A Liberal Education and Corruption of the Youth of Singapore

ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Leader of the House (Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That Parliament do now adjourn."

Question proposed.

A Liberal Education and Corruption of the Youth of Singapore

7.05 pm

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past few months, the youth have shook the world. The "School Strike for Climate" movement led by 16-year-old, Greta Thunberg, has inspired millions of students worldwide to push their governments to take action. In Singapore, on September 21, the Singapore Climate Rally gathered more than 1,700 participants, most of them youth, to Hong Lim Park. They peacefully called for Singapore to restructure our society and economy to prevent climate change. But at the same time, Hong Kong is burning. Youth-led mass protests, while at first peaceful, have since degenerated into lawlessness and violence.

The potential and energy of the youth is clear. The only question is to what end that potential will be turned.

In September, Yale-NUS College cancelled a Learning Across Boundaries programme titled "Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore". The programme was organised by Singapore playwright Mr Alfian Sa'at. The reasons for cancellation have been addressed during Question Time today. What I am concerned with are the conclusions that some have drawn from the episode.

Mr Goh Choon Kang, a former Member of Parliament, wrote in Lianhe Zaobao on 18 September to critique the Yale-NUS programme. His article was titled “Singapore does not need a 'color revolution.'" His concern is that the programme would expose students to Singaporean political dissidents, whom he argues are a subversive or improper political influence. He is concerned that impressionable students may be incited to destabilise Singapore. I do not want to single Mr Goh out. His concerns are shared by many Singaporeans who are concerned about the principles and objectives of a liberal education, and the risk of such an education being subverted for non-academic ends.

At the risk of simplifying, what is really being questioned is whether our students are being enlightened by their education or corrupted by it.

Sir, these concerns are not new. From time to time nations must hang a philosopher to encourage the others. Socrates, the founder of Western philosophy, was put to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. What is profoundly uncomfortable to many of us is the possibility that students will be taught something that is untrue; if not untrue, then, even worse, an inconvenient truth; and, that once equipped with these ideas they will be incited to put their ideals in action.

But in fact, a liberal education aims to do nothing of the kind. Like other philosophies of education, a liberal education simply aims to cultivate a good human being and citizen. What is distinctive is that a liberal education holds the student responsible for their own intellectual development. A good liberal education teaches the student that the truth is something to be discovered rather than something imparted by a wise sage; that no writing, statement or deed, should pass without critical questioning; that, as Socrates said, "the unexamined life is not worth living".

If as a result of education the student discovers that some social injustice exist and develops a conviction that they have a responsibility to set it right, then that is a consequence, but not the aim, of a liberal education. What are examples of such student activism? Our hon Member, Mr Mohamed Irshad, founded Roses of Peace as a student, as an inter-faith youth movement to counter religious hatred with love and kindness. Mr Lim Jingzhou, a Yale-NUS student, co-founded the Cassia Resettlement Team, a youth-led collective which supports resettled elderly and vulnerable residents through house visits and building community networks.

Many other student activists toil unseen. We should critically question the false dichotomy separating the activist from the volunteer, where we often treat the former with suspicion while showering the latter with praise. Both are the result of putting values into action.

The concern remains that who teaches and what is taught in the classroom can shape our youth for good or for ill. This morning the Minister for Education explained that we must account for personal character, behaviour and ideology, when assessing potential educators. Reasonable people will agree there are some ideologies so hostile or behaviours so reprehensible that we must protect the youth by preventing exposure. But in making such judgements we must guard against unnecessarily narrowing minds in the guise of protecting them. The story of Socrates reminds us that what is politically convenient – to university administrators, to the public, or to the Government – is not always what is truthful or right.

In the case of Mr Alfian, although we may agree he is not the ideal academic instructor of political dissent, I would hope that we judge his award winning poems and plays still worthy of study as Singapore literature; that his skills as a playwright and artistic mentor can still benefit our youth.

