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.
—-
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
A critical factor needed for academics to engage in robust debate is freedom of information and access to data.
How is Bilveer to ‘substantiate’ his allegations if the govt withholds all sensitive data? :)
If the statistics is manipulated to the govt’s favour, and the academic is forced to use such statistics or suffer the consequences of suggesting something else, then what is the purpose of having these kind of academics around?
Also highlights how Singapore academics are tied and gagged by the gov. The gov should be criticised on this count. But i think our timid academics should be condemned too.
Transparency can only be gauged if there is a good environment for robust debate. Access to information is a critical component of academic freedom.
Besides, academics do compile their own data/statistics and they can compare it to official data/statistics. In a way, this actually keep the Government’s Department of Statistics in check from manipulating the information.In fact, in the case of the NTU economists, their conclusions were based on official MOM statistics but the Minister of Manpower refused to accept that.
Nowadays, the Government is experimenting with public feedback on potential government policies by publishing draft bills and setting a deadline for the public to send their feedback. However, this public feedback is limited because interested members don’t have access to relevant data/statistics to make recommendation.
john tan and thio li-ann are politicians first, academic second.
I think there are really two issues here:
(1) What freedom does the average person have to air views,
and
(2) What protections do academic institutions afford faculty who air views?
For (1), the fact is that academics around the world are not afforded special status by law to air views. An academic, just like the man on the street can be charged by a government if they violate some public speaking law. Any “special status” accorded the academic is in line with the academic’s supposed “expertise” on a particular subject. A non-academic expert would receive equivalent status.
Point (1) is associated with governmental actions towards academics. If a government throws an academic in jail, its the same as throwing an activist in jail. “Academic freedom” from the perspective of point (1) does not exist.
An academic receives no more right to collect data than any member of the public. An academic receives no more right to avoid jail than any member of the public. If I am in the US, and write something that a US court rules is hate speech, I can be thrown in jail.
For point (2), what happens in many North American and Western European universities is that academics who have demonstrated certain kinds of performance get “tenure.” This means that the faculty member can only be dismissed for particular reasons, including inappropriate behavior, or if the department the academic belongs to closes down.
Tenure protects academics from dismissal, because some group (government or otherwise) dislikes the academic and whatever message the academic has.
The equivalent concept does not exist in Singapore. Our local universities grant something they call “tenure.” But it is not the same “tenure” that North American and Western European universities grant.
I raise this distinction, because the article conflates the two. An argument about (1) should not treat academics as a special class. ALL citizens/people should be afforded basic rights. An argument about (2) must focus exclusively on how the academic institution treats its employees. Police action, right to data, etc. are not relevant.
What is interesting is that the Thio Li-Ann/NYU case has nothing to do with EITHER (1) or (2). In the NYU case, no government arrested or censored Dr. Thio. Similarly, Dr. Thio was not tenured by NYU and thus had no special protection. Within the administrative system of NYU, students had the right to sit in or not sit in her class. Faculty had the right to lobby against her appointment. Demonstrators had rights to demonstrate against her as enshrined in US law.
Hi Cecil Chua,
Thank you for your enlightening comments.
According to the way I see it, Thio Li-Ann’s incident at NYU is a good wake-up call on the state of academic freedom in Singapore. How she “suffers” in New York should not be anyone’s concerns but her friends’ and family’s. She deserves the hostility for her bigoted views, not sympathy.
While I have yet to ascertain whether academic freedom is a right or a privilege, I think it is a good thing for our local academics to have so that we can have a robust debate on public policies in the public arena. Unlike an ordinary person, an academic can dedicate his time on analysing the data/statistics on a full-time basis as part of his daily academic inquiry at work. Through their published work, ordinary people like you and I can make informed opinion on government policies.
I sincerely wish Singapore will have the equivalent concept of “tenure” as what is practised in the West. This is an important aspect in promoting the culture of transparency. I hope the Government will be more forthcoming in providing data/statistics while academics will be more pro-active in compiling their own data/statistics and publish it too.
Wah… Christians double-standard. The author wrote:
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.
According to Alex Au:
A former PAP heavyweight, known to be an extreme Christian — I know who he is, but I’m not saying yet — had started calling various people in the Home Affairs Ministry, as well as the head of ISEAS, to protest the planned lecture there. Sanders was painted as some evil-doer out to destabilise Singapore.
