Cancelled Yale-NUS course on dissent raises questions about external interference
By Goh Choon Kang, Published The Straits Times, 21 Sep 2019
According to a news report on March 11 last year, a group of Yale-NUS College students held a silent sit-in protest as they claimed that the college did not adequately consider the views of its students when making decisions. The protest ended only after a dialogue between the school and the students.
More than 20 students were believed to have taken part in the protest. The decisions they were unhappy about included the use of public space on campus, changes in the residential life system, mental and academic wellness, and faculty and leadership hiring practices.
The protesters also demanded the reinstatement of monthly town hall meetings, as well as student representation should decisions that affect students be made.
Judging from the report, the rare sit-in protest should have been resolved after the dialogue. There were no follow-up reports for more than a year.
However, the college recently made headlines again. This time, it was reported that the college had cancelled a short-term course titled Dialogue And Dissent In Singapore as the curriculum lacked the diverse perspectives needed for a proper academic examination of the issues around dissent.
The course had originally arranged for local social activists to conduct lectures and dialogues with students, as well as to teach them how to design protest signs.
The programme, which was scheduled to run from the end of this month to early next month, was to be led by Singaporean playwright Alfian Sa'at and Yale-NUS programme manager of leadership and global citizenship Tan Yock Theng. It was originally titled Dissent And Resistance In Singapore.
According to a course outline published earlier on the college's website, the course content included a film on Operation Spectrum, 1987: Untracing The Conspiracy, produced by independent film-maker Jason Soo. A dialogue with Mr Soo was also arranged as part of the programme.
In addition, students would have been able to watch documentaries on prominent Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong and Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei.
Local social activists Jolovan Wham and Seelan Palay, historian Thum Ping Tjin, and political website writer Kirsten Han were also invited to interact with the students. To anyone who pays attention to local news, they are no strangers - almost all of them are so-called dissidents or anti-establishment figures.
Dr Thum appeared at one of the hearings of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods last year, and made the astonishing claim that politicians from the People's Action Party were the source of fake news in Singapore.
He claimed that Operation Coldstore in 1963 was conducted for political purposes and there was no evidence that those detained were involved in any conspiracy to overthrow the Government. In response, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam firmly refuted his claims.
One cannot help but associate the latest news with the college's sit-in silent protest last year, not least because this form of protest is one of the non-violent means of resistance adopted in "colour revolutions".
QUESTIONS OF INTENT
The intriguing question is: Why did the university's programme manager think of organising a short-term course with strong political overtones?
Why was the course conducted almost exclusively by local dissidents and why did it include teaching students how to design protest signs? From the course outline, it looks wholly like a workshop on non-violent protest and not an academic course at all.
College president Tan Tai Yong said that while reviewing the teaching plans, the university found that the proposed itinerary did not align with the concept and learning objectives earlier approved by the college's curriculum committee, and that "the project in question does not critically engage with the range of perspectives required for a proper academic examination of the political, social and ethical issues that surround dissent".
In addition, the proposed activities and selection of speakers would infringe upon the college's commitment to not advancing partisan political interests on campus. Certain activities might also subject students to the risk of breaking the law, thereby incurring legal liabilities.
In this regard, the college's judgment was that the programme had gone beyond what was permissible by law. Hence, could we say that someone had "hijacked" the course while it was being planned?
In any case, it was a stroke of luck that the college managed to pull the plug in time, but this incident also showed the risks involved in rolling out liberal arts education, especially the risks of infiltration by external influences.
Yale-NUS College is a liberal arts college set up jointly by the United States' Yale University and the National University of Singapore in 2011.
Liberal arts education, also known as general education or humanities education, places emphasis on cross-disciplinary learning, student participation, teacher-student interaction and so on.
Putting aside the question of whether the college is indeed able to nurture all-rounded students who can contribute to society, it will be very difficult for the college to avoid conflicts arising from different value systems and social norms owing to its American influence.
QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCE
While Yale-NUS College did not explain why it had planned such a short-term course, the fact that its invited speakers comprised mostly dissidents inevitably sets people wondering if political dissidence has found its way into some of our institutes of higher learning.
What is the real intention of getting students to watch documentaries on Mr Joshua Wong and Mr Ai Weiwei? Are we encouraging students to follow in their footsteps en masse?
Is Mr Wong a role model? What has Mr Ai got to do with Singapore?
Hong Kong has suffered from more than three months of protests and violence, and Mr Wong, alongside others, has openly invited foreign powers, such as the US, to intervene in China's domestic affairs. His actions should be severely criticised and not used as teaching material. It did not seem as if the course planners were using him as a negative demonstration either.
