By Nathan Bullock
More often than not, Singaporean academicians are woefully absent and silent in the spaces and face of oppression and violence.
The most recent case to hit the headlines of Roy Ngerng being sued by Prime Minister Lee for defamation highlights this matter and deserves comment (if not action). Members of the universities – professors, provosts, department chairs, research directors, and journal editors – hold a special place of privilege in Singapore as they do in many societies. However, in Singapore this privilege is more substantial as it constitutes a wider disparity between their levels of access, safety, and prestige and that of the average citizen.
The rights enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the National Pledge, and the Proclamation of Singapore are not evenly applied or distributed among Singaporeans. Professional scholars across the disciplines and schools of the increasing higher education community in Singapore have a unique position of privilege that provides visibility, audibility, and protection unavailable to many others such as those who otherwise blog and protest in cyberspace and Hong Lim Park.
Through their titles and qualifications, academics in the public universities of Singapore are necessarily part of the public space and have the respect and ease of entry to participate in public debate and discussion. Analogously, their voices can be easily magnified outside of academic journals in newspapers, magazines, television, in person and online. These qualities combined with their PhDs and world-wide reputations enable them to exist with a significantly lower probability of political, economic, and legal reprisal for using their voices and bodies as citizens. A critical consciousness and perspective are pre-requisites for establishing just policies.
Yet, even when the government asks for public comment on their proposals or signals a willingness (however insincere) to listen to alternative points of view, academics have shied away to brush up their bibliographies instead.
Edward Said reminds us that central to the role of a public intellectual is “standing outside of society and its institutions and actively disturbing the status quo”. SMU’s non-existent Centre for Global Governance and Human Rights was completely funded by a Japanese businessman and when it was aborted, not a peep from the peanut-gallery. Students must participate in class tutorials and seminars by taking a side and defending their position but professors dare not model such behavior in public. Even Yale-NUS College is only committed to the freedom of faculty “to teach in the classroom and express themselves on campus”.
There is no need to rehash the multiple abuses of power or the unfairness of elections and political participation. The opposition candidates and arts community know all too well what kind of personal risk they have taken and the price to be paid. Those few professors of law, language, and sociology who have spoken up are the exception to the rule. In the main, the university does not face the same risks of funding cuts or personal attacks. I know, I know – professors have been subject to intimidation and denial of tenure – but I’m talking about those at the top of the ivory tower. Yes, we have Dr Chee and Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, but when will we have VP Kong and Dean Yeo?
Sure, many people may say that they are working “behind-the-scenes” or that they are quietly subverting the system and using their privilege to gain access to government leaders whom they will gently persuade to liberalize. If that is what so many of them have been doing all this time then it is not working. Apathy, passivity, or alienation cannot be reconciled with intellectualism.
Seeking and using the freedom to critique, speak, write, assemble, vote, and participate in the intellectual confines of research institutes, international journals, and conferences without seeking the same for all citizens of Singaporean society is beyond selfish hypocrisy, it is ethical treason. Academics have a moral imperative to use their privilege in whatever form it comes to advocate and improve the lives of the world in which they find themselves. When the press lacks the ability to serve in this role and average citizens are relegated to YouTube, academics have a heightened impetus to put to use their privilege in seeking solutions to situations of present-day repression.
In Singapore, collectively turning a blind eye has left the public without responsible leadership. The deficit of democratic policy makes for excellent case studies and publications on a CV but fails to connect theory with reality. Singapore’s universities are awash in experts on media and communication, political science, history, finance and business management. Could they have anything to contribute on the issues of censorship, discrimination, rule of law, accountability, and international best practices?
Indeed, this is a call to arms, but one that eschews weapons for words – “les armes miraculeuses” to use the language of Aimé Césaire.
Editor’s note: There is a need to acknowledge that not all academia remain mute about matters of public interest, and some members have also taken up the challenge in their own quiet ways. Perhaps of greater concern is that these deliberations are often not made public, and the media might also choose not to offer our professors the air-time to voice their views. TOC has had the opportunity to engage our academic community on issues, and their passion and varied take on issues have been welcoming.

Image credit –University Cultural Centre, Wikipedia

Notify of
1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

砂公民多次投报要查泰益 敦马:有举报才能行动

马来西亚首相敦马哈迪声称,执法单位只有接获正式投报,才能针对砂拉越最高元首敦丕显斯里泰益玛目,进行调查是否在任首长期间,涉及滥权舞弊。 不过敦马这番说词,立即遭到公正党砂巴南区部秘书丹尼斯阿隆(Dennis Along)打脸。当地希盟成员联同原住民权益组织,约150人在本月6日,前往美里反贪污委员会办公处抗议,并正式举报泰益玛目。   “我们不清楚敦马是真的不知道,还是有意维护泰益,我们已呈交文件给反贪会,后者说需要7天的工作时间处理,不过很明显现在都快一个月了。” 丹尼斯阿隆还补充,今早透过手机查询,显示反贪会确实已收到举报,为此不明白敦马还在等谁举报。 呼吁更多受害者提供证据 他指控,前首长泰益掌权32年间,涉及许多舞弊,特别是许多原住民的习俗地都被侵占。他呼吁更多受害者勇敢站出来,提供更多证据给反贪会。 “我们希望反贪会调查泰益的嫌疑,至今他归为砂州元首,仍享有许多砂政府资源,如政府官邸和交警开路等,一旦开档调查,泰益就不应获得这些特别待遇。” 时评员法兰西保罗在《当今大马》专栏,抨击砂反贪会“在睡觉”,如果马来西亚真的进入新时代,积极打贪,反贪会是时候动员起来,因为仍有许多涉及贪腐和滥权的领袖逍遥法外。 “很明显布城的反贪会已经忙得不可开交,那么砂拉越的呢?我近期没有听到有任何重大案件在审理。砂州好像一片太平,但其实很多问题,这才是我担心的。” 他直言,比纳吉更贼的大盗就在砂拉越,贪腐的情况仍很严重,但是砂反贪会却选择沉默。…

Takashimaya and Ngee Ann Development in dispute over rent

The landlord of Ngee Ann City and its anchor tenant, department store…

Foreigners make up 50.5% of total workforce in Singapore?

By SY Lee and Leong Sze Hian Singaporeans’ unemployment increase to 3…

Nets apologises for hurt caused by controversial E-Pay advertisement; netizens fume in anger

After days of non-stop issues revolving the ‘brownface’ advertisement for E-Pay, financial…