The lack of academic freedom and press freedom are 2 sides of the same coin.
In Singapore, it is assumed that the PAP government is benevolent and hence must be protected for anyone, whether Press or professors.
US is different. Their founding fathers declared that governments are inherently corrupt and hence the people must be protected from them.
You cannot and should not use American practices and apply them to Singapore. The 2 societies starts with different assumptions about the government. You have to change that assumption first, and that won’t happen for a long time.
9) Kelvin
Good point, but one might wonder if there is a possibility of a middle ground to have a balance between the two types of practices?
In relation to the article, only a well-structured Freedom of Information Act can solve the current barriers to data and information required to reach an informed opinion about public policy. I would characterise this as a shortcoming of what might be construed as a “firewall mentality” where the system has been so used to keeping people out that it has become more of a habit and instead entered our behavioral traits.
Let’s face the facts. Many countries limit a prime minister or a president to two terms in office . The reason is obvious, the longer they stay in office, the more likely they are of going corrupt. and abuse their power. Singapore is no exception.
In fact, it is a good example of a country where a government dominated by a person has turned the country from a true democracy to some kind of a totalitarian nation. Hence there is no academic freedom
Singapore is not a true democracy because
(i) there is no independent newspaper (they are all under the umbrella of SPH)
(ii) the country is run as if it is a family business
(iii) the way the elected president office has been turned on its head. President Ong Teng Cheong could not do what he wanted and fell out of favour with LKY. (When he died he was not given a state funeral; even Rajaratnam was given a state funeral!!!)
Even after 44 years, LKY admitted that he has failed to make Singapore a country. Not surprising, about a 1000 give up being Singaporeans and many more overseas graduates do not want to return to Singapore. By any measurement the PAP government is a failure.
The data is so shocking that the Department of Statistics has given up calling ‘Singaporeans’, instead the label ‘Singaporeans and permanent residents’ is used (the PR which stays in S’pore only for reason of having a job actually have a very short term view of staying in Singapore.)
The biggest impediment to academic freedom is the person of LKY. With his passing the situation will surely improve.
the PRC turned Singaporeans who got our scholarships to get a phd, if they are idealistic will be sadly disappointed with the lack of freedom in S’pore.
For those that are not idealistic, they wouldn’t stay in Singapore for long.
the people of s’pore ended up losing because of pap refusing to be more hardworking.
黃子華 once said that the biggest protest against a corrupt or dictatorship is not giving birth.
Now, you know the state of our govt.
It is the Singaporean way of wiggling out of the control of the govt.
Cecilia Chua
Academic freedon in the context of Singapore has nothing to do with the two issues you discussed.
It has everything to do with whether the authorities subjectively deem what you say to be appropriate or inappropriate. You may not be breaching any law or regulation at all. However, if it happens to upset someone or some persons in authority with a thin skin you cop it in the neck. Therein lies the HUMUNGOUS problem.
7/8/09
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., The main business of academics is to teach and impart quality educations to students, and for students ie to study and get good grades for employment upon graduation.Academics who wish to play with fire, they must first resign from their jobs and then play with fire till the cows come home, same with students ie drop out from their studies and then playing with fire non stop 24hours.
Our Modern Singapore must never become like countries in South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand and even Malaysia where both academics and students holding protests in campuses and in the streets.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Hi Andrew Chuah,
Academic freedom in its core refers to the freedom of inquiry. Academic freedom has nothing to do with organising protest or petition.
For a professor, this freedom translates to his choice to decide the syllabus of his own class and the subject and agenda of his own research.
For a student, this freedom translates to the right to challenge the academic authority of the professor.
When it comes to engaging the government, academic freedom is usually exercised in the form of independent research to support or reject government policies or measure the success of government policies.
7/8/09
Hi Marketplace Thiologist-
Good to hear from you., A professor is just an employee and his job is solely to teach and impart current and relevant knowledge to his students plus doing research pertaining to his field of specialisation and not to engage things outside his specialisations including challenging the University Authority which I take it as its Senate (one who runs the University). The professor must never engage the government of the day on the so called academic freedom and when this happens, I fully support his or her sacking (the same applies for a student and his main business is to study, get good grades and upon graduation get a good job and he can do what he wants till the cows come home.