It has been established that Hong Kong's anti-government and anti-extradition protests were the result of foreign manipulation and received foreign support. Hence there are grounds to say that the unrest in Hong Kong is a "colour revolution".
Now, there are actually people organising courses on protests locally, using Hong Kong as a case study. Do they think that Singapore also needs a "colour revolution"?
Singapore is by no means another Hong Kong. It does not need a "colour revolution" and there are absolutely no circumstances in its society to fuel one.
However, some people clearly see it as a target against which a "colour revolution" can be, or must be, started. There have been signs that some backers of such revolutions have tried to extend their influence into Singapore.
BEHIND-THE-SCENES BACKERS
Colour revolutions that have taken place in different parts of the world over the past few years have been the result of incitement by external forces, namely financial backers seeking to achieve political and economic ends.
It can now be confirmed that some of the behind-the-scenes backers include the US National Democratic Foundation (NED) - an agency born out of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The NED is known to be a front for the CIA to subvert other countries' regimes, and it does so mainly through its involvement in different forms of "colour revolutions", in lieu of the violent and subversive activities that the CIA used to undertake.
Another organisation that is quite active is the Oslo Freedom Forum, founded by the US Human Rights Foundation. The forum held in Taiwan on Sept 13 had Hong Kong as its highlight. Hong Kong pro-democracy activists were invited as speakers.
There is also the Open Society Foundations set up by US billionaire George Soros which attempted to attack the Hong Kong currency during the Asian financial crisis. It engages in subversive and disruptive activities in other countries under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights.
Some readers may recall that in April last year, Singapore's Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) issued a statement rejecting an application by Dr Thum and Ms Han to register OSEA Pte Ltd, on the grounds that the registration would be "contrary to Singapore's national interests".
Acra said OSEA was to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Kingdom's Observatory Southeast Asia (OSEA UK), whose objective is to "promote the universal values of democracy, freedom of the media, and freedom of inquiry, information and expression", and had received US$75,000 (US$103,000) from Switzerland's Foundation Open Society Institute. The institute was also set up by Mr Soros.
To put it simply, Singapore has long been targeted by people initiating "colour revolutions" and we should not take this lightly.
Goh Choon Kang is a former journalist and Member of Parliament. The article was first published in Chinese in Lianhe Zaobao on Sept 18.
Cancelled project did not meet academic standards
Mr Goh Choon Kang wrote that Yale-NUS College's recently cancelled Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore project raises questions about external interference (Singapore does not need a 'colour revolution', Sept 21).
First, to be clear, this was an internal decision by the college, on intellectual and pedagogical grounds, that the said project did not meet our academic standards. Moreover, the proposed activities expose students to the risk of breaking the law.
The entire episode has nothing to do with efforts to promote any form of protest or revolution.
Second, there is no connection between this Week 7 Learning Across Boundaries (LAB) project cancellation and the students' gathering in March last year.
In that incident, the students dispersed that same evening after meeting the college administration to discuss greater student engagement in college community decisions.
Third, administrator Tan Yock Theng was appointed to provide general support for the project. She had no hand in designing it.
Mr Alfian Sa'at, who proposed the project, formerly had a visiting appointment teaching playwriting at the college.
This project is not within the college's regular curriculum but instead, is a part of the Week 7 LAB programme, which takes place outside the Yale-NUS campus.
The college remains fully committed to academic freedom - to open inquiry, critical discussion and study.
This is distinct from undertaking activities that cross the line of what is legally allowed in Singapore. This operating principle is true in all countries.
Yale-NUS College is committed to a vision of education that fosters intellectual curiosity, rigour of method, historically informed critical awareness of social, political, scientific and cultural realities, and a firm commitment to the betterment of life on the planet.
We do so by fostering critical understanding within the contexts of academic study.
The Week 7 LAB project that was cancelled clearly did not fulfil that requirement.
Tan Tai Yong
President
Yale-NUS College
ST Forum, 24 Sep 2019
* Parliament on Yale-NUS saga: Academic freedom can't be carte blanche for misusing academic institutions for political advocacy, says Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung
Educational institutions no place for partisan politics; Ong Ye Kung explains MOE support for cancellation of Yale-NUS module
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Education Minister Ong Ye Kung has come out in defence of his ministry's decision to support the scrapping of a Yale-NUS programme.
He told Parliament yesterday the worry that institutes of higher learning may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the Government is not unfounded. The Ministry of Education (MOE) had this concern when it saw the outline of a proposed Yale-NUS College module titled Dissent and Resistance, said Mr Ong.
