What the Yale-NUS saga teaches us about academic freedom in Singapore

The cancellation of a university course on dissent in Singapore has sparked debate about academic freedom in the country. The  developments, and the Singapore government's response, are part of a larger global trend of attacks on knowledge production, writes Massey University's Mohan Dutta. 

The recent cancellation of a course on “Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore” at the Yale-NUS college (YNC) in Singapore, led by renowned Singaporean playwright Alfian Sa’at, has raised questions about the limits on academic freedom in Singapore.

The course was to feature a lineup of Singaporean activists discussing what it means to be a dissident in the local context. Students were also scheduled to visit a designated protest area in Singapore.

The initial reasons for cancelling the course given by YNC President, Professor Tan Tai Yong, were lack of rigor and legal implications. A subsequent investigation carried out by Yale cited lack of academic rigor and unresponsiveness to requests for changes.

Alfian Sa’at responded to the report findings by pointing out its inaccuracies, saying the question of academic rigor was never communicated to him. Based on the evidence of communications with college staff, he noted that he had been open to changing the content and activities of the course based on feedback.

Foreign influence, dissent, and patriotism

On October 7, responding to questions filed in Parliament about the cancellation, Minister of Education Ong Ye Kung outlined the Ministry’s position.

Standing by the YNC decision to cancel, Mr Ong raised further questions about what should be allowed on the campuses of Singapore’s autonomous universities (AUs).

The Minister’s speech selectively drew on public responses to validate the view that the course was designed to incite and teach students to protest. He gave credence to specific editorials published in state-owned media, that suggested activists were “seeking to initiate ‘colour revolutions’ in Singapore, that is, revolutions which aim to overthrow governments.”

The course was also framed as reflective of foreign attempts backing colour revolutions and seeking to extend their influence in Singapore.

The activists included on the programme, Jolovan Wham, Seelan Palay, Kirsten Han, and P J Thum, who wasn’t included in the programme, were painted as being against Singapore’s national interest.

Of activists and "political conscientisation"

Mr. Ong also noted: “In Singapore's democracy, there are many avenues for political parties and activists to champion their causes, and for people to make their choices and exercise their political rights. Educational institutions, and especially the formal curriculum, are not the platforms to do this.”

"I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his common sense,” said Mr Ong. “He would readily conclude that taking into consideration all the elements and all the personalities involved, this is a programme that was filled with motives and objectives other than learning and education. And MOE's stand is that we cannot allow such activities in our schools or IHLs. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer's idea of what education means."

Political conscientisation is an educational process that seeks to make people critically aware of the oppressions in their own lives so they can challenge them. What is it about conscientisation that makes it unacceptable in Ong Ye Kung's Singapore? What does the Minister worry would happen if the oppressed in Singapore become aware of their oppression and of the forces underlying the oppression?

What, then, is not protected in Singapore?

The Minister has very specific guidelines for what makes up academic freedom in Singapore. He notes academic institutions must operate under the rule of law in Singapore, institutions must not deviate from their pursuit of advancing education and maintaining high academic standards, educational institutions must not be misused as platforms for partisan politics, and finally, educational institutions must recognise Singapore’s social and cultural context.

“Academic freedom cannot be carte blanche for anyone to misuse an academic institution for political advocacy, for this would undermine the institution's academic standards and public standing,” he said.

This suggests that any activity that is seen as political advocacy might be subjected to scrutiny and control, giving the Ministry the power to define what it sees as advocacy. Would climate action therefore be banned from University campuses because it is seen as advocacy? Would calls for addressing sexual harassment on the campus of autonomous universities be banned as advocacy?

Academic freedom, activism, and social impact

Singapore’s attack on activists is a threat to academic freedom and is increasingly part of a larger global trend of attacks on knowledge production. For instance, in India, universities such as the Jawaharlal Nehru University and the University of Hyderabad, have been targeted by the right-wing Modi Government. Academics that are critical of the establishment have been quickly labelled anti-national.

The Chinese government controls academic freedom in China and exerts pressure on academic presses and universities abroad regarding the publication of critical papers and around hosting events critical of China.

Amid conversations on global power shifts to Asia and the influence of Asia over universities globally, conversations about academic freedom in Asia must remain front and centre to ensure academic freedoms are safeguarded.

Views expressed in this article are personal to the author

- Asia Media Centre