Reasons for Cancellation of “Dialogue and Dissent” Programme at Yale-NUS

The following question stood in the name of Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar –

4 To ask the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons and concerns leading to the cancellation of the Yale-NUS programme "Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore"; (b) whether the cancellation of the programme signals a more controlled and rigid education environment in our education institutes; and (c) whether this curtails academic freedom and the critical discourse necessary for academic richness and excellence in our education institutes.

5 Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Education whether there are clear rules on what topics and activities are or are not allowed in our Autonomous Universities.

6 Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked the Minister for Education (a) what are the reasons for the cancellation of the "Dialogue and Dissent in Singapore" programme at Yale-NUS College; (b) whether and under what conditions political dissent and activism in the Singapore context is a legitimate topic of academic inquiry in our Autonomous Universities (AUs); and (c) what can be done to assure AU staff and students that they continue to have the academic freedom to responsibly and critically examine social and political issues in Singapore.

Mr Darryl David (Ang Mo Kio): Question No 4.

The Minister for Education (Mr Ong Ye Kung): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I take Question Nos 4 to 6 and part of Question No 7 together, please?

Mr Speaker: Part of Question No 7? So, will Question No 7 be asked again, subsequently?

Mr Ong Ye Kung: Yes, it will be.

Mr Speaker: Okay, proceed.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: It is a bit of a long answer. I beg your indulgence. Members have raised three areas of concern with regard to Yale-NUS College (YNC)'s withdrawal of the project originally titled "Dissent and Resistance in Singapore".

First question they asked, what reasons underpinned the cancellation of the project. Second, the implications for academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of the project. And third, what are the rules on what topics and activities are or are not permitted in our Autonomous Universities (AUs). I will lay out the facts of the case, state MOE's views on the issue, and finally, set out the principles guiding what activities are permitted or not in all our educational institutions.

First, the facts of the case and YNC's reasons for withdrawing the project. The project was to be run by Mr Alfian Sa'at, a playwright. There have been some media exchanges between YNC and Mr Alfian Sa'at on the details of their correspondences. Rather than dwell on the details, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me focus on the pertinent facts for the House, which are as follows.

First, the "Dissent and Resistance" project was one of 14 projects on the slate for YNC’s Week 7 "Learning Across Boundaries", or LAB programme. LAB is a compulsory, credit-bearing programme for all first-year YNC students and they are required to take it. It is not an elective or a campus activity. There are clear learning and academic objectives to help students deepen and synergise different subjects they have learnt during the semester, through experiential learning.

Second fact, there was no special invitation to Mr Alfian Sa'at. He had previously been hired by YNC as a part-time instructor to teach a playwriting course and that was in the first half of 2019. So, when YNC called for project proposals, faculty members and other teaching staff like Mr Alfian Sa'at were invited, and he responded.

Third, from the moment YNC received the outline of his proposal in May 2019, it had questions about how academic objectives were to be achieved. But the discussions that followed resulted only in a cosmetic title change, from "Dissent and Resistance" to "Dialogue and Dissent". There were some adjustments to the itinerary, but no substantive change to the overall structure, content or objective of the programme.

Fourth, when YNC received the revised itinerary in September 2019, it became even more concerned. The proposed project lacked academic rigour and did not expose students to a sufficient range of perspectives. Furthermore, specific activities – a workshop to make protest placards and a visit to the Speakers' Corner – would have put students at risk of breaking the law. From YNC's perspective, if that happened to foreign students, they could lose their student visas.

So, to answer Ms Anthea Ong’s question, which was posed to the Minister for Home Affairs as Question No 7, the legal risk was real. AUs and their staff and students are not exempt from the law.

YNC continued to engage Mr Alfian Sa'at to register their concerns and work with him to revise and refine the project itinerary. Eventually, YNC concluded that there was insufficient time to revise the project before the start of the Week 7 LAB programme. It therefore decided to withdraw the project and informed affected students on 13 September 2019. YNC informed MOE of its decision as it expected some public reactions. MOE looked through the itinerary and fully supported YNC's decision.