We as Ordinary Singaporean must always be objective, relevant and not influence by half baked or quarter baked people as we Ordinary Singaporeans are able to hold ourselves very well and we must feel proud being an Ordinary Singaporean;
Regards
Andrew
Hi Andrew Chuah,
Based on what you say, many researchers at NUS LKY School of Public Policy, the Institute of Policy Studies, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, NUS Department of Economics, NUS Department of Political Science, NTU Rajaratnam School of International Studies and NTU Economic Growth Centre ought to be fired. The research done at these places involves Singapore’s domestic and foreign policies.
7/8/09
Hi Marketplace Thiologist
Good to hear from you again. What I said is the professors confine their jobs to their areas of specialisation as outlined by their employers ie universities and their senates, and should they go aboard and engage in opposing the government of the day, I strongly support their sacking and this is what I said. If the professor wants to engage ie opposing the government of the day, he must resigns and then fight the government of the day from outside and not hide and using the unversity. A good example is Dr Chee Soon Juan who was sacked.
Regards
Andrew
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Hi Andrew Chuah,
It seems I have to correct your ignorance on how academics “oppose” the government. Dr Chee Soon Juan was opposing the Government as a politician. Nevertheless, Dr Chee should never been sacked. Below is a number of “opposing” publication by academics:
1. S. Gopinathan (1995) ‘Religious education in a secular state: The Singapore experience’, Asian Journal of Political Science Volume 3 Number 2, pp. 15-27
2. Terence Lee and Cornelius Kan, “Blogospheric Pressures in Singapore: Internet Discourses and the 2006 General Election”, Working Paper No. 150, August 2008, Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University
3. Tilak Abeysinghe and Jiaying Gu, “Lifetime Income and Housing Affordability in Singapore”, Paper No. 2008/07 – July 2008, Singapore Centre for Applied & Policy Economics, National University of Singapore.
4. Thio Li-Ann, “Constitutional ‘Soft’ Law and the Management of Religious Liberty and Order: The 2003 Declaration on Religious Harmony”, [2004] 414-443, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
5. Chan, Phil C. W.(2009)’Shared values of Singapore: sexual minority rights as Singaporean value’,The International Journal of Human Rights,13:2,279 — 305
Academics write scholarly critiques of public policies and publish them in research journals usually. The better known ones may be contracted to write as a popular newspaper columnist. Professor Simon Tay from NUS Law Faculty writes a column about international affairs on TODAY.
Hi Marketplace Thiologist
You write very well and thanks for correcting my so called ignorance-I am just an Ordinary Singaporean Chinese.
Dr Chee sacking was not political but on the grounds of dishonesty. For those academics you have mentioned, they are merely writers and researchers and just doing their job and they do not openly fighting the Singapore government of the day which is the PAP.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Hi Andrew Chuah,
Academics can get into trouble with the Government for doing their job.
This was the case of the NTU economists as mentioned by the author.
Their labour statistics contradicted the official position of the Ministry of Manpower on the labour market.
7/8/09
Hi Marketplace Thiologist
Still my lunch time and I will reply to your posting. Perhaps NTU economists made blunders and hence went way out of line and hence was reprimanded by the Ministry of Manpower who might had more accurate statistics. I am not siding the government. Again, I must say, these academics including those NTU economists must discharge t heir duties in accordance to their terms of employment which is just to teach and impart their knowledge to their students, and don’t try to be funny by publishing distorted figures just to gain cheap prominence in the academic world.
Regards
Andrew
We have an apologist here…haha. Nice try.
Andrew Chuah on August 7th, 2009 2.35 pm
“Perhaps NTU economists made blunders and hence went way out of line and hence was reprimanded by the Ministry of Manpower who might had more accurate statistics.”
yeah, our economists also can make blunders hoh. our MoM who “might” have more accurate statistics hoh. if MoM got accurate statistics, just publish it out lah to shut everyone’s mouth lah. i still do not know how they classify PRs leh.
“Again, I must say, these academics including those NTU economists must discharge t heir duties in accordance to their terms of employment which is just to teach and impart their knowledge to their students,”
no wonder most of them (i guess lah) just refuse to believe your shitty suggestion leh if they have any right minded independent brain cells left – and some just could not control the urge to exercise their professional instinct by ‘showing’ off part of their analytical flair’. else, their brains will simply rot away focusing only on arm-chair rote lecturing “in accordance to their terms of employment.”
perhaps as far as your line of suggestions goes, a lot of our professionals should not indulge too much “extra curriculum” activitity.
