More on Yale-NUS College

Yale resolution misses the wood for the trees
IT IS startling to discover how a few bright sparks from Yale University have missed the wood for the trees ('Yale to proceed with NUS college tie-up'; last Saturday).

The Yale-National University of Singapore College aims to pioneer a set of critical pedagogies that fosters cross-cultural debate on a range of issues that affect our globalised world, by tapping the expertise and experience of its two partners.

Unfortunately, some of its American detractors are focused on rehashing poorly informed stereotypes about Singapore, which is hosting the project.

Where is the spirit of open-mindedness and adventurism that many have come to expect from an Ivy League institution known for nurturing enlightened global souls, including former United States president Bill Clinton; his wife, current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush?

What makes Yale University academics believe that Jeffersonian democracy is the gold standard for the rest of the world when the political system of its leading proponent, the US, has morphed into the right and left hands of plutocracy?

The Yale-NUS College is the perfect venue to compare the pros and cons of such a democratic system with one that is driven by collective interests and responsibilities.

It is ironical that while a supposedly repressive state like Singapore - by Western standards - is willing to explore new forms of intellectual inquiry that challenge conventional wisdom, some liberal minds from Yale are quick to invoke moral superiority and suppress any ideals that do not mirror theirs.

The Yale-NUS College is a forward-looking venture to broaden the horizons of curious minds on both sides of the Pacific.

It does not deserve to become an axis of cultural imperialism for anyone.
Toh Cheng Seong
ST Forum, 10 Apr 2012

Yale-NUS College is about mutual benefit, not loss
THE strongly worded exchanges over the proposed Yale-National University of Singapore (NUS) College paradoxically emphasise how important the collaboration is for both parties ('Yale to proceed with NUS college tie-up', last Saturday; 'Yale-NUS College: Give liberals their proper due' by Mr Michael Montesano, March 31; and 'Yale resolution misses the wood for the trees' by Mr Toh Cheng Seong, yesterday).

Singaporeans freely admit the need to understand the world better, and we recognise the value of a liberal education in producing people who are disciplined yet creative, focused yet flexible.

For Yale, the college offers a unique opportunity to project the Ivy League university's 'soft power', even as the university learns about the exciting new order increasingly centred on our part of the world, to shape and in turn be shaped by the 'Asian Renaissance'.

The economics and governance aside, the college is about educational exchange; educational exchange resulting in thoughtful, reflective, mutual understanding and respect.

In this context, it is timely to recount the words of the late American Senator William Fulbright, the sponsor of the Fulbright Programme: 'The essence of intercultural education is the acquisition of empathy - the ability to see the world as others see it, and to allow for the possibility that others may see something we have failed to see, or may see it more accurately.'

With empathy, both parties will see the robust exchanges as healthy and contributing to a deeper understanding of each other.

With empathy, both will see how important this partnership is for all of us. This cannot be about Yale replenishing depleting finances, or about Singapore 'borrowing' Yale's name.

Mutual benefit beyond monetary gain or reputational enhancement is imperative; Singapore and Yale need to envisage a win-win future and work hand in hand to achieve this.

Anything less can end only in mutual loss.
Dr Jeremy Lim
President, Fulbright Association (Singapore)
ST Forum, 11 Apr 2012

No right to pass judgment
Letter from Chua Sheng Yang, TODAY, 10 Apr 2012

I refer to recent reports on a resolution passed by members of the Yale faculty (April 7) with regard to the planned Yale-NUS college.

As a proud alumnus of the National University of Singapore and a proud citizen of Singapore, I cannot help but take umbrage at the fact that the faculty members of a proposed partner university see fit to take such a morally condescending tone and attempt to impose their judgment on our perceived societal values even before the proposed campus has opened.

Surely both the NUS and Singapore cannot quietly accept such a slight on our culture and way of life and continue to consider a partnership which is clearly unwelcome by the majority of the Yale faculty. To do so would be tacit, implicit acceptance of their accusation that we do not uphold both the principles of civil liberty or non-discrimination.

It does not give Yale the right to pass judgment on our society just because we do not subscribe to the American notion of civil liberty, which in itself has its numerous flaws. Nor does it give them the right to claim the moral high ground and insult all NUS students and Singapore citizens by virtue of their resolution.