The module, which would have been run by local poet and playwright Alfian Sa'at, was cancelled by the college on Sept 13, some two weeks before it was to begin.
Mr Ong said the module would have involved dialogues with personalities such as Mr Jolovan Wham and Mr Seelan Palay - who have previously been convicted of public order-related offences.
It would also have included dialogues by Ms Kirsten Han and Dr Thum Ping Tjin of the New Naratif media platform, which Mr Ong said receives "significant foreign funding".
He also cited a 1998 poem by Mr Alfian titled "Singapore You Are Not My Country", and other statements he had made in the past that compared Malaysia favourably against Singapore.
Mr Ong had quoted the line from the poem: "Singapore, I assert you are not a country at all. Do not raise your voice against me, I am not afraid of your anthem..."
"This is a poem, and we might concede some artistic licence. But Mr Alfian Sa'at continues this attitude consistently in his activism," said Mr Ong, citing how Mr Alfian had apologised to the Malaysian government in 2013 when 21 Malaysians were arrested for protesting illegally at the Merlion Park.
Referring to a Facebook post by Mr Alfian last weekend, Mr Ong said the poet had spoken about "a revival of student activism in Singapore, especially in areas such as political conscientisation".
"The term 'political conscientisation' comes from radical left wing thought. It means agitation aimed at making people conscious of the oppression in their lives so that they will take action against these oppressive elements," Mr Ong said.
"I think this is how Mr Alfian saw his project."
The minister said those responsible for the programme are entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore. "They can write about them, even vent them on social media," he said. "But we have to decide whether we allow such forms of political resistance free rein in our educational institutions, and even taught as compulsory, credit-bearing programmes."
Responding to questions filed by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio GRC), Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) and Nominated MP Walter Theseira, Mr Ong said the cancellation has drawn many comments. While a few disagreed, most academics, including those from Yale-NUS, supported the cancellation, he added.
Many members of the public also supported the decision but for a "simpler and more fundamental" reason.
"They did not see why inciting and teaching students to protest should be condoned in our educational institutions," he said. "MOE's stand is we cannot have such activity in our schools or institutes of higher learning. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer's idea of what education means."
In a Facebook post yesterday, Mr Alfian said Mr Ong had not quoted a line in his poem in full, saying it continues with "...although the lyrics are still bleeding from the bark of my sapless heart".
Mr Alfian wrote: "Just stopping on the word 'anthem' might suggest that I am somehow rejecting symbols of the state. But the whole line makes clear that I have grown up with the anthem as a Singaporean, that it bleeds from my heart."
By Goh Choon Kang, Published The Straits Times, 21 Sep 2019
According to a news report on March 11 last year, a group of Yale-NUS College students held a silent sit-in protest as they claimed that the college did not adequately consider the views of its students when making decisions. The protest ended only after a dialogue between the school and the students.
More than 20 students were believed to have taken part in the protest. The decisions they were unhappy about included the use of public space on campus, changes in the residential life system, mental and academic wellness, and faculty and leadership hiring practices.
The protesters also demanded the reinstatement of monthly town hall meetings, as well as student representation should decisions that affect students be made.
Judging from the report, the rare sit-in protest should have been resolved after the dialogue. There were no follow-up reports for more than a year.
However, the college recently made headlines again. This time, it was reported that the college had cancelled a short-term course titled Dialogue And Dissent In Singapore as the curriculum lacked the diverse perspectives needed for a proper academic examination of the issues around dissent.
The course had originally arranged for local social activists to conduct lectures and dialogues with students, as well as to teach them how to design protest signs.
The programme, which was scheduled to run from the end of this month to early next month, was to be led by Singaporean playwright Alfian Sa'at and Yale-NUS programme manager of leadership and global citizenship Tan Yock Theng. It was originally titled Dissent And Resistance In Singapore.
According to a course outline published earlier on the college's website, the course content included a film on Operation Spectrum, 1987: Untracing The Conspiracy, produced by independent film-maker Jason Soo. A dialogue with Mr Soo was also arranged as part of the programme.
In addition, students would have been able to watch documentaries on prominent Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong and Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei.
Local social activists Jolovan Wham and Seelan Palay, historian Thum Ping Tjin, and political website writer Kirsten Han were also invited to interact with the students. To anyone who pays attention to local news, they are no strangers - almost all of them are so-called dissidents or anti-establishment figures.
Dr Thum appeared at one of the hearings of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods last year, and made the astonishing claim that politicians from the People's Action Party were the source of fake news in Singapore.
He claimed that Operation Coldstore in 1963 was conducted for political purposes and there was no evidence that those detained were involved in any conspiracy to overthrow the Government. In response, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam firmly refuted his claims.
