Connect with us

Community

Conflict At the Heart of Yale-NUS

Published

on

~ By Gordon Lee ~

In 2005, it was reported that Singapore’s authorities “have learned a hard lesson after Britain's prestigious Warwick University snubbed the city-state with its decision not to accept an invitation to establish a campus." [1]

This is my University, and I am proud of this decision.

How has this embarrassing event provided lessons for Yale-NUS several years on?

Clash of values

Warwick University was one of two universities shortlisted and invited to establish Singapore first foreign full-scale campus.

As a research University, Warwick was obviously concerned about academic freedom for its professors and students. However, it was very clear that this is lacking in Singapore. NUS Law Prof Thio Li-ann advised Warwick that “the government will intervene if academic reports cast a negative light on their policies. [2]

The Singapore authorities required “international educational institutions operating in the city-state to agree not to conduct activities seen as interference in domestic affairs”. But when Warwick “sought guarantees that staff and students would not be punished by the Singapore government for making academic-related comments that might be seen ‘as being outside the boundaries of political debate’”, the EDB (the authorities responsible) refused to comment. [3]

Yale University believes the guarantee that their staff and students “will be free to conduct scholarship and research and publish the results, and to teach in the classroom and express themselves on campus, bearing in mind the need to act in accordance with accepted scholarly and professional standards and the regulations of the college.”[4] I think they are deluded, and recklessly sacrificing precious academic freedom and reputation for a new college thousands of miles away in a repressive city state. One wonders what Yale gains from the venture?

Embarrassment to the authorities

The other university that was shortlisted in 2005 – the University of New South Wales – shut just two months after its “grand” opening, which was again a slap in the face of the Singapore authorities.[5]

It is no doubt that the Singapore authorities are extra-cautious this time around to prevent another humiliating affair.

This time around, right as Yale-NUS is in the midst of making faculty offers, the Yale faculty has very recently voted for a resolution which begins by raising concerns over a “history of lack of respect for civil and political rights” in Singapore, as well as urging “Yale-NUS ‘to respect, protect and further’ non-discrimination and civil liberty, and states that these values comprise the core of a liberal arts education.”[6] The tempered language of the resolution has helped to avert an otherwise embarrassing fallout that would likely further tarnish the authorities’ scandal-ridden record of attempting to attract top foreign universities. However, the faculty having made clear their views on “Yale values”, have only raised the stakes for the Singapore authorities.

The “problem” of transparency

Warwick’s faculty senate (of senior lecturers) voted overwhelmingly (27-13) against the establishment of the Singapore campus.[7] Even though this vote was not binding, it placed immense pressure on the final decision of the University council (which was keen on the Singapore campus). As mentioned earlier, Warwick even commissioned a feasibility study by NUS Prof Thio Li-ann, and the report was openly published.

As a parallel, it appears that Yale wants the campus (having gone this far with the project), even though many staff and students oppose the plans.

It is no wonder that Yale has reportedly not been forthcoming about some of its Trustees past important positions in GIC and Temasek Holdings, including Ho Ching’s “successor” Charles Goodyear.[8] As a fortunate coincidence, Yale does not have a faculty senate – which is probably why the faculty has taken till now to vote on the issue, after having “to suspend the rules of the meetings to introduce and debate the resolution” regarding the Yale-NUS venture.[9]

Only time will tell whether Yale-NUS proves to be a success for Yale, NUS, and the embattled Singapore authorities. Or.. it might be a nail in the coffin of Singapore’s ambition to be an “education hub”, or the ridiculously termed “hub of hubs”.

____________________________

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Community

Singapore performer impersonating Sivaji Ganesan dies after collapse during live show

Asokan S/O Muniyandy, a Singaporean performer famed for his impersonation of Indian actor Sivaji Ganesan, passed away on 12 October at the age of 60. Dubbed the “Singapore Sivaji,” he collapsed after a performance. His final rites will take place on 15 October at 5 pm.

Published

on

By

SINGAPORE: Singaporean performer Asokan S/O Muniyandy, renowned for his impersonation of Tamil cinema legend Sivaji Ganesan, passed away on Saturday (12 Oct) at the age of 60.