Fifth, YNC accepts that it could have done better in its administrative processes, in organising the project and communicating their concerns on the project. It will strive to improve. But this does not change the basic fact that the proposed project was inappropriately designed. YNC tried in good faith to work with Mr Alfian Sa'at to make the necessary changes, but ran out of time and then decided to withdraw the project.

Finally, all the key facts and observations above are also stated in Yale University's own investigation report – this is Yale New Haven. The report was authored independently from YNC and based on interviews with staff, students, faculty, and Mr Alfian Sa'at.

This episode has drawn many comments. While a few disagree, most academics, including those from YNC, support the College's decision and its reasons for the decision.

As Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, a law professor from SMU and former Nominated Member of Parliament told the Straits Times, "For me, the biggest concern is…the lack of even-handedness in engaging with competing and conflicting perspectives… (There is an) absence of even a rudimentary theoretical framework to approach and to understand dissent and resistance."

Many members of the public supported YNC's decision too. But reading their comments on social media and letters to the newspapers, it is clear their reasons differ from those of academics. Their concerns were simpler and more fundamental: they did not see why inciting and teaching students to protest should be condoned in our educational institutions. This is a valid view that we cannot ignore.

One of those who made this point was Mr Goh Choon Kang, in an opinion piece published in Lianhe Zaobao, which The Straits Times later translated and published too. He worried that there were people seeking to initiate "colour revolutions" in Singapore, that is, revolutions which aim to overthrow governments. In particular, he was concerned that political dissidence had found its way into our Institutes of Higher Learning (IHLs) and asked if foreigners who backed colour revolutions were trying to extend their influence in Singapore. Zaobao and Straits Times published several letters from readers sharing Mr Goh's concern.

I know that these views make some academics and leaders within our AUs a little uncomfortable. I think this is not because they disagree with the views, but because they worry that the public and the Government will overreact, which would affect the academic freedom enjoyed by our AUs today. They also worry that the Government would henceforth disapprove of Liberal Arts education.

Let me provide the Government's take on this issue.

The worry that IHLs may be used to conduct partisan political activities to sow dissent against the Government is not unfounded. MOE had that concern too when we saw the itinerary of the "Dissent and Resistance" project. Besides making protest placards and visiting the Speakers' Corner, the programme included dialogues with personalities such as Mr Jolovan Wham and Mr Seelan Palay – both of whom have previously been convicted of public order-related offences.

It also included talks by Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum. Dr PJ Thum has publicly suggested that “Singaporeans should celebrate Malaysia’s independence day”, and that Dr Mahathir should “take the lead in lobbying for the promotion of democracy and freedom of expression and inquiry in Southeast Asia”, because Malaysia was “a beacon for many who are struggling for democracy. Not just in Singapore but in other parts of Southeast Asia.”

Both Ms Kirsten Han and Dr PJ Thum have since announced that while the "Dissent and Resistance" project was withdrawn, they will continue their work through New Naratif, an outfit they had set up which receives significant foreign funding.

Another part of the project would have entailed watching films celebrating foreign dissidents, including Joshua Wong, the young Hong Kong activist, on the topic "Teenager versus Superpower". As for Mr Alfian Sa'at himself, in 1998, he wrote a poem entitled "Singapore You Are Not My Country". Let me quote some lines to give you a flavour of his thinking:

"Singapore, I assert you are not a country at all,

Do not raise your voice against me,

I am not afraid of your anthem"

And a later part of the poem says:

"…how can you call yourself a country, you terrible

hallucination of highways and cranes and condominiums ten minutes’ drive from the MRT?"

This is a poem and we might concede some artistic licence. But Mr Alfian Sa'at continues this attitude consistently in his activism. In 2013, when 21 Malaysians protested illegally at the Merlion Park, he apologised to Malaysians "on behalf of the Singapore Government" when the protestors were arrested by the Police.

After the 2018 Malaysian General Election, he praised the "new Malaysia", juxtaposed it favourably against Singapore, and dismissed the fear of "chaos in the streets, clashes with riot police, traffic at a standstill."

In a post over the weekend, Mr Alfian wrote of "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. And I think this is how Mr Alfian saw his project.