“don’t try to be funny by publishing distorted figures just to gain cheap prominence in the academic world.”
then someone generous enough should put on a serious face by publishing facts as that those cheap seekers of prominence shall be deprived of those “cheapo opportunities”.
What’s the point of talking about academic “freedom” or any other form of freedom of speech at TOC when there seems to be no freedom of speech for those who are deemed to have opposing views to those of TOC members?
My posts here have been deleted and also some others’ have been deleted by TOC at http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/08/god-sneaks-into-our-classrooms/ (see posts 173 – 178)
TOC has yet to reply if there is any censorship here.
Hello everyone
I believe the old phrase “Knowledge is Power” comes into the picture.
The government wants to exercise control over the knowledge in this case is academia. And with the relevant knowledge, you can achieve the impossible. I believe that the government is afraid that they might have another student union strike on their hands. In the past, the student unions were very powerful, especially the ones from the old Nanyang University. They were a threat to the now current ruling party. Hence today, our education system has omitted some sensitive political academia to prevent the spread of student unions. That is what I believe.
No one likes distorted figures, however, I believe that most figures are just rough estimates, and sometimes the government might underestimate or overestimate their number. Still the fact remains that the citizen’s confidence will fall if the figures are not correct or wrong. Nevertheless, it is up to the individual to discern for themselves the fact and figure.
Lastly, it is hardcore evidence that substantiates the claim. Even if the academia freedom exposes some hidden agendas, the power that the ruling party has is too high. The influence and economic wealth is too great. (Correct me if i am wrong here)
Thank you
Hi creducator #27,
You asked: What’s the point of talking about academic “freedom” or any other form of freedom of speech at TOC when there seems to be no freedom of speech for those who are deemed to have opposing views to those of TOC members?
TOC recently migrated from one server to another. During the transition, the TOC website has been exceptionally slow to load, with frequent database connection error or internal server 500 error. Many comments have been lost during the server transition, including yours. There is no intentional censorship but a buggy transition process that is behind this unintentional “censorship”.
“I believe that most figures are just rough estimates, and sometimes the government might underestimate or overestimate their number. Still the fact remains that the citizen’s confidence will fall if the figures are not correct or wrong”
It is not whether estimation is accurate, it is whether the statistic reflects reality that really matter to critics. The statistic is generally subjected to government interpretation not layman’s interpretation just as Leong has exposed it.
“27) creducator on August 7th, 2009 9.22 pm
What’s the point of talking about academic “freedom” or any other form of freedom of speech at TOC when there seems to be no freedom of speech for those who are deemed to have opposing views to those of TOC members?”
you think you the only one huh. i also experienced disappearing posts in the past and have never once posted a comment to say so – excepting now just to make you wake up to your idea (if you happen to have the slightest energy left to do that).
talking about opposing views & freedom of speech, you should spend more time directing your effort to those “super-men” who have better influence & power to set a better tone for this.
6) Cecil Chua on August 6th, 2009 10.25 am
“An academic receives no more right to collect data than any member of the public. An academic receives no more right to avoid jail than any member of the public.”
Simply because the line is drawn that public receive no more rights (from which reference entity ?) to collect data / to avoid jail, hence it applies to academia by treating them as the same at (point no. 1) – resulting in a likely possible circular logic where if it applies to academia (appealing to authority, a perceived higher breed at this (point no. 2)), hence it must also equally apply to public.
“Any “special status” accorded the academic is in line with the academic’s supposed “expertise” on a particular subject. A non-academic expert would receive equivalent status.”
well, you have mastered the art of closing the loop by morphing the “special status” of academic with that of non-academic expert. anyway, what is the real problem ? Non but there will always be one if you want to blow this out of proportion. And this Ms. Celia is where you may possibly come in.
“If a government throws an academic in jail, its the same as throwing an activist in jail. “Academic freedom” from the perspective of point (1) does not exist.”
and what do you get here, academic freedom suddenly does not exist.
“f I am in the US, and write something that a US court rules is hate speech, I can be thrown in jail.”
If only it is ‘hate speech’, and why not give some real examples (which we can google) and have the gravity of their seriousness placed side by side with those in our local context.
“Tenure protects academics from dismissal, because some group (government or otherwise) dislikes the academic and whatever message the academic has.”
You said it yourself. In our context, have you not detected some (THE) greater group – or THE most important group.