As for academics, I welcome the Minister’s statement that activism is compatible with the role of the academic, provided those roles are appropriately separated. As Max Weber noted, the academic has a duty to discover the truth and to force society to confront those truths. But the pursuit of truth is different from acting on it, especially in the classroom. This is not because activism is wrong, but because the student should be tested on their ability to discern the truth and not on whether their values align with those of the instructor. My academic colleagues who have been called activists, such as Assoc Prof Teo You Yenn, understand this principle well. They have distinguished themselves both with their scholarship and with their activism.

Sir, there are many legitimate but controversial topics of study – political dissent, religion, inequality, social injustice. If we are put to the test by public opinion, we must have the courage to choose to open minds rather than to close them. Rather than back down, we must pursue their inquiry with the highest standards of scholarship and teaching.

What concerns me is that it will become difficult for Singaporean academics to examine and teach contentious topics because the standards must always be exacting, perfect, lest one is accused of subversion, flawed scholarship or activist motivations. If we ask for unrealistic perfection in our critical academics, our scholars will be biased towards the safe and the status quo. This is a hidden danger that threatens us all. It encourages a sloppiness of thinking, a belief that it is safer to regurgitate received wisdom than to seek new answers. This will be bad for our youth and bad for Singapore.

Sir, if we agree that elements of a liberal education are worthwhile then the question becomes why more Singaporean youth are not exposed to these principles. There are of course trade-offs. Courses in the liberal education tradition are faculty intensive and highly demanding.

But a narrow focus on costs blinds us to the possibilities of a liberal education. Our democracy is at risk if the electorate is unable to critically assess facts, policies and ideas, leading to the politics of fear and misinformation. This is a citizenship skills gap that a liberal education addresses. A well designed liberal education will allow weaker students to develop their critical reading, writing and speaking skills in a safe space.

Today, almost all our Autonomous Universities programmes have included Core Curriculum components that do expose students to critical reading, writing and thinking. But the most comprehensive components of a liberal education are still reserved for the elite. For example, the NUS University Scholars Programme and Yale-NUS College, aim to push the intellectual boundaries of their students, and so they are highly selective to ensure rigour and quality.

Sir, I understand the practical difficulties with expanding liberal education further. But if we believe that a liberal education has benefits for active citizenship then we should make offerings available to more students. This cannot be forced. Each academic programme must decide. What the Ministry could do is to play a role as convenor, to provide a safe space for staff from our Autonomous Universities to share their practices in liberal education and to send a message that liberal education is not a luxury for the elite, but is in fact a foundation for lifelong learning and citizenship that as many should receive as possible.

Beyond education, I believe that Singaporeans in general will gain much if they will adopt the liberal values of open mindedness tempered by critical inquiry, to deal with the complexities of a changing world. I do not mean that people should adopt so-called "Western" liberal social or political attitudes, although I draw no adverse inferences there.

Rather, we must accept as a society and as individuals that there is a right to question ideas, beliefs and policies, and to have one's own ideas and actions be questioned, critically but respectfully. If we can recognise the importance of these values for Singapore in an uncertain future, we will see that a liberal education, far from corrupting the youth, provides a source of strength for the future.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Anthea Ong, do you wish to say something? You need to raise your hand. Yes, Ms Anthea Ong, are you speaking on the Adjournment Motion?

Ms Anthea Ong (Nominated Member): Yes, I am.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Under the Standing Orders, Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had 20 minutes for the speech. You have 10 minutes of the speaking time left.

7.15 pm

Ms Anthea Ong: Do I speak from here or can I go to the rostrum?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Where you are.

Ms Anthea Ong: Okay. Mr Deputy Speaker, I stand here as a voice for the many young activists and advocates whom I have had the privilege to learn from and work with in different capacities, a voice for their collective concerns and aspirations. They are passionate and committed to a more democratic, more politically engaged and more inclusive way of moving Singapore forward. Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat’s words at Singapore Summit 2019 acknowledged the need to include our youths. He said, "For young people especially, being able to actively shape the future of our nation and playing a part to build this future is key to growing their sense of ownership and commitment to Singapore."

