| October
2005
What it takes to attract a university
|
|
|
In early 2004, the University of Warwick was approached by the Economic
Development Board (EDB) on behalf of the Singapore government to set up a
branch campus here. Unlike the boutique schools set up so far by
specialist institutions such as INSEAD and the Chicago Graduate Business
School, the idea was for a full-scale campus from Warwick, in the order of
10,000 - 15,000 students.
Although Warwick is a relatively new university, it has a good reputation for post-graduate teaching and research. This is what Singapore needs, as our current universities are primarily undergraduate schools. On 18 Oct 2005, the 33-member University Council voted against the proposal, thus scrapping the idea. This was largely expected as, a week earlier, the University Senate, comprising in the main the senior academics, had recommended rejection. In earlier deliberations, the Council had set 8 conditions for going ahead, one of which was that the university's academics should "buy in" to the idea. The Council, in its public statement, therefore referred to the absence of support by the academics as the chief reason for not approving the project. However, as you can see from the story carried in The Independent on 1 Sep 2005, there were also reservations about the financial feasibility of the project (estimated to cost around Sterling Pounds 294 million, or nearly S$1 billion) and the wisdom of stretching management resources thinly, but these became moot when the lecturers in the Senate voted strongly against the idea. The question of academic freedom is closely linked to the human rights situation in Singapore. In addition, John Burton, in his story for the Financial Times, mentioned concerns about gay rights, as did the post-decision story in the Straits Times, dated 20 Oct 2005. The question of academic freedom and civil liberties, including for gays and lesbians, is what I will discuss here. * * * * * My friend Russell Heng and I first heard of Warwick University's plan in July this year, when we received an email from Richard Watson, asking to meet People Like Us later in the month. Watson told us that he would be leading a small team of post-graduate students (political science) tasked with compiling a report about political and academic freedom. This would form part of the feasibility report. Theirs was a rather rushed visit, only 2 or 3 working days, if I remember correctly. In addition to meeting People Like Us, they had other meetings scheduled with the EDB, the Media Development Authority (Orwellian-speak for State Censors), the National University of Singapore, Think Centre (an NGO) and perhaps a few others. Russell and I met Watson's team for dinner and drinks after. By way of introduction, they outlined their chief concerns: firstly, the ability of students and academics to freely pursue research and publish their work as well as more general issues of freedom of speech and expression within Singapore, and secondly, any difficulty gay and lesbian students may face were they to agree to study in Singapore. In their prior research, they had come across reports of authoritarianism such as that of an academic sued for writing papers touching on Singapore's political system (the case of Christopher Lingle), widespread censorship, the Victorian-era anti-gay laws, and police decoys sent out to entrap gay men. From what they told us of their meeting with the Media Development Authority (MDA), it didn't help much. When they asked the civil servants about freedom of speech, they felt they were getting breezy, generalised "don't worry" answers that were far from reassuring. Russell and I took them through some of the issues and laid to rest the more alarmist concerns. Singapore is not a police state, and there are broad fields of enquiry in which there is little state interference. Moreover, certain practices, such as that of police decoys out to entrap gay men, while true in the past, are no longer true today. (We later took them to a gay bar in order to demonstrate that socially, gays and lesbians have little to fear.) Nonetheless, we tried to explain how Singapore works, and in so explaining show the ways in which control is exercised. The Singapore government likes to have laws and regulations written in broad sweeping language and then rely on their own discretion when to apply them. The result is that the academic or student is never sure when he is in breach of a rule. Unless one is unusually stout-hearted, there will be a tendency to self-censor for the sake of self-preservation. If self-censorship is not forthcoming, and the government is truly upset, then overt intervention will happen. For example, some students in a polytechnic some years ago, as part of their Media and Communications project made a video documentary about opposition politician J B Jeyaretnam. Intense pressure was applied on the school. The video was destroyed and the lecturers reprimanded for permitting the project. (I'm still wondering whether the students, deprived of their project, were allowed to graduate). This year again, Martyn See is being investigated by the police for a video documentary he made of another opposition politician, Chee Soon Juan. There is no let up. The freedoms that Warwick take for granted in the UK may not apply here. For example,
|
|
|
|
Richard Watson raised the matter of the
campus newspaper. Would the Singapore government insist on censoring it?
At Warwick university in Coventry, UK, it is an article of faith that it
should not be subject to censorship, and Warwick will not compromise on
this for its Singapore campus. Furthermore, the campus newspaper should
also be available outside of the campus as in the UK.