“The equivalent concept does not exist in Singapore. Our local universities grant something they call “tenure.” But it is not the same “tenure” that North American and Western European universities grant.”
Of course, it is not the same. Some deliberate element here to ensure that this is so.
“Police action, right to data, etc. are not relevant.”
They do come into the picture if push comes to shove, especially the part on the police action.
Hi (29) Donaldson Tan,
Thank you for your clarification. Hope that this problem wold be resolved soon so that it will cause misunderstanding.
This also leads me to think if what we perceived as “censorship” from the gov may not be what it seems. When the subordinates do something wrong, it may not always be under the authority’s instruction. Of course, there are some obvious cases.
This is also not to say that I disagree that there is no academic freedom. I only feel that we should address each issue on its own instead of making a blanket statement.
correction: “Hope that this problem would be resolved soon so that it will not cause misunderstanding.”
Hi Creducator,
It is not there is no academic freedom in Singapore. Academics do criticise the government. However, academic freedom is extremely limited in fields that are exceptionally hard-hitting on the government. For many years, the government refused to release statistics that reveal the social-economic divide between Singaporean and foreign workers. When they finally did, the government then openly admit more jobs are going to foreigners than Singaporeans. But before they made an acknowledgement, they do the harshest things to academics who discovered and published this truth first. This was what happened to the NTU economists.
(31) you only one huh ?,
“you think you the only one huh. i also experienced disappearing posts in the past and have never once posted a comment to say so – excepting now just to make you wake up to your idea (if you happen to have the slightest energy left to do that).
talking about opposing views & freedom of speech, you should spend more time directing your effort to those “super-men” who have better influence & power to set a better tone for this.”
This statement is one eg of what will happen when people speak up. There will be some who will bash up and ridicule the speakers for their views and beliefs that are different from theirs. The worse thing is that people like “(31) you only one huh ?” would keep changing their nicknames in each bashing to make them look like there are many who also disagree with the speakers.
It seems the the only way to handle such people is to ignore them. But I still hope that we can discuss and debate on issues without using uncivilized behaviour at TOC, EVEN IF WE DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER’S VIEWS.
“While I have yet to ascertain whether academic freedom is a right or a privilege, I think it is a good thing for our local academics to have so that we can have a robust debate on public policies in the public arena. Unlike an ordinary person, an academic can dedicate his time on analysing the data/statistics on a full-time basis as part of his daily academic inquiry at work. Through their published work, ordinary people like you and I can make informed opinion on government policies.”
I agree totally. Why should not the work (along with their professional analytical comments and hence their jewel thought processes) be shared for the benefits of the general public and must only be restricted to only students privileged enough to go into higher educational institutions.
What are they (those supermen) “so scared of”. Do they not believe their own competence (confidence) in their work in coming out with certain policies which they can equally defend with ease ?
37) creducator on August 8th, 2009 12.47 pm
“There will be some who will bash up and ridicule the speakers for their views and beliefs that are different from theirs.”
at least, this kind of bashing does not translate into you being being sacked from your job or have your salary cut.
I did not know that harmless internet basing can cause you to feel something and attract a response. how about “real basing” that those academics got.
11) The real impediment to academic freedom,
“The biggest impediment to academic freedom is the person of LKY. With his passing the situation will surely improve.”
Many seem to be waiting for LKY to kick the bucket and think that freedom of speech would then be ours. However, I guess he would have already planned for his power retention even in his death. As he said in his 1988 National Day rally, “Even from my sick bed, even if you are going to lower me into the grave and I feel something is going wrong, I will get up.” That’s why sg politics have become a familee politics to ensure power retention.
Our once good sg, which I used to be very proud of, has now become just a ‘transit lounge’ for foreigners and the elites. As I mentioned in my missing post, the number of academics in our local universities are 95% foreigners. As foreign academics and researchers, they in turn would hire mostly foreign research assistants.
This is lopsided academics state is a strategy to ensure that academics just stick to their paper chasing by producing tons and tons of papers (which is the aim of most academics) instead of spending time to look into real issues in sg. Why should they even bother since sg is not their home, except for the few local academics whom (21) marketplace thiologist has cited?
Likewise, the situation whereby the number of international students in our local universities are higher than Singaporean students is intentional. Base on the same logic above, foreign students would mind their own business instead of speaking up for Singaporeans. In addition, they would give sg gov more revenue, even if it means that majority of our locals are forced to go overseas for their higher education.