Benefits of the Yale, NUS union
Letter from Carmen Hartono, TODAY, 10 Apr 2012

As a graduate of a liberal arts college on the "left coast" of the United States - in fact my degree was in liberal studies - I would like to take some artistic liberties in response to the "saga" of the planned union between Yale and the National University of Singapore (April 7).

Firstly, I believe the liberation of a people is an art. It is not a science that can be measured by standards set by another people. The US is a worthy experiment in democracy and liberation. But, in my opinion, Singapore has also made remarkable strides in achieving freedoms for her people.

I have lived in this "city within a garden" for over a year. I have enjoyed the fruit from the labour of love by her leaders as they have landscaped what I see as a utopia. Because of their regard towards my civil liberties, I enjoy the freedom to take endless walks through nature preserves.

The zero tolerance for violence, vandalism and drugs creates an environment of safety, beauty and freedom from addictions. The transport system gives me the liberty to travel anywhere here to explore yet another place of interest.

The constant attention from the Government to the needs of every minority gives me a sense of a society based on a foundation of justice. But, for me personally, what astounds me the most is the freedom of religion found in Singapore. This can serve as a model for the world, including the US, where some feel we have freedom FROM religion and not freedom OF religion.

I hope Yale faculty members can liberate their minds enough to see the benefits to be found in the union with the NUS. It would truly be sad to see leaders in academia shackled by ignorance, misconceptions and misinformation.

NG: Show Singaporeans some respect
By E-CHING NG, Yale Daily News, 9 Apr 2012

Last month, the Singaporean student newspaper Kent Ridge Common published an excellent column by Koh Choon Hwee, who confessed herself bewildered by the "careless, generalized stereotypes being traded not only by students, but also by Yale faculty members — which seem to betray the very ethos of good scholarship." She then asked pointedly whether Singapore should reconsider the partnership with Yale, "considering the quality of arguments proffered by some of her tenured best."

I believe Yalies can think, but I can see why my fellow Singaporeans might suspect otherwise. The crucial problem is that Yalies and Singaporeans have fundamentally different assumptions about political culture.

Americans are outraged at certain Singaporean laws. Singaporeans just break them — and usually get away with it. Homosexual intercourse is illegal in Singapore the way underage drinking is illegal at Yale. The police have never bothered my openly gay brother, writer-activist Ng Yi-Sheng, despite his public gender-bending antics and book of coming-out stories with real names and faces, which became a Singaporean bestseller.

As for censorship, I read Wired's description of Singapore as "Disneyland with the Death Penalty" in a high school class after the magazine was banned, and I later assigned the piece to my own students. There are guaranteed ways to invite trouble in Singapore, at least if you're not protected by the Yale-NUS guarantee of academic freedom. But usually, where freedom of speech and sexuality are concerned, written laws and enforcement are very different things. It's a bit cognitively complicated, but if we can handle that, so can you.

The Yale College faculty meant well when they passed Thursday's resolution championing American-style political freedoms in Singapore. But — I hate to break it to you — our value systems aren't quite the same as Yalies'. It's hard for Singaporeans to imagine wanting the right to bear arms if it would mean worrying about getting home safely after partying all night.

Singaporeans ridicule the ruling party's self-protective censorship, but when it attempted to liberalize film censorship in 1991, public outcry forced it to backtrack. Qur'an-burning is illegal in Singapore, and we like it that way. We prioritize our values differently, and different doesn't mean wrong. At least, that's what I learned from a Yale liberal arts education.

Unfortunately, nine years at Yale still leave me trying, in all sincerity, to understand the logic of well-meaning professors who say they support both Yale-NUS and Thursday's resolution. I see some attempt at tact, but it didn't translate culturally. To a Singaporean, the resolution looks like a request to be kicked out of the country. Criticizing a partner publicly during this crucial trust-building phase is a last-resort negotiating tactic used just prior to walking away from the deal.

The resolution also annoys the Singaporean in the street, who already thought Yale was getting a sweetheart deal — free campus, free staff, free rein to run pedagogical experiments on free subjects, not even the risk of putting the Yale name on the diploma.

