|
Academic Freedom at the National University of Singapore |
|
By Joshua Gill
|
|
Feb. 1 2012 |
This note is a response to this article: Yale Daily News - Vincoli: No student freedom at NUS
When I first read my friend Walker's article about the lack of academic freedom in Singapore I was a little taken aback at the hostility of the argument. I too studied in Singapore on the same Joint Degree Program as he did, and I hold an entirely different perspective on the matter.
First, I want to point out that the headline of his article is deeply misleading. The provocative line 'No student freedom at NUS' flagrantly lambasts an entire university that teaches everything from dentistry to business. The experience that Walker and I shared in the political science department cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be expanded to include the other departments and faculties at the university. Since the majority of his argument focuses on the issue of self -censorship in a political sense, how would this impede the academic freedom in a science course?
Let me not mince words. I recognize that the historically hegemonic People's Action Party has used a variety of legal and quasi-legal means to bring political opponents to their knees. I also recognize that press freedom rankings for the country are abysmal, and that electoral districts are gerrymandered into absurd configurations. However, I question the impact that these issues have on the academic freedom of students at NUS.
From my yearlong experience in Singapore, I would say that the political science students at NUS are the most outspoken and politically engaged people I ever encountered in the country. I had the wonderful experience of being in Singapore during the most recent general election, and I cannot tell you how many lunches erupted into yelling matches as my political science friends debated the merits of this or that political party. Had it not been for my classmates, I never would have attended political rallies of the opposition parties. One of which, I might add, was led by an openly gay political activist who was one of the most well-liked of the opposition candidates.
Political discourse in Singapore is notably different than in the United States. The People's Action Party has perennially maintained legitimacy through its provision of economic growth. Consequentially, discourse about the size and scope of government that are so common in the U.S. are rarely raised in Singaporean debate. Rather, the PAP directs political discourse to its ability to attract 'top talent' to the government and its continued outstanding economic governance.
This style of political discourse has a profound effect on the political views of the population. When any mention of politics comes hand-in-hand with economic performance, politics as a theory of governance loses some of its importance. What is the need to debate whether or not a group is marginalized, when the current government has record GDP growth? I argue that the 'self-censorship' Walker perceived in class and in the population as a whole is caused more by decades of deference to a successful meritocratic and technocratic government than to a culture of fear.
There is another difference in style of political discourse that I believe translates into the way students criticize the government either verbally or in papers. In Singapore, if you accuse someone of something, the burden of proof is on you. Accusations, regardless of how plausible or how true, must have solid evidence or else risk backlash. For instance, if Mitt Romney accused President Obama of taking bribes, he would have to prove it or else risk a libel suit. Students, therefore, will not write criticisms of the government into their papers without proper evidence, because of this inherited method of political discourse. Some may argue that this is stifling of free speech, others would argue that this is due diligence.
Other than accusatory and inflammatory remarks, political discourse on the merits of an issue is welcomed and indeed very visible. Take for instance the issue of allowing casinos to be established in the country. This issue launched a huge national debate that had powerful members of the single-party government arguing both for and against the measure.
While it is true that the styles of education and the methods of debate are different between what I have experienced abroad at NUS and at home at UNC Chapel Hill, I cannot support the notion that students at NUS, and more directly in the political science department, suffer under a lack of academic freedom. I owe the majority of what I know about the government of Singapore to classes that I took both at home and at NUS, but what I know about grassroots politics, political engagement, and about the opposition in Singapore—I learned from my friends and classmates at NUS.
Joshua Gill is a senior in the UNC-NUS Joint Degree Program. He studied in Singapore for the 2010 – 2011 academic year as a Phillips Ambassador. This note was first seen on Facebook Jan. 29.
|
