Minister sets limits to academic freedom in Yale-NUS row

Singapore’s Education Minister Ong Ye Kung outlined the limits of academic freedom for universities in a wide-ranging speech to parliament on the controversy surrounding a course on ‘dialogue and dissent’ cancelled last month by Yale-NUS College – a liberal arts institution run jointly by the National University of Singapore and Yale University in the United States.

“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,” Ong told parliament on Monday 7 October.

The worry that Singapore’s universities “may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the government is not unfounded. MOE [the Ministry of Education] had that concern too when we saw the itinerary of the 'Dissent and resistance’ project,” he said.

Ong said his ministry had looked at the ‘itinerary’ of a proposed Yale-NUS module entitled ‘Dissent and resistance’ – later changed to ‘Dialogue and dissent’ – “and fully supported the decision” by the college to cancel the module.

The module, part of the curriculum that includes experiential learning, was cancelled on 13 September just two weeks before it was scheduled to begin and after both Singaporean and international students had signed up for it.

But Ong’s lengthy speech to parliament was not just about the government’s view on the cancelled Yale-NUS course. It amounted to a major policy statement on freedom of speech in Singapore.

“This is the first time the government has made such a strong statement [on academic freedom]. This is drawing a line in the sand,” said Singaporean academic Linda Lim, professor emerita at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and a Yale alumna.

What the minister said “is more restrictive than before, because before there were fuzzy boundaries around what academic freedom is”, Lim told University World News.

Course instructors

A number of academics noted the minister’s references to the proposed course instructors, which appeared to be among the key considerations for the government backing the course cancellation.

Ong mentioned course leader Alfian Sa’at – a well-known Singaporean playwright – but also Jolovan Wham, an activist currently on trial for allowing Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong to address an outdoor event in Singapore via Skype link from Hong Kong; Seelan Palay, an artist controversially jailed last October for two weeks for a ‘performance art’ banner displayed outside the Singaporean parliament; University of Oxford historian and prominent government critic PJ Thum; and journalist Kirsten Han. All five were listed to teach parts of the module.

Ong told parliament that those responsible for the cancelled course were “entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore”, adding: "They can write about them, even vent them on social media and in the process even have a following. 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 courses or programmes."

Singapore believes in academic freedom, Ong said, “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.”

Han said: “For these people who have been named, including me, is this a sign to any tertiary institution that we will not be welcome?”

Responding to the speech, Han told University World News: “Who gets to decide who is partisan in Singapore?”

“Singapore’s political reality is so skewed towards one party it seems that anything that is critical of the PAP [People’s Action Party], who happens to be the party in government, is suddenly partisan.”

But it also has implications for Yale-NUS when the minister talks about the need for universities to be non-partisan and follow Singapore’s laws. “Saying we obey the law from an administrative point of view sounds perfectly reasonable, but when the laws in Singapore are so oppressive then how can you claim that you have full academic freedom? This is something that Yale-NUS can never fully get around,” Han said.

Michigan University’s Lim said “the big line for Yale is that they have not gone against their core values of academic freedom and open inquiry, saying [the course cancellation] ‘is something we decided on our own for academic reasons, with no external pressure from the government’, ” Lim said, referring to Yale University’s 28 September report on its investigation into the debacle that concluded that the course cancellation did not constitute a threat to academic freedom.

“But then the government comes out with this speech, that Yale-NUS agreed to this.”

“The Singaporean government is using Yale to justify much tighter limitations on academic freedom that go much further than before this incident,” said Lim. “If it was just an issue of academic rigour as Yale tried to portray in its report, then the government would not have to make such a strong statement on academic freedom.

“If you really want to be a world-class university, particularly in liberal arts, and you say that anyone who goes to Singapore to teach will enjoy the same academic freedom that they have in the US, then it is just not true,” notes Lim, who points to the activities of young Republicans and young Democrats on US campuses, which would not be allowed under Ong’s now clear definition of partisan politics on campus.

Course leader Alfian has disputed many parts of the 28 September Yale report, describing its allegations concerning him as “false and defamatory”.

Government concern about course tutors and legal risk

Ong’s speech, unusually carried in full in Singapore’s Straits Times newspaper, for the first time set out clear rules for universities.

“At the minimum, [universities] should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law” – a reference to part of the module that involved designing placards and taking them to a public park, which Yale-NUS College and Yale University in its 28 September report described as a ‘legal risk’ for international students under Singapore’s laws restricting such activities.

And universities “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,” Ong said.

Ong noted in parliament that both Wham and Palay “have previously been convicted of public order-related offences”.

Ong also said in parliament that Han and Thum work on New Naratif, an online magazine which, he claimed, “receives significant foreign funding”.

But he insisted. “Political dissent is certainly a legitimate topic of academic inquiry. Our students read and assess classic works by revolutionary figures such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, Sun Yat-sen or Mao Zedong.

“It would also be valuable for students in the social sciences to examine critically present-day issues, such as the causes and implications of protests against climate change or globalisation, or the demonstrations currently happening in Hong Kong. Students can and should also discuss the implications of such political developments for a small country like Singapore. Such open academic inquiry will continue.”

Singapore’s universities “have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and public discourse carried out vigorously and also rigorously,” which is why a liberal arts college like Yale-NUS College has “a place in Singapore’s education landscape”.

Guiding principles for educational institutions

While telling parliament it would “not be practical or wise to be overly prescriptive in specifying what should or should not be taught in each subject”, Ong said some principles should be made clear on what activities are permitted or not on campuses.

First, all educational institutions must operate within the laws of Singapore. “Our educational institutions must operate, and exercise their academic freedom, within those legal limits.”

Second, “our educational institutions must not deviate from their missions to advance education and maintain high academic standards. This is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues,” Ong said.

This was a reference to the Yale report, which alleged that the course being proposed lacked academic rigour – a point disputed by course instructor Alfian.

Third, educational institutions “should not be misused as platforms for partisan politics”, Ong said.

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

“When elections are impending, [universities] will often host panel discussions comprising representatives from various political parties, and seek to present a balanced range of viewpoints. Otherwise, politicians of any political party – government or opposition – may not campaign, mobilise support or advance their party politics in any of our educational institutions. This has always been the position,” Ong said.

He added that “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”.

Fourth, educational institutions “must recognise Singapore's cultural and social context”, he said.

Describing Singapore as a small, multi-racial and multi-religious country, Ong said: “Our margin for error is very small compared to bigger countries.”

“Imagine if the demonstrations and riots on the streets of Hong Kong, or the political confusion in the UK, were to take place in Singapore. Our international reputation would be destroyed. Trust and confidence in Singapore, whether by Singaporeans or others, would be severely damaged. Our future would be in grave jeopardy.”