Unlike President Levin and others in the Yale administration, I don't think it's imperialistic for Yale to want to help Singapore change. But given the political and cultural constraints, the best way for Yale to effect change is not by stressing differences, but by showing Singaporeans how much we have in common. Singaporean gay movement Pink Dot has borrowed selectively from the U.S. gay marriage and adoption debates. By stressing family relationships and acceptance of diversity — both values at the core of Singaporean identity — last year's rally drew over 10,000 people.

If enough Singaporean voters want change, the government will respond. After last year's election exposed cabinet ministers' pay as a huge grievance for the 99 percent, pay scales were promptly overhauled. It may seem strange to American observers, but our ruling party does care about popular sentiment, despite holding power for over 50 years.

You don't have to like the way Singapore works, and I don't want to trivialize the heroism of political dissidents like J.B. Jeyaretnam, who was sued into bankruptcy by the ruling party, but disliking it doesn't make our political culture any less real, and to change it, you have to start from that reality.

Singapore is not an isolationist or stagnant society — it's extremely open to foreign influences, as long as they're seen as our own choice, not the preoccupations of hecklers. The aims of the faculty resolution can best be achieved by simply having a Yale presence in Singapore, not preaching but demonstrating — with steadfastness but also humility — what is admirable about Yale.
E-Ching Ng is a 2001 graduate of Morse College and a fifth-year graduate student in linguistics.

The Yale-NUS controversy in perspective
by Michael Montesano, TODAY, 13 Apr 2012

There has been understandable concern here in Singapore over the tone and content of last week's Yale College faculty resolution on the proposed Yale-NUS liberal arts college.

Many Singaporeans found that resolution condescending and even insulting to Singapore. They wondered, too, how well the Yale faculty who voted to support the resolution really understood this country and the texture of its daily life, including the life of its universities.

In fact, the resolution and the vote in its support say far more about Yale than they do about Singapore. They reflect the approach that Yale's current leadership has taken to the university's partnership with the National University of Singapore (NUS).

They represent the Yale faculty's uneasiness with that approach and its recourse to the only means available to make that uneasiness plain. The resolution was, that is, a clear vote of no confidence in Yale's leadership, rather than a vote of no confidence in Singapore.

Simply put, when Yale's current leadership entered into its agreement to help establish a wholly Singapore-funded college in partnership with NUS, it may have promised more than it could deliver.

Need to build support

Yale's leadership entered into an arrangement with the Government of Singapore and into a partnership with NUS without adequately considering the need to build support for its Singapore adventure among stakeholders at Yale. This has proved a grave mistake.

Knowing very little about Singapore and choosing to expose only very few members of the Yale faculty to very short visits to this country, Yale's leadership and its allies on campus made no serious effort to articulate either Yale's or Singapore's rationale for establishing a liberal arts college here.

They did not explain the Singapore Government's vision of the education sector as a crucial part of its economy of the future and its hope that Yale would join other institutions in advancing that sector. They were not candid about the full implications of Yale's proposed partnership with NUS.

Yale's leadership also adopted a defensive and even smug tone when asked to explain those implications to stakeholders at Yale.

These choices on the part of Yale's leadership meant that it forfeited much of its credibility with those stakeholders.

When, in appointing Yale-affiliated members of the governing board of the proposed liberal arts college, that leadership failed to select any Singaporean or South-east Asian alumni of Yale, it missed an important opportunity to regain credibility.

Those alumni, who include one of the Singaporeans who originally proposed creating a liberal arts college in Singapore as long ago as 2004, could have helped Yale's leadership convincingly explain the venture to stakeholders at Yale. They could also have helped oversee the new college to ensure its academic integrity in a context unfamiliar to those stake-holders.


CRISIS OF GOVERNANCE

Yale's leadership has every formal right to enter into its partnership with NUS. But in disregarding the need to bring other interested parties at Yale along, it has nevertheless pitched the university into a deep crisis of governance and imperilled Yale's ability to be a reliable partner for Singapore over the long run.

In the weeks ahead, as media attention to these errors leads Yale alumni to understand the magnitude of the commitments to Singapore that the university has made with so little explanation, this crisis may well grow even more serious.

Already, some Yale alumni are sharing with one another the thought that his mishandling of the NUS tie-up should cost Yale's president his job. This outcome would only further undercut Yale's ability to serve as a reliable partner for Singapore.

The heavy seas that the proposed Yale-NUS liberal arts college has encountered suggest general lessons for Singapore, as it pursues its goal of making the Republic an educational and academic hub.

