Singapore: Will the real academics please stand up?
By Imran Ahmed, Business Correspondent
Not all sections of Singapore society have kept pace with the city-state’s rapid ascent from Third World to First World.
Singapore lacks an intellectual community confident enough to tackle thorny domestic issues or question conventional wisdom. Singapore’s social fabric is changing but the debate on its future is largely confined to members of a political elite closely aligned with the ruling party.
A vibrant intellectual and academic community coupled with the right resources is a prerequisite for social progress. Without healthy public debate societies become stale, complacent and ultimately relegated to history.
In Singapore’s case the major burden of intellectual development has so far rested primarily with the People’s Action Party (PAP).
Since Singapore’s independence in 1965, the party has dominated the Republic’s landscape and shaped debate on most major issues including race relations, economic policy and resource allocation.
To be sure, the PAP has turned Singapore into an international metropolis from a backwater fishing village. Here lies the rub for the party: the progress has moved Singaporeans up the natural hierarchy of needs.
In 1965, the average citizen was concerned with addressing his basic physical needs. Today’s Singaporean is more educated, confident and unwilling to quietly obey orders like the previous generation.
The 2009 Singaporean is looking for spiritual progress via self-esteem and self-actualization. They want what other developed societies have, a greater voice in the political system.
The economic stake alone is no longer good enough, especially when the economic pie is not expected to grow as rapidly as in the past four decades.
Singapore is a functioning democracy. The rituals of campaigning, voting are conducted with religious regularity. Laws are passed based by a legitimate parliament.
Yet there is limited public debate on issues which are seen to be sensitive. The ‘Out of Bound’ markers may be necessary in some instances but academics seem almost afraid of performing legitimate socio-political research.
Research provides the necessary nourishment for a society to evolve itself and meet tomorrow’s challenges.
A good example is the country’s first directly elected President Ong Teng Cheong (OTC). It is surprising that the well endowed reference section of Singapore’s National Library contains only one glossy coffee table book on President Ong.
The book contains lots of nice photographs and well meaning text but President Ong and his political legacy deserve far more respect than such a superficial review.
President Ong was not an ordinary President or People’s Action Party leader.
He was a maverick who seemed to have fallen out with the PAP by the end of his tenure as President (1999). (That he was not given a state funeral at his death seems to confirm this supposition.)
Early in his political career, Communications Minister Ong Teng Cheong aggressively advocated the construction of an expensive subway system for Singapore, the MRT. Despite the high cost and the strong opposition by many of his cabinet colleagues he prevailed and Singapore’s MRT system was born.
While leader of the National Trade Union Congress he associated himself with a strike by the shipping industry. In 1986, as today, strikes were sacrilegious affairs in Singapore and Mr. Ong certainly gambled his political future by not opposing the strike.
In 1993, with the PAP’s endorsement Mr. Ong became president.
During his tenure, he took on the PAP establishment by asking some tough questions about the use of Singapore’s reserves. That was not the only time President Ong courted disagreement with the PAP government.
Clearly, in the Singapore context President Ong is a controversial figure. Perhaps that is the reason why there are no decent biographies or academic studies of his presidency (1993 – 1999). Or perhaps it is too recent and there is not enough interest in the subject matter?
I suspect it is because academics in Singapore instinctively shy away from probing events that are seen to be even mildly controversial.
However, the controversy over the use of reserves is one that must be studied. There are lessons and precedents in the debate between the government and President Ong for us.
The debate is relevant to several issues of today, including:
-
How is Temasek Holdings money to be used by the government?
-
How does (and should) the government allocates excess reserves to GIC and Temasek?
-
What are the claims that Singapore citizens have on GIC and Temasek assets?
-
To what extent do the Board of Directors of Temasek and GIC owe its accountability to Singapore citizens?
The Presidency of Ong Teng Cheong is just one example of the intellectual desolation that haunts Singapore on topical socio-political subjects.
Other sensitive subjects, including the Administration of Muslim Law Act (1966) and disclosures pertaining to Temasek Holdings are also left untouched.
Cities are living creatures and those that do not adapt to changing conditions die. Singapore is no different from any other historically successful city state – it relies on the dynamism of its residents to keep itself in the global game.
Scepticism is at the root of knowledge, learning and, consequently, progress.
The current intellectual environment does not encourage questioning. Instead, we find a system in which traces of a relic of a bygone Marxist era, the concept of ‘Democratic Centralism’ are visible.
In its heyday, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) practiced democratic centralism. Under the system, members of the CPSU were free to debate policies (within certain limitations) until the party’s Central Executive Committee made a formal policy decision.