One cannot help but associate the latest news with the college's sit-in silent protest last year, not least because this form of protest is one of the non-violent means of resistance adopted in "colour revolutions".
QUESTIONS OF INTENT
The intriguing question is: Why did the university's programme manager think of organising a short-term course with strong political overtones?
Why was the course conducted almost exclusively by local dissidents and why did it include teaching students how to design protest signs? From the course outline, it looks wholly like a workshop on non-violent protest and not an academic course at all.
College president Tan Tai Yong said that while reviewing the teaching plans, the university found that the proposed itinerary did not align with the concept and learning objectives earlier approved by the college's curriculum committee, and that "the project in question does not critically engage with the range of perspectives required for a proper academic examination of the political, social and ethical issues that surround dissent".
In addition, the proposed activities and selection of speakers would infringe upon the college's commitment to not advancing partisan political interests on campus. Certain activities might also subject students to the risk of breaking the law, thereby incurring legal liabilities.
In this regard, the college's judgment was that the programme had gone beyond what was permissible by law. Hence, could we say that someone had "hijacked" the course while it was being planned?
In any case, it was a stroke of luck that the college managed to pull the plug in time, but this incident also showed the risks involved in rolling out liberal arts education, especially the risks of infiltration by external influences.
Yale-NUS College is a liberal arts college set up jointly by the United States' Yale University and the National University of Singapore in 2011.
Liberal arts education, also known as general education or humanities education, places emphasis on cross-disciplinary learning, student participation, teacher-student interaction and so on.
Putting aside the question of whether the college is indeed able to nurture all-rounded students who can contribute to society, it will be very difficult for the college to avoid conflicts arising from different value systems and social norms owing to its American influence.
QUESTIONS OF RELEVANCE
While Yale-NUS College did not explain why it had planned such a short-term course, the fact that its invited speakers comprised mostly dissidents inevitably sets people wondering if political dissidence has found its way into some of our institutes of higher learning.
What is the real intention of getting students to watch documentaries on Mr Joshua Wong and Mr Ai Weiwei? Are we encouraging students to follow in their footsteps en masse?
Is Mr Wong a role model? What has Mr Ai got to do with Singapore?
Hong Kong has suffered from more than three months of protests and violence, and Mr Wong, alongside others, has openly invited foreign powers, such as the US, to intervene in China's domestic affairs. His actions should be severely criticised and not used as teaching material. It did not seem as if the course planners were using him as a negative demonstration either.
It has been established that Hong Kong's anti-government and anti-extradition protests were the result of foreign manipulation and received foreign support. Hence there are grounds to say that the unrest in Hong Kong is a "colour revolution".
Now, there are actually people organising courses on protests locally, using Hong Kong as a case study. Do they think that Singapore also needs a "colour revolution"?
Singapore is by no means another Hong Kong. It does not need a "colour revolution" and there are absolutely no circumstances in its society to fuel one.
However, some people clearly see it as a target against which a "colour revolution" can be, or must be, started. There have been signs that some backers of such revolutions have tried to extend their influence into Singapore.
BEHIND-THE-SCENES BACKERS
Colour revolutions that have taken place in different parts of the world over the past few years have been the result of incitement by external forces, namely financial backers seeking to achieve political and economic ends.
It can now be confirmed that some of the behind-the-scenes backers include the US National Democratic Foundation (NED) - an agency born out of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The NED is known to be a front for the CIA to subvert other countries' regimes, and it does so mainly through its involvement in different forms of "colour revolutions", in lieu of the violent and subversive activities that the CIA used to undertake.
Another organisation that is quite active is the Oslo Freedom Forum, founded by the US Human Rights Foundation. The forum held in Taiwan on Sept 13 had Hong Kong as its highlight. Hong Kong pro-democracy activists were invited as speakers.
There is also the Open Society Foundations set up by US billionaire George Soros which attempted to attack the Hong Kong currency during the Asian financial crisis. It engages in subversive and disruptive activities in other countries under the guise of promoting democracy and human rights.
Some readers may recall that in April last year, Singapore's Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (Acra) issued a statement rejecting an application by Dr Thum and Ms Han to register OSEA Pte Ltd, on the grounds that the registration would be "contrary to Singapore's national interests".
Acra said OSEA was to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Kingdom's Observatory Southeast Asia (OSEA UK), whose objective is to "promote the universal values of democracy, freedom of the media, and freedom of inquiry, information and expression", and had received US$75,000 (US$103,000) from Switzerland's Foundation Open Society Institute. The institute was also set up by Mr Soros.