These lessons have less to do with issues like the nature and scope of academic freedom than with truly nuts-and-bolt concerns.

A balancing act

To date, work towards making Singapore an academic hub has brought many more successes than setbacks.

One needs only to visit Singapore's universities, polytechnics, private schools and labs; to look at the faces of the students and scholars; and to hear the range of languages spoken at these institutions in order to sample those successes.

No one ever said that pushing Singapore's academic hub towards even greater successes was going to be easy.

Not least, that effort will continue to encounter the need to balance the needs and aspirations of Singaporeans with the country's ambitions to emerge as a leading academic centre of international stature.

Singapore and Singaporeans will negotiate such challenges according to their own best judgement.

And, whether the proposed Yale-NUS college comes to fruition or not, its case makes clear the need for Singapore to understand the internal dynamics of the institutions with which it would collaborate and to scrutinise the undertakings offered by the leadership of those institutions in the light of those dynamics.

Using Singapore's valuable resources wisely to invest in the education sector demands no less.
Michael Montesano graduated from Yale in 1983 and taught in NUS' Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences during 1999-2008. In 2009, he was an inaugural recipient of the NUS Alumni Advisory Board's Inspiring Mentor Award.

Yale resolution wrong, says former American
AS A person who was born in Connecticut (not far from Yale University) but is now a Singaporean, I wish to express my dismay over the resolution by some members of the university's faculty ('Yale to proceed with NUS college tie-up'; last Saturday).

If the resolution was right, I would not have made Singapore my home, much less become a citizen and assimilate by actively participating in grassroots matters.

One attribute I have long admired about Singapore is that there is genuine respect for and guarantee of certain fundamental human rights, which I found lacking in my birthplace.

Specifically, the right to walk the streets and live safely in my home, free from the fear of being shot by any of the more than 200 million firearms that Americans own, or attacked in some other heinous way; I have enjoyed these rights for the past 35 years in Singapore.

Another is the virtual absence of any overt racialistic or religious intolerance, thanks to cultural norms and strict laws that protect religious and ethnic rights.

Third, the grinding poverty in many so-called 'First World societies' is almost unheard of here. Where poverty does exist, there is recourse via governmental and non-governmental bodies.

Finally, and by no means least important, this country is blessed with good governance, integrity and public service, while eschewing the extremes of more 'democratic' societies that are so polarised that little or nothing gets done to help the less fortunate.

Those at Yale who wish to indulge in uninformed cultural imperialism should bear in mind that it is not just the Republic that stands to benefit from this union, but America as well, as it takes a leaf out of Singapore's book in the realisation that perhaps we, too, are doing something right that is worthy of emulation.
Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo
ST Forum, 14 Apr 2012

Yale-NUS a timely, visionary initiative

Four reasons why resolution adopted by Yale faculty is disappointing

By Tommy Koh, The Straits Times, 15 Apr 2012

Yale University is a great university. When I was living in New York City, I often commuted to New Haven to teach at Yale. In 1982, I was invited to deliver the Stimson Lectures. In 1984, I was conferred an honorary degree of doctor of laws by Yale. As a graduate of Harvard Law School, I was very pleased to be able to quote President Kennedy and say to my wife that I have the double benefit of a Harvard education and a Yale degree.

I am a proud member of the Yale family. It was with disappointment that I read the text of the resolution adopted by the Yale College faculty on the Yale-National University of Singapore (NUS) College, which will be located in Singapore and begin operation next year. Let me explain why I feel disappointed.

First, the resolution completely ignores the potential benefits of this visionary joint venture, for the two universities, and for Asia and America. The new college will enable the students to read, learn and discuss the great books of the West and the East, the great philosophical traditions of Asia and the West, and the great poets and writers of the two civilisations.

I hope that the college will offer a congenial and inspiring environment for mutual learning. I also hope that the intellectual engagement between American and Asian students and faculty will take place on the basis of equality and mutual respect. The Yale faculty resolution seems to be inconsistent with this spirit and smacks of cultural arrogance and superiority. The message seems to be that the American way is the only way.