Once the decision was announced all debate on the subject was expected to cease and members were to tow the party line. Dissent was severely punished.
The last time I checked, Singapore’s constitution does not enshrine the principles of democratic centralism. Moreover, constructive political debate is not restricted to PAP members and need not cease even after policy decisions have been reached.
Other articles by Imran Ahmed:
>> Towards a nation of international capitalists
>> PM Lee wades into Singapore’s blogosphere
About the Author:
Imran Ahmed majored in Diplomacy and World Affairs. He has been a finance professional for the last 20 years, most recently spending five and half years in Dubai before returning to Singapore. He blogs at http://imranwrites.blogspot.com
Loading ...
Anonymous on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 9:23 am
Thank you for your insightful article.
No one can nor will deny President Ong’s legacy. It is true that President Ong deserves much more, and the disservice we are giving to such an important figure in creating what Singapore is today has been largely due to the lack of politically-neutral, brave academics.
His life’s tale is somewhat of a legend even! I remember that he passed away on a Sunday, just 1 day after the opening ceremony of Changi Airport MRT Station.
Seems somewhat dreamy to say that he had completed his life’s work, or in Mandarin 使命, before leaving us.
btan on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 9:41 am
Generally a well written article but can TR editors please proof read the article? A few instances President Ong was mentioned as “Mr Cheong”. Once a person became president, we should always address him as President. That said, his surname is Ong not Cheong.
for singapore on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 10:59 am
Mister ONG Teng Cheong should have been more rightfully addressed as the People’s PRESIDENT for his selfless efforts for workers’ interest and more importantly,for his sincere compassion for the people of singapore at a difficult time.
A good President is more than mere cordial public gestures,it’s about caring like a good “father” for his citizens.
blackfeline on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 11:17 am
What academics? What we have here are either foreign trash who know nothing other than sucking up to the hands that feed them or useless local academic eunuchs who have no balls to speak the truth!
cy on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 12:08 pm
if i am not wrong,devan nair was another president not given state funeral.
never cross into the path of LKY. the academics must have known that.
i don’t blame them, you appeal to ppl by their interest, not reason. unless one day, when the academics interest is being attacked, i am sure they will come out fighting
Kelvin Tan on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 2:26 pm
They are Singaporeans too you know? They won’t stand up until the majority of the Singaporeans do. Why should they be the first to bell the cat?
You want the truth? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
singapoor on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 2:39 pm
when i was in NUS, a bangladeshi prof told us that when he first joined NUS in 1980s or 1990s the head of the department told him the the mouth should “eat” and not “talk”. the bangladeshi prof then told us that since then he never “talked”
but what i found interesting is that in a system based on control, the relativley more advantaged tend to be more willing to cave in to pressures to those in control. however over time this same group end up being disadvantaged in some way or another.
the NUS profs who “sealed” themselves up then only found themselves being bullied in recent times since the ex-president Shih came in who made working conditions and renumeration horrible and unfair for them. many left in displeasure and disgust. the younger profs today are also “sealing” themselves up and will face the repercussions tomorrow.
that is why you should walk away earlier OR resist. if you choose to stay and bend over to the control freaks then in future when the time comes, you have fewer chances to walk away or less ability to resist.
Cecil Chua on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 2:40 pm
As an academic I would like to point out that:
(1) I think you are specifically looking at knowledge production in particular areas, notably political science, and some subfields of sociology (e.g., race relations). I will concede that a failure to further all academic subfields will eventually cause problems in a country’s intellectual growth. However, at the moment, Singapore does have an international presence in certain academic fields.
(2) Your article mixes a number of ideas, such as the production of knowledge by academics, the debate of ideas in the commons, and policy commentary. It begins with an overbroad question (will the real academics please stand up), which the rest of the article fails to develop.
(3) Some of us real academics have attempted in our own small way to fix areas within our particular domains of expertise. For example, a Google search on me will reveal that I raised issues about Singapore’s anti-commercial e-mail laws, and about the use of NRIC/Birth cert numbers in school computer accounts. I engaged MOE about the latter concern over the course of a year, and employed multiple channels of communication. I spoke to my MP, wrote to the Straits Times, and badgered representatives in MOE about this. The end result, frankly, is less than I would like, but I tried.
(4) Academic service to the community involves more than just making socio-political statements. Frankly, I’m insulted that you ignore some of the OTHER things we do for society. For example, I’ve worked with several companies on a pro bono basis to help improve their operations. These are small things, but they count.
Cecil Chua
Anonymous on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 3:09 pm
Academic vibrancy of political debate cannot thrive in an environment of imprisoned thoughts. In institutions of higher learning heavily populated by foreigners from Asian origin, one can hardly expects to hear the word “politics” in social discourse unlike those perhaps coming from Anglo-Saxon cultures where challenging thoughts are as welcomed and invigorated of participation.