To put it simply, Singapore has long been targeted by people initiating "colour revolutions" and we should not take this lightly.
Goh Choon Kang is a former journalist and Member of Parliament. The article was first published in Chinese in Lianhe Zaobao on Sept 18.
Cancelled project did not meet academic standards
Mr Goh Choon Kang wrote that Yale-NUS College's recently cancelled Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore project raises questions about external interference (Singapore does not need a 'colour revolution', Sept 21).
First, to be clear, this was an internal decision by the college, on intellectual and pedagogical grounds, that the said project did not meet our academic standards. Moreover, the proposed activities expose students to the risk of breaking the law.
The entire episode has nothing to do with efforts to promote any form of protest or revolution.
Second, there is no connection between this Week 7 Learning Across Boundaries (LAB) project cancellation and the students' gathering in March last year.
In that incident, the students dispersed that same evening after meeting the college administration to discuss greater student engagement in college community decisions.
Third, administrator Tan Yock Theng was appointed to provide general support for the project. She had no hand in designing it.
Mr Alfian Sa'at, who proposed the project, formerly had a visiting appointment teaching playwriting at the college.
This project is not within the college's regular curriculum but instead, is a part of the Week 7 LAB programme, which takes place outside the Yale-NUS campus.
The college remains fully committed to academic freedom - to open inquiry, critical discussion and study.
This is distinct from undertaking activities that cross the line of what is legally allowed in Singapore. This operating principle is true in all countries.
Yale-NUS College is committed to a vision of education that fosters intellectual curiosity, rigour of method, historically informed critical awareness of social, political, scientific and cultural realities, and a firm commitment to the betterment of life on the planet.
We do so by fostering critical understanding within the contexts of academic study.
The Week 7 LAB project that was cancelled clearly did not fulfil that requirement.
Tan Tai Yong
President
Yale-NUS College
ST Forum, 24 Sep 2019
* Parliament on Yale-NUS saga: Academic freedom can't be carte blanche for misusing academic institutions for political advocacy, says Minister for Education Ong Ye Kung
Educational institutions no place for partisan politics; Ong Ye Kung explains MOE support for cancellation of Yale-NUS module
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Education Minister Ong Ye Kung has come out in defence of his ministry's decision to support the scrapping of a Yale-NUS programme.
He told Parliament yesterday the worry that institutes of higher learning may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the Government is not unfounded. The Ministry of Education (MOE) had this concern when it saw the outline of a proposed Yale-NUS College module titled Dissent and Resistance, said Mr Ong.
The module, which would have been run by local poet and playwright Alfian Sa'at, was cancelled by the college on Sept 13, some two weeks before it was to begin.
Mr Ong said the module would have involved dialogues with personalities such as Mr Jolovan Wham and Mr Seelan Palay - who have previously been convicted of public order-related offences.
It would also have included dialogues by Ms Kirsten Han and Dr Thum Ping Tjin of the New Naratif media platform, which Mr Ong said receives "significant foreign funding".
He also cited a 1998 poem by Mr Alfian titled "Singapore You Are Not My Country", and other statements he had made in the past that compared Malaysia favourably against Singapore.
Mr Ong had quoted the line from the poem: "Singapore, I assert you are not a country at all. Do not raise your voice against me, I am not afraid of your anthem..."
"This is a poem, and we might concede some artistic licence. But Mr Alfian Sa'at continues this attitude consistently in his activism," said Mr Ong, citing how Mr Alfian had apologised to the Malaysian government in 2013 when 21 Malaysians were arrested for protesting illegally at the Merlion Park.
Referring to a Facebook post by Mr Alfian last weekend, Mr Ong said the poet had spoken about "a revival of student activism in Singapore, especially in areas such as political conscientisation".
"The term 'political conscientisation' comes from radical left wing thought. It means agitation aimed at making people conscious of the oppression in their lives so that they will take action against these oppressive elements," Mr Ong said.
"I think this is how Mr Alfian saw his project."
The minister said those responsible for the programme are entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore. "They can write about them, even vent them on social media," he said. "But we have to decide whether we allow such forms of political resistance free rein in our educational institutions, and even taught as compulsory, credit-bearing programmes."
Responding to questions filed by Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio GRC), Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) and Nominated MP Walter Theseira, Mr Ong said the cancellation has drawn many comments. While a few disagreed, most academics, including those from Yale-NUS, supported the cancellation, he added.
Many members of the public also supported the decision but for a "simpler and more fundamental" reason.
"They did not see why inciting and teaching students to protest should be condoned in our educational institutions," he said. "MOE's stand is we cannot have such activity in our schools or institutes of higher learning. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer's idea of what education means."