Second, Asia is on the rise. It is the home of the world's second (China) and third (Japan) largest economies. India will soon catch up. Asia is also the home of some of the world's most ancient and richest civilisations, such as, the Chinese, Indian and Japanese. Asean is the world's second most successful regional organisation, after the European Union. South-east Asia is a poster child of successful multiculturalism.

America's engagement with Asia must reflect this changing reality. It is not a relationship between patron and client, or of a superior and an inferior. It is, with every passing day, becoming a relationship between equals. The Yale faculty should, therefore, be more humble.

After the failure of the attempt to remake Iraq in America's image, American intellectuals should reflect deeply on that experience. One lesson learnt should be that while America can and should help, it cannot prescribe the future for other countries.

Third, NUS and Yale share many common values and ambitions. They are both dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. They believe in academic freedom. They subscribe to the internationally recognised human rights, both the civil and political rights as well as the social, economic and cultural rights.

In Singapore, unlike the United States, racial and religious harmony are prized above the freedom of speech and freedom of the press. If there is a contradiction between them, the US would give primacy to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, whereas Singapore would give primacy to racial and religious harmony.

This does not mean that one side is right and the other side is wrong. What it means is that we are different because of our different histories and circumstances. It is not fair for the Yale faculty to criticise Singapore for its 'lack of respect for civil and political rights' without acknowledging that it is only 47 years old and that, in that short time, it has transited from the Third World to the First.

Singapore is certainly not perfect, but, dare I say it, neither is America. Singaporeans have enjoyed the right to vote since 1959. When I was a student at Harvard, the black citizens of the American south were still denied their right to vote. Even now, young black men, such as Trayvon Martin, are viewed with suspicion because of racial prejudice.

Fourth, Singapore is seriously committed to upholding the principle of non-discrimination. Any form of discrimination based on race, colour, religion, gender is unacceptable to Singapore.

We have one of the world's most diverse populations. The miracle is that we have learnt to live together in harmony. There are no ethnic or religious conflict in Singapore. Women have gained parity with men.

We are not yet as tolerant as the West towards sexual minorities, but we have to progress at a pace acceptable to Singaporeans. Yale should respect that.

In conclusion, I would say to my friends in New Haven that the Yale-NUS College is a timely and visionary initiative. I am confident that it will be a success and its success will have a strategic significance in the partnership between Asia and America in the 21st century.

The writer, a Singapore diplomat, is Rector of Tembusu College, NUS.

An unreal Yale-NUS divide
Editorial, The Straits Times, 13 Apr 2012

THE robust exchange of views over the proposed Yale-National University of Singapore (NUS) College pits several members of the Yale faculty, who are worried over the degree of political freedom in Singapore, against those upholding Singapore's right to its own way of life. This is a false dichotomy. The key development is the passage of a resolution by the faculty of the Ivy League institution expressing concern over 'the history of lack of respect for civil and political rights in the state of Singapore'. Although that resolution will not derail work to set up the Yale-NUS College next year, it has incensed those who see it as belittling Singapore's achievements as a nation. They have hit back at what they see as a typical American attitude, parochial and imperial in equal measure, which seeks to enforce domestic political standards around the world.

This is needless. Singaporeans should take in their stride the critical assessment of some Yale faculty as just that - opinion. Those with first-hand knowledge of how Singapore works might disagree with them, but those who are familiar with Western academic communities will understand that disagreement, open debate and advocacy of all stripes are just part of everyday life.

The college, which will attract both Singaporeans and foreigners - including Americans, no doubt - will provide some common ground on which some of the best young minds of today can meet to explore the value of difference. American students will be exposed to the geopolitical realities that shape social and political attitudes in a small state. For Singapore students, Yale-NUS will provide another avenue for their engagement with the world at large. This is happening already in the existing universities, but the character of Yale-NUS as a liberal arts college should help sharpen Singaporeans' awareness of the worth of greater intellectual diversity and deeper cross-fertilisation of ideas.

It might even be the case that differences within national systems will come to the fore as Singaporean and foreign students study together. Students will learn to appreciate the political and cultural nuances that make generalisations about countries wrong and dangerous. Thus, the East Coast liberalism exemplified by Yale is not representative of Middle America, any more than the average Singaporean is a docile devotee of materialism and authoritarianism. There are American conservatives and Singapore liberals - and vice versa. Yale-NUS should bring them, and others, together.

Related

Yale to proceed with NUS college tie-up