Known as “Singapore Sivaji” for his uncanny resemblance to the iconic actor, Asokan was a regular performer at cultural events in Singapore and Malaysia.

He reportedly collapsed and died at the end of a live performance, leaving the audience in shock.

Videos circulating on social media show Asokan dancing moments before he suddenly collapsed face-first as the emcee spoke to the crowd.

The sudden incident left onlookers stunned.

Seithi Mediacorp reported that Asokan’s final rites will take place on Tuesday (15 Oct) at 5 p.m.

Continue Reading

Animals

Controversy erupts as NParks sets traps for wild chickens following resident complaints

A video showing NParks contractors trapping wild chickens in Yio Chu Kang has sparked online controversy. Many netizens criticize the agency for targeting harmless chickens while ignoring more disruptive animals. They argue that chickens contribute to the local charm and should be preserved instead of culled, raising questions about the complaints received.

Published

on

By

SINGAPORE: A video showing contractors hired by the National Parks Board (NParks) laying chicken traps has ignited controversy online.

The incident occurred in the Cactus estate, located in Yio Chu Kang.

The video, first uploaded on 9 October to the Facebook group Singapore Wildlife Sightings, shows two men in green vests kneeling on a grass patch and setting up what appeared to be traps for wild chickens.

According to the original post, the contractors were responding to complaints from local residents.

In response to media inquiries from MS News, Mr How Choon Beng, NParks’ Group Director of Wildlife Management, confirmed that both NParks and the Cheng San Grassroots Organisation had received numerous complaints about free-ranging chickens in the Cactus and Sunrise estates over the past year.

The complaints cited issues related to disturbances caused by the chickens, referred to as “dis-amenities.”

Mr How explained that NParks is currently conducting “population management measures” to address the growing number of chickens in the area.

He emphasized that NParks adopts a science- and community-based approach to managing animal populations, including free-ranging chickens.

These efforts include studying the birds’ population ecology, conducting biosurveillance programs, and implementing a variety of management strategies such as public education and habitat modification.

Mr How noted, “There is no one-size-fits-all management approach when it comes to addressing the multi-faceted issues related to free-ranging chickens.”

In addition, NParks collaborates with Grassroots Organisations to promote best practices in population control and engages residents by sharing tips on managing disturbances caused by the chickens, including the removal of eggs.

NParks also reminded the public to avoid feeding the chickens, as this contributes to their overpopulation and exacerbates the problem.

Netizens criticize NParks for trapping and culling wild chickens

Under an MS News Facebook post, many netizens expressed their opposition to the trapping and culling of wild chickens, arguing that they are harmless creatures.

Some users commented that they enjoy the presence of chickens, as they contribute to a “kampong” atmosphere in the neighbourhood.

One user mentioned that it is always nice to see chickens roaming around, helping to create that nostalgic vibe of home.

Another user shared their fondness for the sight of chickens, stating it feels reminiscent of the kampong days.

They suggested that instead of targeting chickens, NParks should focus on managing more disruptive animals like pigeons and otters, which can be a nuisance.

Several commenters questioned why NParks would catch harmless chickens while allowing other animals that pose more significant issues, like otters and pigeons, to remain unchecked.

One user criticized NParks for wasting time on chickens, emphasizing that they do not pose any threat to the public, unlike otters or wild boars that have attacked people.

Another commenter pointed out that chickens play a role in controlling harmful insects and pests, while otters contribute to the removal of pet fish in local ponds.

Others urged NParks to prioritize addressing the pressing issues posed by crows and pigeons rather than focusing on roaming chickens.

Many argued that NParks should aim to preserve nature by leaving harmless chickens alone and managing genuine pests instead.

A frustrated user criticized the authorities for succumbing to complaints rather than making decisions based on what is right.

They recalled a personal experience at Alexandra Village hawker centre, where they admired a group of wild chickens with a Malaysian worker, only to learn that authorities planned to cull them due to complaints.

One user questioned the nature of these complaints, urging NParks to clarify what is so problematic about having chickens in the neighbourhood.

They argued that these animals are harmless, self-sufficient, and do not bother humans.

As urban development continues to encroach on their natural habitats, many believe it is unjust to deny them the right to coexist with people in their own neighbourhoods.

Continue Reading

Trending