However, does our political landscape give them the space to realise this vision?

At the recent SG Climate Rally organised by University students, Singaporeans spoke up to urge the Government to adopt more structural solutions to the climate crisis. One of the rally organisers, however, admitted the difficulty in speaking up. She said that when asked to speak at Speakers' Corner, she feared being put on a "blacklist". Another young advocate doing work in the social sector also shared about fears that the Government would choose to penalise their organisation if they spoke about issues they see on the ground. Many young Singaporeans I spoke to collectively shared concerns on the limited public space for citizens to participate in discussion, debate and dissent without the constant presence of fear, surveillance and coercion – real and imagined.

These feelings of paranoia and suspicion must not be simply dismissed. When citizens become too afraid of the repercussions to speak up and when critics become too cynical to engage, Singapore would suffer a great loss. When that day comes, only a narrow range of ideas will dominate, group-think will prevail and we will lose the dream of a diverse, inclusive and democratic Singapore. We must not confuse those who insult with those who critique.

Let us not underestimate the value of our youths speaking up and taking action to make change. For example, during the NUS controversy on sexual harassment, it was the courage and advocacy of youths that resulted in real policy reforms. If not for Monica Baey's courage to call out injustice, if not for the many students who pushed for a town hall, if not for the 400 students who turned up to confront their University administrators, it is unlikely that we would have seen change.

Then, there is CAPE, a student group based at Yale-NUS that builds capacity and political literacy for effective and constructive active citizenry with a range of important civic projects and initiatives, including producing infographics on POFMA and the "brownface" issue, as well as organising political education workshops with schools and Members of Parliament. Cassia Resettlement Team – my fellow Nominated Member of Parliament Assoc Prof Walter Theseira had mentioned – is a ground-up non-profit powered mostly by youths, blending community and advocacy work to support residents through a range of interconnected issues, such as poverty, public housing relocation, ageing, mental health and end-of-life issues. The Inter-University LGBT Network, a collection of student groups in Singapore Universities to collaborate in fostering safer and more inclusive school communities for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression. There is Advocates for Refugees, a ground-up movement consisting of mainly youths advocating and raising consciousness for the cause of refugees. Singapore Youth Voices for Biodiversity facilitates youth discussions on topics, such as habitat preservation and development, and then channels these inputs to the Convention on Biological Diversity's international conferences and stakeholder processes.

All these groups, almost completely youth-led, are invested in the principle of deliberative and shared democracy in order to co-create a shared and inclusive Singapore they want to be a part of.

What, then, is the Government’s role?

First, a mindset change. The Government should re-evaluate their attitudes towards advocacy, activism and dissent. They should learn to embrace these actions as long as they come from a place of good faith. The narrative must move beyond "activists as troublemakers" – one must not arbitrarily draw the line between "good" and "bad" activists based solely on the topics they speak up on. To that end, all Singaporeans, from advocates, critics, dissenters, artists, intellectuals, writers, community organisers to "ordinary" citizens have their own experiences to contribute and form an important and untapped resource in Singapore’s style of governance.

Mr Deputy Speaker, my young friends also urge the Government to review their method of engagement with youth activists or those who dissent. Take, for instance, the Government's response to the Singapore Climate Rally. While the organisers had painstakingly put together a "Call to Action" in the hope for concrete policy follow-up, the Government's only response was to commend the organisers. Our young citizens are concerned about the asymmetry between youths who work tediously to engage the Government and the Government's perfunctory and lukewarm response. To address this asymmetry, our youths must know they are genuinely heard. This includes re-inventing the Youth Action Plan to go beyond providing grants and re-modelling Somerset, to involving youth in the mechanism of policy-making – from feedback to testing and fine-tuning policies. Youths should also be able to choose their representation on the Youth Action Panel.