In a Facebook post yesterday, Mr Alfian said Mr Ong had not quoted a line in his poem in full, saying it continues with "...although the lyrics are still bleeding from the bark of my sapless heart".
Mr Alfian wrote: "Just stopping on the word 'anthem' might suggest that I am somehow rejecting symbols of the state. But the whole line makes clear that I have grown up with the anthem as a Singaporean, that it bleeds from my heart."
Educational institutions should not expose students to risk of breaking the law, says Ong Ye Kung
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Educational institutions here must operate within the laws while maintaining academic standards. They must also recognise Singapore's cultural and social context and should not be misused for partisan politics.
Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said educational institutions, including autonomous universities, should internalise these "guiding principles" that he outlined in Parliament yesterday.
At the minimum, they should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law, he added.
"They should not work with speakers and instructors who have been convicted of public order-related offences, or who are working with political advocacy groups funded by foreigners, or who openly show disloyalty to Singapore," Mr Ong said.
He was speaking in reference to the cancellation of a module on dissent at Yale-NUS College that was to have been run by local poet and playwright Alfian Sa'at.
Mr Ong had earlier noted that Mr Jolovan Wham, Mr Seelan Palay, Ms Kirsten Han and Dr Thum Ping Tjin - who have either been convicted of public order offences or are said to be receiving foreign funding in their work - would have been involved in the module.
Elaborating on the guiding principles, Mr Ong said Singapore's laws are the democratic expression of the will of its people, which is why educational institutions must operate and exercise their academic freedom within those legal limits.
"Every country has their rules and laws, red lines unique to themselves," Mr Ong said.
"For example, I do not think the US would tolerate an American university course designed by jihadists to promote violence, or that France or Germany would accept a course teaching that Nazism is good. These would fall foul of their laws."
At the same time, institutions should continue exploring and debating issues within the context of academic study, he added.
This should be underpinned by rigorous intellectual reasoning, which is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues, Mr Ong said.
On the need for institutions to avoid being misused for partisan politics, Mr Ong said there are many avenues for political parties and activists in Singapore to champion their causes, and for people to make their choices and exercise their political rights. He added that politicians may not campaign, mobilise support or advance their party politics in any educational institution.
"When political office-holders attend events, give speeches or conduct dialogues with students, they will do so only for the purpose of discussing national policies, not to mobilise partisan political support."
Lastly, Mr Ong said every society is a product of its history, culture and unique circumstances which set the context of what is acceptable, and Singapore is no exception.
He cited tripartism - the three-way partnership between the Government, employers and unions - as an example of how Singapore has resolved problems, before protests and strikes break out. "We should strengthen this collective, constructive approach, and avoid falling into the divisions and dissensions that plague other societies," he said.
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Educational institutions here must operate within the laws while maintaining academic standards. They must also recognise Singapore's cultural and social context and should not be misused for partisan politics.
Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said educational institutions, including autonomous universities, should internalise these "guiding principles" that he outlined in Parliament yesterday.
At the minimum, they should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law, he added.
"They should not work with speakers and instructors who have been convicted of public order-related offences, or who are working with political advocacy groups funded by foreigners, or who openly show disloyalty to Singapore," Mr Ong said.
He was speaking in reference to the cancellation of a module on dissent at Yale-NUS College that was to have been run by local poet and playwright Alfian Sa'at.
Mr Ong had earlier noted that Mr Jolovan Wham, Mr Seelan Palay, Ms Kirsten Han and Dr Thum Ping Tjin - who have either been convicted of public order offences or are said to be receiving foreign funding in their work - would have been involved in the module.
Elaborating on the guiding principles, Mr Ong said Singapore's laws are the democratic expression of the will of its people, which is why educational institutions must operate and exercise their academic freedom within those legal limits.
"Every country has their rules and laws, red lines unique to themselves," Mr Ong said.
"For example, I do not think the US would tolerate an American university course designed by jihadists to promote violence, or that France or Germany would accept a course teaching that Nazism is good. These would fall foul of their laws."
At the same time, institutions should continue exploring and debating issues within the context of academic study, he added.
This should be underpinned by rigorous intellectual reasoning, which is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues, Mr Ong said.
On the need for institutions to avoid being misused for partisan politics, Mr Ong said there are many avenues for political parties and activists in Singapore to champion their causes, and for people to make their choices and exercise their political rights. He added that politicians may not campaign, mobilise support or advance their party politics in any educational institution.
"When political office-holders attend events, give speeches or conduct dialogues with students, they will do so only for the purpose of discussing national policies, not to mobilise partisan political support."