Foreign academic of Asian extraction are more concerned of where the academic career is going, NOT where Singapore might be falling apart and better still studiously avoid any research and conclusion which might be interpreted as “politically controversial” or likely to step on sensitive political toes.
Those who have been around long enough or have ears to hear the silent wall of academic corridors would have long learnt that “politics” and “academic” TOGETHER ARE DEADLY COCKTAILS DESTROYING CAREERS AND PERSONAL LIVES. And for foreigners, the passport out of Singapore never to return is never too far of the mind and risks frontiers.
Even investment bankers in the past commenting on economic thesis of investment discourse and advisory comment that came out in the media have had to pack their bags leaving for distant shores at very short notice – the Professional Employment Pass is the shortest “dog’s leash” anywhere except perhaps China.
This is the failure of this society where mistakes remained entrenched in unchallenged domain until the point of near total collapse matched by loudest screams of denial. Without the internet sharing, most living here would have believed or brainwashed to believe that Singapore is a Utopia world of wonders forever evergreen and waiting for success as if it is heavenly-annointed.
anon on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 4:38 pm
I realised that the local universities have a hidden policy of not letting in professors from developed countries,who are so used to academic freedom and unlimited socio-political space of intellectual thoughts and teaching,to teach local students.I suspect that this is done to prevent them from speaking up on politics here.You can have a look at most of regular faculty staff at the local universities.
anon on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 4:45 pm
Restricted academic freedom was the main reason why University of Warwick decided not to set up its branch in Singapore.
Anonymous on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 5:27 pm
If I recall correctly, some years back, there was a great deal of MSM media hype of a Government-initiated project to bring the best of the brightest brains in the world here to start and work on a “think-tank” type institution of ideas generation, incubation and facilitation of innovative cutting edge technology and management practices and innovation.
AFTER A LOT OF HOT AIR vibrations in MSM, it diffused like helium air from an inflated balloon, the great dreams of high flying helium-induced change thinking agency simply vanguished A LOT faster and less exuberance than the initial boast.
It never got off the ideas platform of A FIRST STEP OF CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT ACTION. The foetus died in the proverbial womb and the host (Singapore) went for an abortion so to speak
Anyone recalling the same? Wonder what stopped that in the starting block, not the sprinting track??
sturmtruppen on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 6:18 pm
The reason is some control freaks do not want singaporeans to wake up and be independent thinkers…
These bunch of control freaks wants mindless slaves and robots to do their bidding…
In the event of screw ups by these same control freaks…the slaves and robots will get it first…
As long as these freaks of nature are around…sinagaporeans each and every one of us will never fullfilled to our full potential as human beings.
Currently singapore education system is retarding/partitioning previous and current as well as future generations of human beings in singapore…
It is sad.
for singapore on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 7:16 pm
Whichever way we look at it,all academics are either moinisters or working for the civil service,i.e, univs,hospitals etc and they are quite comfortable.
sinagpore’s pool of academics do not for instance work for
a Harvard,a Stanford or Yale.
I guess they know who is their paymaster.
x12831 on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 8:09 pm
‘The 2009 Singaporean is looking for spiritual progress via self-esteem and self-actualization.’ Nice try mate; the object of the political class is to retain political control, keeping a large swathe of the population under its sway, earning enough to meet their physical needs. In order to achieve that, the political class will ensure that it has absolute control of all aspects of society. This is the reality, Singapore is not a ‘functioning democracy’; as stated by the author the ‘campaigning, voting are conducted with religious regularity’ are just rituals. Just a facade. Have anyone ever wonder why the North Koreans are so endeared to their ‘Dear Leader’?
Anonymous on Fri, 16th Oct 2009 8:23 pm
sturmtruppen
The reason is some control freaks do not want singaporeans to wake up and be independent thinkers…
These bunch of control freaks wants mindless slaves and robots to do their bidding
ABSOLUTELY!!
What more can anybody add?
It defied all logic that they want innovative creative robotic Singaporean men/women at work – the stuff of reasoning in parallel of the highly-experienced-virgin-prostitute argument.
It is very sad indeed.
Sure or not? on Sat, 17th Oct 2009 12:58 am
“To be sure, the PAP has turned Singapore into an international metropolis from a backwater fishing village. Here lies the rub for the party: the progress has moved Singaporeans up the natural hierarchy of needs.”
Hello, sure or not?
Singapore was already a busy trading port when PAP took over. Don’t give PAP so much credit!