We should also work to educate the public on national issues, help break down complex information and ensure they are well explained to citizens so that as many people as possible may contribute. Political literacy should be a goal the 4G leadership strives towards.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently," said German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

Last week, our very own Ambassador-at-Large Professor Tommy Koh made a similar call for change to our fourth Prime Minister. He said, “We should welcome criticism as long as the critic loves Singapore and is not out to destroy Singapore. Singapore will languish if its lovers are uncritical and its critics are unloving. What Singapore needs is not sycophants but loving critics and critical lovers.”

Loving critics and critical lovers must be given space to grow and thrive and be recognised for their value and importance to our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, let me reveal that this speech I just read was drafted completely and collectively by a group of young activists and advocates with me. I am impressed by their brilliance and moved by their commitment and love for Singapore. To turn many of these critical young lovers away and deny them their say would be a great loss for our country. Let us give our young ones space to challenge, roots to lead and reasons to stay.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I apologise, Ms Anthea Ong. I did not realise you were making such a long clarification. I should have let you speak from the rostrum. Senior Parliamentary Secretary Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim.

7.23 pm

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for taking a balanced view on this matter. Minister Ong Ye Kung has addressed many of the points the Member has raised. I will respond further to two points. First, the importance of separating academia and activism in the classroom; and, second, the value of liberal arts education and critical inquiry. I will also talk about the importance of academic freedom existing within the context of our social norms. Senior Minister of State Sim Ann will subsequently respond to Ms Anthea Ong and also to some of the issues raised by Assoc Prof Walter Theseira.

First, as an academic myself, I agree with the Member that, in the classroom, activism is incompatible with the role of an academic, if one is to be able to critically assess issues from different perspectives. This is not to say that academics should only be constrained to writing papers for publications. Academics are strongly encouraged to translate their work into real world impact, be it through technological innovations or public policy recommendations. This is also not to say that all classes need to be about open-ended inquiry. There is significant space for applied learning and teaching of practical skills. But these should be guided by the objectives of education and learning and the acquisition of competencies that prepare students for work. Academics can hold their own views on various issues but they should not mobilise support for partisan causes in the course of teaching and mentoring students.

Second, our universities should provide a space where different ideas and perspectives are explored and objectively and rigorously debated. Indeed, a key attribute of liberalism is a spirit of tolerance, openness and acceptance that different people may have different views. Our educational institutions play a vital role in nurturing students into adults who are open-minded and can critically assess ideas, beliefs and policies put before them. And, likewise, be prepared for their own ideas and actions to be assessed, all in an objective and respectful manner. This is especially important in today’s age, where online falsehoods and manipulation can spread very quickly through social media information that they encounter.

The essential skill that we want our students to learn is critical thinking, which is the foundation of any education programme of high academic standards and it is not limited to a liberal arts education. All of our educational institutions nurture students to conduct critical thinking with maturity of thought and a sense of responsibility towards society – that is, to think critically, rather than, as Minister Ong Ye Kung put it, be unthinkingly critical.

As the Member acknowledged, our Universities today already have core curriculum components that develop critical thinking in students. We will work with the AUs to see how this can be further enhanced. But the AUs have their constraints, such as limited curriculum time to work with. At the Secondary school and Pre-University levels, critical thinking skills are also taught in Humanities subjects like Social Studies, which all students take. Students examine issues by considering multiple perspectives and draw reasoned conclusions substantiated by evidence and sound values, such as intellectual integrity, respect for a diversity of views and an appreciation of the implications of their conclusions on society.

Third, as Minister Ong Ye Kung said earlier, our Universities, being based in Singapore, must operate within Singapore's laws and recognise our particular social and cultural context, like everyone else. Singapore is not alone in this view. Even in countries with a strong culture of freedom of expression, speakers have been uninvited or pressured to withdraw from speaking engagements at Universities due to the need to cater to the views of the community. For instance, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then-Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat, was dis-invited to an economic forum hosted by an American university in 2013 because of an online protest against him. Former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, was pressured to withdraw from speaking at an American college after students took issue with her alleged role in the failed developmental policies implemented in poorer countries.