Lastly, Mr Ong said every society is a product of its history, culture and unique circumstances which set the context of what is acceptable, and Singapore is no exception.
He cited tripartism - the three-way partnership between the Government, employers and unions - as an example of how Singapore has resolved problems, before protests and strikes break out. "We should strengthen this collective, constructive approach, and avoid falling into the divisions and dissensions that plague other societies," he said.
Academic freedom can be misused, says Ong Ye Kung
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Academic freedom, as with many good things in the world, can get carried to excess and then misused, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said yesterday, addressing concerns arising from the cancellation of a Yale-NUS programme.
For example, free market competition and capitalism promise more jobs and better lives for people, but are often marred by greed and exploitation. What the society needs to do is to recognise the problem and respond, while governments need to intervene "to preserve the positive objectives and merits of the systems", he said.
"It is the same with academic freedom. We believe in this fundamental value. Modern-day Galileos would not exist without our academics and researchers being free to pursue the truth, wherever it may lead. But let us also be aware that, given the state of the world today, there will be people who want to misuse it as a cloak to advance their hidden agendas," he added.
"To preserve what we cherish, we must be ready to protect it when the situation calls for it. 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."
Pointing out that governance of countries, companies and educational institutions has become far more complex due to technology and the free flow of information, Mr Ong said governance calls for judgment, which in turn has to reflect the country's norms.
"In some societies, individuals are more concerned about how far they can extend their fists, but Singaporeans worry about when our fists will reach other people's noses," he added.
Earlier in his speech, Mr Ong said some may argue that academic freedom grants universities the licence to run such programmes, in the spirit of critical engagement. A few may go even further to claim that dissent is good for democracies. "I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his common sense," he said.
"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."
Although the Ministry of Education supported the decision by Yale-NUS to cancel a module on dissent, the ministry and autonomous universities (AUs) here value academic freedom, Mr Ong reassured the House.
He said Singapore's AUs have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and where public discourse is carried out vigorously and rigorously. This is why a liberal arts school like Yale-NUS will have a place in the Singapore education landscape.
In fact, there is increasing focus on inter-disciplinary learning and development of critical thinking skills in students in all the AUs, Mr Ong said.
"But thinking critically is quite different from being unthinkingly critical, and any course offered by our AUs must be up to mark. Otherwise, it does not deserve to be part of a liberal arts programme."
By Rei Kurohi, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Academic freedom, as with many good things in the world, can get carried to excess and then misused, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said yesterday, addressing concerns arising from the cancellation of a Yale-NUS programme.
For example, free market competition and capitalism promise more jobs and better lives for people, but are often marred by greed and exploitation. What the society needs to do is to recognise the problem and respond, while governments need to intervene "to preserve the positive objectives and merits of the systems", he said.
"It is the same with academic freedom. We believe in this fundamental value. Modern-day Galileos would not exist without our academics and researchers being free to pursue the truth, wherever it may lead. But let us also be aware that, given the state of the world today, there will be people who want to misuse it as a cloak to advance their hidden agendas," he added.
"To preserve what we cherish, we must be ready to protect it when the situation calls for it. 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."
Pointing out that governance of countries, companies and educational institutions has become far more complex due to technology and the free flow of information, Mr Ong said governance calls for judgment, which in turn has to reflect the country's norms.
"In some societies, individuals are more concerned about how far they can extend their fists, but Singaporeans worry about when our fists will reach other people's noses," he added.
Earlier in his speech, Mr Ong said some may argue that academic freedom grants universities the licence to run such programmes, in the spirit of critical engagement. A few may go even further to claim that dissent is good for democracies. "I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his common sense," he said.
"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."
Although the Ministry of Education supported the decision by Yale-NUS to cancel a module on dissent, the ministry and autonomous universities (AUs) here value academic freedom, Mr Ong reassured the House.
He said Singapore's AUs have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and where public discourse is carried out vigorously and rigorously. This is why a liberal arts school like Yale-NUS will have a place in the Singapore education landscape.
In fact, there is increasing focus on inter-disciplinary learning and development of critical thinking skills in students in all the AUs, Mr Ong said.
"But thinking critically is quite different from being unthinkingly critical, and any course offered by our AUs must be up to mark. Otherwise, it does not deserve to be part of a liberal arts programme."
Yale-NUS saga: Knowing how to identify 'charlatans' important for students to act responsibly for causes, says Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam
By Tee Zhuo, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Knowing how to identify charlatans is important for young people in order for them to act responsibly and legally when pursuing political and social causes, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament yesterday.
In addition, knowledge about world affairs, how different political systems work, Singapore's recent history, and how the balance between state power and individual autonomy is struck in different societies, are also important, he added.