So we can see that to counter and to prevent academics form exercising their “special speech rights in their field of specialisation” (Donaldson Tan), our gov would rather welcome foreign academics and pay for foreign students to study here than to give these places to our local deserving students.
As (28) Ivando has identified, “The government wants to exercise control over the knowledge in this case is academia. …Hence today, our education system has omitted some sensitive political academia to prevent the spread of student unions.”
All things said, if we really wish to have academic freedom, we would need to push for a change in our uni enrollment and hiring policy. It’s easier to change a unit than to change the whole political system.
19) marketplace thiologist
//////Hi Andrew Chuah,
Based on what you say, many researchers at NUS LKY School of Public Policy, the Institute of Policy Studies, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, NUS Department of Economics, NUS Department of Political Science, NTU Rajaratnam School of International Studies and NTU Economic Growth Centre ought to be fired. The research done at these places involves Singapore’s domestic and foreign policies.///////
If I may butt into this conversation, IPS, ISEAS and SIS are in the field of politics and public policies, so if they are not permitted to write on them , what are they to write about.
I believe likewise, the school of Engineering would have published critical articles on the subject of Engineering in Singapore, law school on law cases in singapore, etc.
But if a engineering prof writes an article about politics, he gotta be doing it outsde his role as an uni prof.
So on this I agree with
18) andrew chuah
that ////// A professor is just an employee and his job is solely to teach and impart current and relevant knowledge to his students plus doing research pertaining to his field of specialisation and not to engage things outside his specialisations including challenging the University Authority which I take it as its Senate (one who runs the University). ///////
36) marketplace thiologist,
“academic freedom is extremely limited in fields that are exceptionally hard-hitting on the government. …But before they made an acknowledgement, they do the harshest things to academics who discovered and published this truth first. This was what happened to the NTU economists.”
Not only to the NTU economists, but also to communication studies students in NTU. Example, “NTU censors campus news coverage of Chee Soon Juan visit” – http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/330975?page=1 . The students were very angry over the incidence and wondered why the professors did not practice what they taught regarding the code of ethics in journalism (as in http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp ) and the lack of freedom of press.
Another case of lack of freedom of speech/press was when a NTU professor told his student that he had made a ‘defaming statement’ in his essay regarding MCYS or gov childcare services recommendation and asked him to withdraw it.
What did that student do that’s wrong? He merely stated a fact based on MCYS published statistics on childcare services trend, which shows that 3/4 of the centres setup each year have closed down. Even with the remainders that are in operation, most have not reached their full capacity, leaving more than 10,000 vacancies each year. As such, he argued against the need for “Another 200 centres will open by 2013, as part of the Government’s plan to develop the childcare sector”. The money should be used in a better ways to help centres survive and improved the quality of childcare services.
We can see from those examples that our education system is full of hypocrisy and contradicted its “desired learning outcomes”. What kind of students will our education system produced? When these students become academics one day (if they have a chance), do you think they will dare to speak up on issues that is not favorable to the gov?
Perhaps, the actual “desired learning outcomes” of our education is to produce programmed robotic Singaporeans who will not question what the gov do.
reference:
STATISTICS ON CHILD CARE SERVICES
- http://www.childcarelink.gov.sg/ccls/uploads/Statistics_on_child_care(STENT).pdf
Hold off childcare fee hike: Vivian
- http://www.asiaone.com/News/Education/Story/A1Story20090212-121495.html
“Your comment is awaiting moderation. August 8th, 2009 7.10 pm ”
how come suddenly have moderation?
Re: 33.
Uhh… My intent was:
(1) State the facts. I felt the original document muddled up the issue.
(2) I never presented an argument, which is what your statement seems to imply.
The facts are that an academic isn’t awarded special status in the eyes of the law, and academics in Singapore don’t have the tenure protections that are afforded academics in Western countries. I didn’t state ANYWHERE in my original commentary as to whether I believed these things were RIGHT.
And… given that I state my name, which is easily googleable, it should be straightforward to figure out my gender.
I’m not sure what examples you want, but a good read is “Academic Freedom in the Wired World” by Robert O’Neil. He gives some examples of academics being hauled to court for refusing to divulge the raw data that underlies their research- exactly the same thing happens to reporters who refuse to reveal their sources. In at least one case, the First Amendment (the US right to free speech) is invoked, but it is ruled the academic must reveal the data “in the public interest.” He also has academics threatened by US Senators and other such ugly incidents associated with academics trying to uphold the ideals of academic freedom in the US.