It was the British that brought Singapore up from a backwater fishing village!
singapoor on Sat, 17th Oct 2009 6:47 am
cecil chua
the author is not saying all academics are not doing anything. the ‘real’ academic that he is referring to is the potential that each academic possess within themselves which requires freedom to materialise. the author is saying the ‘real’ academic is not doing anything i.e. as much as he or she can do. that is because of the academic environment created by PAP which lacks the necessary freedom.
what the author puts out is common views that i hear from academcs around the world. he is not alone in the world with such observations. so most of all, the author also isnt insulting anyone.i dont get why you are being so egoistic.
Cecil Chua on Sat, 17th Oct 2009 9:19 pm
@singapoor:
Because the real role of the academic is research, teaching, and service to the discipline. None of what the writer is talking about reflects ANY understanding of our job.
There are CERTAIN academics whose job it would be to protest problems with economics, or the social or political system. The writer is tarring ALL of us and asking us why we don’t participate in these kinds of debates. Frankly, its not our job OR our domain of expertise.
In some cases, academics participate in social commentary. In other places in the world, they are PROTECTED in some way when they do this. It should be noted that participation in social commentary is a RARE thing. To make the claim that participating in social commentary is a REQUIREMENT of being an academic is WRONG.
He’s made a number of comments that do NOT reflect on the general academic:
-Will the real academic please stand up? <– Why is this article relevant to biologists, computer scientists, etc.?
In Singapore’s case the major burden of intellectual development has so far rested primarily with the People’s Action Party (PAP). <–Sorry, the PAP hasn't written any of the paper's I've published, thank you very much.
The ‘Out of Bound’ markers may be necessary in some instances but academics seem almost afraid of performing legitimate socio-political research.<–Right, and why would I bother?
It is surprising that the well endowed reference section of Singapore’s National Library contains only one glossy coffee table book on President Ong.<– And the National library holds copies of MIS Quarterly? Heck, it doesn't even hold any books by Stephen Walt (famous political scientist).
I suspect it is because academics in Singapore instinctively shy away from probing events that are seen to be even mildly controversial.<–Nope. I've published work on online hate speech, and auction fraud.
Or perhaps it is too recent and there is not enough interest in the subject matter?<–Damn straight. Not in my research scope. Plus, frankly, our job is to develop THEORY. An analysis of ex-President Ong would only be valuable if we can extract and generalize from it. We wouldn't want to study ex-President Ong for the sake of studying him alone.
I think you get the idea.
In other words, the original author needs to scope and articulate his ideas much more clearly. He (1) focuses exclusively on socio-political developments, which only a minority of academics cover, (2) insists on a narrow view of what we are supposed to do that doesn't even remotely encompass our real jobs, and (3) in doing so ignores the REAL work we are doing to move society along.
Some of the commenters here have made further outrageous claims like we don't want Europeans or Americans in our communities. The provost of NTU is a Swede, and a number of top people in ALL our university are Europeans or Americans. The fact is the Europeans and Americans generally don't want to come here. Singapore is halfway around the world from their homes.
bah on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 12:21 am
Because as the new media criticises the gahmen and academics in their ivory towers… It’s sometimes easy to forget that the new media, in some ways, IS an ivory tower.
JC on Sun, 18th Oct 2009 12:15 pm
I think the real problem in this article has to do with associating the ‘academic’ to the ‘public intellectual’. To say the least, public intellectuals are very often not found in academia. As the title implies, they are people who think and write about public affairs intellectually. On the other hand, academics are found in academia, where they pursue esoteric studies and describe equally esoteric problems. So asking the ‘real academics’ to stand up is missing the point. A more pointed question is to ask, ‘where are the public intellectuals’?
As far as I know, the existence of public intellectuals must co-exist with an equally well-read and informed public. To ask for public intellectuals on an indifferent ‘wall street’ (or an environment like that predicated on an ethic of survival) is again missing the point. In a place where flipping properties so one can retire early and do nothing (and be bored) no public intellectualism comprising of the public intellectuals and an intellectual public can exist.
The author of this article also misses another point (that makes three in a row) but also an opportunity in his bid to politicize this article unfruitfully. The only place where academics today can play a role in the formation of an intellectual public (and thereby also begin to recast them as public intellectuals) is through the interface of teaching. However, teaching is one of the last public concerns in all universities’ bid for gaining a research status–being an ‘academic’ is more important in ‘academia’–and in their role to clamor for more industry-academia ties.
We can all work out where all these will lead. But this will be a place where neither public intellectuals nor public intellectualism can thrive. If you want public intellectualism to thrive, start by reinvigorating the public mission of teaching a new generation first.