Neither Russell nor I could see how they could assume the same freedom unless they obtained an explicit exemption from the Singapore government. Most of their concerns about anti-gay laws were easily handled; they are hardly ever enforced in consensual situations (though before a senior officer decides not to charge you, you will have spent a night in the lock-up because some junior cop in his zeal has busted you). Neither did we think there would be impediments to getting visas for gay and lesbian students and staff. However, I pointed out that if a gay staffmember wanted a long-term residency visa for his same-sex spouse or partner, there would probably be considerable difficulty. This might hobble Warwick in recruiting staff. Watson also asked us what might happen if Warwick's Singapore students wanted to form a gay and lesbian students society. We didn't think that would be a problem, but the sword of Damocles would always be hanging over their heads in the form of the Societies Act, and one day out of the blue, it could become an issue. (They knew that the government has refused to register People Like Us) Basically, they said their feasibility study was guided by the principle that Warwick would not settle for any less freedom than it currently enjoys in the UK. What was acceptable in their UK campus had to be acceptable in the proposed Singapore campus. Their reputation for academic standards hinged on this. No Singaporean will say they can assume that of Singapore. All we could advise was that because so much of government intervention was discretionary and based on pressure tactics, and so often the boundaries were ambiguous or fluid, the best thing Warwick could do would be to have strong-willed people in their top positions who would not hesitate to keep pushing at the boundaries and defend academic freedom whenever threatened. Our final word to the Warwick team was that People Like Us would welcome the establishment of Warwick University in Singapore. Things are not as bad as they might have seemed at first sight, but at the same time, it is undeniable that the government maintains controls which we too find hard to justify. Nevertheless over time, Warwick's presence here and the example that they will set for freedom of enquiry and expression can only benefit Singapore as a whole. Even Thio Li-Ann, whose homophobia is well known, and who had been hired by Warwick to advise them on the political and human rights situation in Singapore, said the presence of Warwick in Singapore could "serve as an impetus for continued liberalisation" (Financial Times, 14 Oct 2005). * * * * * With a resurgent China becoming the workshop of the world, Singapore cannot hope to be a centre of low-cost and mid-cost manufacturing. Large chunks of our economy are expected to move out. We clearly need to develop as rapidly as possible high-end manufacturing, but this means cutting-edge research and development departments, innovative management and a very knowledgeable, highly skilled workforce. As well, we need to expand our services sector. At the high-end, services are very knowledge-intensive. International legal advice for example, requires encyclopedic knowledge of other countries' laws, legal systems and even their politics and culture. International investment advice likewise requires deep knowledge, not just of financial markets, but of technology trends, and social, political and business cultures of various countries where the companies operate. To be a medical and surgical hub requires cutting-edge research in pharmacology, virology and even material science (for all sorts of implants), just to name a few areas. Thus the EDB has identified education as a key platform that we must shore up if Singapore is ever to move up the value chain. Of course education services itself can be a revenue-generator. We can conceivably be a centre for higher education for the region, hence the invitations to well-established universities such as Warwick and the University of New South Wales -- the latter has decided to go ahead and has commenced building its campus -- to set up branch campuses in Singapore. However, from the look of things, we are stuck at the bottom of the learning curve when it comes to knowing what we need to do to successfully attract educational institutions. The EDB has had a string of successes attracting manufacturing investment, but like the proverbial generals who are always preparing to fight the last war, they may not be fully aware that attracting universities calls for quite different inducements. Of course the usual factors apply when it comes to deciding whether to invest: the cost, the market demand, competition, return on investment, etc. Going by the press reports, Warwick had reservations even about these. But educational institutions live and die by their reputations and no university setting up a branch is going to be happy for the branch to have lower standards, thus sullying the hard-earned reputation of the home campus. In research, reputation is earned through fearless enquiry, going wherever the evidence leads. Banned source materials, banned speakers at conferences, represent a selective denial (and thus skewing) of the information and evidence at hand. Censorship, self-censorship and reprisal for finding and saying certain things drain the fearlessness out of enquiry. More generally, Singapore's reputation as a homophobic, authoritarian place makes it harder for any university to attract the best staff and students, lowering standards again. What our government has to realise is
that where manufacturing investments could be attracted with strengths
such as a corruption-free environment and rule of law, attracting a
university calls for much more. Where in the past industrialists wanted
discipline in their workforce, academic institutions want freedom and
rule-challenging for their faculty and student body. Where industrialists
wanted security of capital, a university wants security of life, liberty
and conscience. Where we promised investors sanctity of contract, we now
need to promise sanctity of civil rights. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda None
|
|