Basically, what protects academics in the US outside the academia are the selfsame laws that protect everyone else. In the case of the person who refused to divulge sources, it was ruled that because much of his evidence was lab work, he was owed “fair compensation” for releasing his lab results- where the academic got to set compensation.
43) Cecil Chua
/////…… being hauled to court ……….exactly the same thing happens to reporters who refuse to reveal their sources. .//////////////
Similary, can some TOC authors be hauled to court for refusing to reveal how they come up with numbers like …
“xx% of overseas students never return to Singapore”
“old folks end up collecting cardboards”
“old folks end up cleaning tables at hawker centres”
written to make it look like we are a country of evil and ungrateful children who subject all their old parents to such atrocity.
Hi KopitiamApek,
I don’t think you understand what academic freedom is. Academic freedom is its core is the freedom of inquiry. How this freedom translates into practise depends on what role you hold in the academic environment.
Ivando is right to point out that academic freedom and free press are 2 sides of the same coin – in according academics with “special status”, we are asking for authorities to show more tolerance to academics because they may be experts on the subject matter.
You wrote “I believe likewise, the school of Engineering would have published critical articles on the subject of Engineering in Singapore, law school on law cases in singapore, etc.” If only the distinction between disciplines are really that clear. For example, environmental engineering professors actually write critiques on environmental law and policies.
The academic freedom of engineering professors also get infringed. I remember the case of how MIT academics published a manual on hacking the Microsoft XBOX. Microsoft responded by pursuing a gagging order. While MIT retracted the publication, the publication itself had already taken a life on its own and was duplicated in many electronics hobbyist websites.
In citing IPS, ISEAS and RSIS, I was highlighting the potential for their academics to hit the Government’s sensitive spots. In the case of the NTU economists, they revealed that more jobs are going to foreigners than Singaporeans in 2003. The Government finally admitted to this fact in 2007. But so what? The economists were forced to make a public apology as if they were lying right from the start.
test
Hi Kopitiam-Apek,
I don’t think you understand what academic freedom is. Academic freedom is its core is the freedom of inquiry. How this freedom translates into practise depends on what role you hold in the academic environment.
Ivando is right to point out that academic freedom and free press are 2 sides of the same coin – in according academics with “special status”, we are asking for authorities to show more tolerance to academics because they may be experts on the subject matter.
Hi Kopitiam-Apek,
I don’t think you understand what academic freedom is. Academic freedom is its core is the freedom of inquiry. How this freedom translates into practise depends on what role you hold in the academic environment.
Ivando is right to point out that academic freedom and free press are 2 sides of the same coin – in according academics with “special status”, we are asking for authorities to show more tolerance to academics because they may be experts on the subject matter.
You wrote “I believe likewise, the school of Engineering would have published critical articles on the subject of Engineering in Singapore, law school on law cases in singapore, etc.” If only the distinction between disciplines are really that clear. For example, environmental engineering professors actually write critiques on environmental law and policies.
The academic freedom of engineering professors also get infringed. I remember the case of how MIT academics published a manual on hacking the Microsoft XBOX. Microsoft responded by pursuing a gagging order. While MIT retracted the publication, the publication itself had already taken a life on its own and was duplicated in many electronics hobbyist websites.
In citing IPS, ISEAS and RSIS, I was highlighting the potential for their academics to hit the Government’s sensitive spots. In the case of the NTU economists, they revealed that more jobs are going to foreigners than Singaporeans in 2003. The Government finally admitted to this fact in 2007. But so what? The economists were forced to make a public apology as if they were lying right from the start.
With regards to Leong SH’s article, he has made it clear that it is his estimates. It is up to you to accept it. NUS and NTU publish their student profiles in their annual reports. If you don’t know where to find information, blame it on your lack of talent. Besides, do you know how people conduct analysis? Conclusions are based on plausible assumptions and data available. This is how analysis is done in engineering, economics, psychology, etc.
Why are you so hostile towards TOC? You mentioned “xx% of overseas students never return to Singapore” The number is 18.1%. You can find the basis here. You expect TOC writers to share their individual abilities to gather and misrepresent information for your agenda? Or are you uncomfortable that TOC is challenging status quo?