These were among points the minister laid out in his reply to Nominated MP Walter Theseira, who asked how the minister could assure students of their right to take part in causes here responsibly and within the law.
Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Law Minister, agreed that it was important for students to know their rights and responsibilities.
Similarly, they need to know "how to identify charlatans, those who promise the world and deliver nothing", he said.
A charlatan is a person who deceives, often to gain advantage.
The exchange comes in the wake of a debate on the cancellation of a Yale-NUS College course about dissent and resistance, which had included film screenings, dialogues with activists and a workshop on designing protest signs.
Earlier, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung had addressed MPs' worries, which range from academic freedom to rules for off-limit topics in autonomous universities.
Associate Professor Theseira also wanted to know if the Ministry of Home Affairs regulates or monitors political activities of student groups in these universities.
Mr Shanmugam said his ministry's agencies focus on those who engage in activities that endanger national security.
Citing an instance in which a 17-year-old Singaporean who had planned to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was arrested, he said that did not mean the agencies monitor all 17-year-olds.
"We do not and we cannot, and we are unable to monitor all of them. The agencies have their own ways of identifying security threats, and they will take appropriate action, in context," said Mr Shanmugam.
Prof Theseira noted that Mr Ong had listed groups of individuals that academic institutions should not work with, for example, those who had committed public order-related offences or have shown disloyalty to Singapore.
He asked Mr Shanmugam if that also meant student groups would not be allowed to engage with such individuals, in view of security risks.
The minister replied that such individuals do not ipso facto become security risks by falling into the groups which had been highlighted by Mr Ong.
"If they do become security risks, they will be monitored," he added.
Nominated MP Anthea Ong asked for the Home Affairs Ministry's position on online sentiments that having a course on dissent is an "unpatriotic act" and the hate speech being directed at Yale-NUS students.
Mr Shanmugam said: "If there is speech that has been directed at some students, and they believe that a criminal offence has been committed, they can file a police report - I am sure they are aware of that.
"I assume that you are not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing their views on whether some actions are patriotic or unpatriotic?"
By Tee Zhuo, The Straits Times, 8 Oct 2019
Knowing how to identify charlatans is important for young people in order for them to act responsibly and legally when pursuing political and social causes, Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said in Parliament yesterday.
In addition, knowledge about world affairs, how different political systems work, Singapore's recent history, and how the balance between state power and individual autonomy is struck in different societies, are also important, he added.
These were among points the minister laid out in his reply to Nominated MP Walter Theseira, who asked how the minister could assure students of their right to take part in causes here responsibly and within the law.
Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Law Minister, agreed that it was important for students to know their rights and responsibilities.
Similarly, they need to know "how to identify charlatans, those who promise the world and deliver nothing", he said.
A charlatan is a person who deceives, often to gain advantage.
The exchange comes in the wake of a debate on the cancellation of a Yale-NUS College course about dissent and resistance, which had included film screenings, dialogues with activists and a workshop on designing protest signs.
Earlier, Education Minister Ong Ye Kung had addressed MPs' worries, which range from academic freedom to rules for off-limit topics in autonomous universities.
Associate Professor Theseira also wanted to know if the Ministry of Home Affairs regulates or monitors political activities of student groups in these universities.
Mr Shanmugam said his ministry's agencies focus on those who engage in activities that endanger national security.
Citing an instance in which a 17-year-old Singaporean who had planned to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria was arrested, he said that did not mean the agencies monitor all 17-year-olds.
"We do not and we cannot, and we are unable to monitor all of them. The agencies have their own ways of identifying security threats, and they will take appropriate action, in context," said Mr Shanmugam.
Prof Theseira noted that Mr Ong had listed groups of individuals that academic institutions should not work with, for example, those who had committed public order-related offences or have shown disloyalty to Singapore.
He asked Mr Shanmugam if that also meant student groups would not be allowed to engage with such individuals, in view of security risks.
The minister replied that such individuals do not ipso facto become security risks by falling into the groups which had been highlighted by Mr Ong.
"If they do become security risks, they will be monitored," he added.
Nominated MP Anthea Ong asked for the Home Affairs Ministry's position on online sentiments that having a course on dissent is an "unpatriotic act" and the hate speech being directed at Yale-NUS students.
Mr Shanmugam said: "If there is speech that has been directed at some students, and they believe that a criminal offence has been committed, they can file a police report - I am sure they are aware of that.
"I assume that you are not suggesting that we prevent people from expressing their views on whether some actions are patriotic or unpatriotic?"
No comments:
Post a Comment