I am not passing any judgement on whether these decisions were wrong or right. But they show that even in the most liberal societies, academic freedom needs to exist within the norms and culture of the community. It is, therefore, important that our educational institutions abide by the principles that Minister Ong Ye Kung laid earlier in his speech. We will leave it to the Universities on how they implement these principles.

Sir, I thank Assoc Prof Walter Theseira for highlighting the concerns of the academic community on this matter. As academics, we all want to contribute in nurturing our students into adults who are open-minded, can critically assess ideas, beliefs and policies put before them, in addition to being competent in the areas that they may specialise in.

I would like to assure the academic community not to be overly concerned about their academic freedom arising from this matter. I urge them to understand the principles, as shared by Minister Ong Ye Kung, and exercise sensible judgement.

In conclusion, Sir, I would like to assure the House that MOE will continue to do our part to work with all of our educational institutions to nurture the next generations of Singaporeans into active, responsible and open-minded citizens to take Singapore forward, while remaining respectful of each other and maintaining the unity of the larger community.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Senior Minister of State Sim Ann, you have only six minutes.

7.30 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Culture, Community and Youth (Ms Sim Ann): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to address Assoc Prof Walter Theseira and Ms Anthea Ong's points on youth activism. I also cannot help noticing that the concluding paragraphs of Ms Anthea Ong's speech very nicely answer the concerns that she raised at the start. I believe that Members of the House who have heard the concluding paragraphs of her speech can only conclude that our youths, through her words, are passionate, energetic and quite uninhibited in speaking up.

I agree that such youths who wish to help shape the future of Singapore should have avenues for doing so. This is indeed something that the Government has publicly committed to supporting.

MCCY has been actively engaging youths to better understand their views, aspirations and needs. Last year, we started the Youth Conversations, hearing over 8,000 youths on topics that matter most to them, such as social inequality, mental health, environmental sustainability and narratives of success. These topics were identified by youths themselves. We are heartened to see that our youths show a strong sense of purpose and care deeply about the long-term future of our country.

At the same time, we want to help youths go beyond talking about the topics and causes that captivate their attention. Good ideas need to be translated into action before they can result in concrete and positive change. Such action can be taken by the youths themselves, in partnership with others or in partnership with the Government. In the process of conceptualising and designing effective action, youths can gain a hands-on understanding of the responsibility that comes with advocating for change. They would need to work out ways to inform, persuade and mobilise others in support of their cause. Their chances of success would grow if they are open-minded and prepared to have their ideas and beliefs challenged, and if they are able to recognise and address the needs and perspectives of other segments of society.

MCCY encourages this through the design of the Youth Conversations. Among those who participated, 80% of youths indicated a better understanding of issues that Singapore faces and close to 90% agreed that they became more aware of different views.

The next stage would be to prepare our youths to take concrete action for positive change. This is why we started the SG Youth Action Plan. It is a platform for our youths to articulate their ideas and vision for Singapore's future, and to create positive change. The SG Youth Action Plan is led by a diverse group of youth leaders, who have taken an inclusive approach to reach out to youths from different walks of life and from different educational and professional backgrounds.

The SG Youth Action Plan seeks to support youths in coming up with robust and impactful policy ideas and projects by equipping them with the information and resources they need. In addition, we are bringing youth leaders to engage directly with Ministries on policy issues such as sustainability.

In the next phase of nation-building, the Government will shift from working for citizens, to working with all segments of citizens. SG Youth Action Plan is very much a part of this approach, which we have termed SG Together. It is our hope that SG Youth Action Plan will not only foster many projects undertaken by youths for the betterment of society, but also develop skills among youths for engaging with the wider society and instil confidence in them that their ideas can be translated into action and ultimately, make a positive difference.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn".

Adjourned accordingly at 7.35 pm.