look at the research team, who are these people there? Almost none of them makes the mark. Many able people are sidelined because they are not the faces that someone in power likes – an unique culture in Singapore. Many able people would choose to leave. So, what do you expect? So far, is there any breakthrough in research? The answer is obvious.