9/8/09
Hi-Marketplace Thiolgoist & Kopitiam Apek
Happy Sunday. I am travelling for my busness and found time to read and reply to both of you.
Our Singapore Consitution guarantees freedom of each citizen but this freedom comes with a heavy responsibilities and the same with Academic Freedom which must come with a heavy responsbilities. The same when I write on this forum using my real name (also in Discuss-Singapore since 2001). We are no longer in the Dark Ages and our Modern Singapore is in the internet age and we must write without fear or favour which I have been doing and let me write this ie “In our Modern Singapore, I am all for a good numbers of Opposition MPs in our Parliament but these MPs must be equal or better than the PAP MPs. I can live with Moron-Stupid MPs from Opposition but not half baked or quarter baked which are very dangerous and evil and they can don anything for money which we have seen in our neighbour countries Thailand and Malaysia. This must never be allowed to happen in our Modern Singapore”.
What our Modern Singapore really needs is ordinary Singaporeans to come out and lead and not the elites from the PAP and Opposition which we are seeing one who inherited his late dad’s party and I doubt he is qualify enough after reading his articles (given his Top Gun degree from UK and being a former hedge funds manager). We have had enough of elitists and time to say a Big No to them come next General Election.
Coming back to Academic Freedom, I am all for one provided these academics just toe the line and do their job within their contract and don’t go over board, and if they do, my answer is just sack them like our Dr Chee .
I am just an Ordinary Singaporean born in Singapore and still struggling and making ends meet.
Regards
Andrew Chuah
Andrew
In my opinion, it would be a travesty for academics to “just toe the line and do their jobs”. Scholarship entails identifying distortions, dismantling myths, challenging theories, galvanizing opinions, etc. More often than not, there is nothing quite comfortable towards the status quo in the realm of academia.
Academic freedom is not about a latitude for whims and fancies; it is offered in the spirit of inquiry, that in knowledge – - in knowing about , than not knowing about – - our lives are better marked by purpose, accuracy, truth and objectivity. In other words, the more the people know, the better.
The question is, how we arrive at the conclusions of academic work. I think we can expect, and be assured of a certain rigour and integrity in research work done in Singapore. There is an unspoken honor code in academia to place truth in the highest, and this is especially so in Singapore where there is naturally a culture of intense scrutiny from the top, that it would be simply foolish to run against a wall without a helmet, without the proper corroboration.
Even so, as we become more educated, we become more discerning with information presented to us: most of us should be able to appreciate the credibility or lack thereof what is proffered on the table, otherwise it would be a failure of our education system.
It is commendable that the government is engaged in preserving what they perceive as their truths in the public sphere. But if they go so far, as to just clamp down and put gag orders on opinions that collide with their official, published statistics, then they have only engaged themselves and treated the public as stupid. They extinguish the sparkle of a robust debate that is aligned with a democratic institution that we profess ourselves to be. They destroy the spe, luce et veritas that scholarship can provide for the better tomorrow of our lives (yes, call me romantic, dreamer, and even stupider than stupid). They insult academia by punishing it for its existence (it’s like slapping the waiter who has served you the drink you ordered).
We might call ourselves ordinary, “struggling to make ends meet” but that doesn’t excuse us from our responsibilities as active citizens, Andrew. I think the government is obviously keeping away “sensitive information” for a reason (for better or worse, conspiracy yay), and when academia tries to pry that out of the lockers, we should be behind such pursuits because we need to know in order to make better political decisions.
On the other hand, I would like to engage your suggestion that (what you think as) “lower-quality” opposition mps are prone to corruption, with this question: what makes you think that just because a candidate is not “half-baked, quarter-baked”, he/she would not be drawn to avarice? Slippery slope, there.
Jeremy Chua
jiakai.j.chua@vanderbilt.edu
budamax1952
I don’t think your response was very well-appreciated. Andrew is not entirely happy with the political situation in Singapore, if you read his posts closely. He is definitely not a “bootlicker” as you alleged him to be.
While it might be true that our government has stranded Dr Chee with scandals and suits, Andrew is free to come to his own interpretations.
And I don’t think it is fair to resort to personal attacks. My surname is Chua (variation of the same name), and I certainly do not like that you have disparaged it in the way you have: I don’t think I will waste another sibilance with you.
Perhaps, some circumspect?
Jeremy Chua
jiakai.j.chua@vanderbilt.edu