I should add that a talk by AWARE was also listed in the programme, but AWARE has since clarified with YNC as well as the media that they had not agreed to participate in the programme, though they had received an invitation. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Education", Official Report, 7 October 2019, Vol 94, Issue No 112, Correction by Written Statement section.]

These individuals responsible for the programme are entitled to their views and feelings about Singapore. They can write about them, even vent them on social media; in that 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 programmes.

Some may argue that academic freedom grants universities the licence to run such programmes, in the spirit of critically engaging the minds of our undergraduates. A few may go even further to claim that dissent is good for democracies and hence so is teaching students to become dissidents.

I much prefer the test of an ordinary Singaporean exercising his common sense. 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. And MOE's stand is that we cannot have such activities in our schools or IHLs. Political conscientisation is not the taxpayer’s idea of what education means.

Dr Intan and Assoc Prof Walter Theseira asked about the implications on academic freedom arising from the withdrawal of this project. Let me first make it clear that the withdrawal of the project does not undermine in any way academic standards or open inquiry. Various academics have indeed acknowledged this, and Yale University's independent assessment also came to the same conclusion.

MOE values academic freedom, as do our AUs. With academic freedom, our Universities can create new knowledge, innovate and contribute to scientific, technological, economic and social progress. Our AUs have always been places where different ideas are explored and debated, and public discourse carried out vigorously and also rigorously.

This is why a liberal arts school like YNC will have a place in Singapore's education landscape. In fact, in all our AUs, there is increasing focus on inter-disciplinary learning and development of critical thinking skills in our students. 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.

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 on a small country like Singapore. Such open academic inquiry will continue.

Finally, let me address Mr Seah Kian Peng's question on what activities are permitted or not on our AUs' campuses. It would not be practical or wise to be overly prescriptive in specifying what should or should not be taught in each subject. We have to leave room for AUs to exercise their good judgement. But certain principles should be made clear.

First, all educational institutions must operate within the laws of Singapore. Our laws are enacted by Parliament, which comprises Members of Parliament who are in turn elected by voters. These laws are the democratic expression of the will of the people. Our educational institutions must operate and exercise their academic freedom, within those legal limits.

This is a principle that the founding President of YNC – and the current Vice-President of Yale University – Prof Pericles Lewis, publicly committed to in 2012. Clarifying YNC's policy regarding freedom of expression, he said "any college or university must obey the laws of the countries where it operates".

Every country has their rules and laws, red lines unique to themselves. 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.

Second principle: our educational institutions must not deviate from their missions to advance education and maintain high academic standards. Exploring and debating issues within the context of academic study helps students develop important critical thinking skills. This should be underpinned by rigorous intellectual reasoning, with students required to understand and interpret events and facts within a coherent intellectual framework, and at the same time to examine theories against the facts and empirical evidence, and against competing theories or arguments. This is especially important when studying complex and potentially controversial issues.

Third principle: our educational institutions should not be misused as a platform for partisan politics.

Prof Rajeev Patke, Director of YNC’s humanities division, put it very well. In an email to the College leadership, he wrote, "To study is distinct from to practise: to study 'contemporary resistance' or 'contemporary violence' or 'contemporary prejudice' is not the same as to practise resistance, violence or prejudice. We have to ensure that in our educational institutions, academic study does not get confused or compromised by courses of action and intervention which belong to the realm of individual choice."

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, AUs will always 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 – always been. 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 principle: educational institutions must recognise Singapore's cultural and social context. Every society is a product of its history, culture and unique circumstances, which set the context of what is acceptable and how things are done. Singapore is no exception.

Our governance approach is shaped by our unique realities. We are a small, multi-racial and multi-religious country. 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.

Singapore has been able to progress and develop, not least because we have maintained stability. We have built strong governing institutions, engendered respect for the rule of law and engaged deeply with citizens. We have found solutions and struck compromises before the problems become so severe.

Tripartism is an example. We did not wait for protests and strikes to break out before solving the problems downstream. But instead, Government, employers and unions forged a compact amongst themselves, resolved problems and disputes upstream, and thus maintained industrial harmony. This also made Singapore an attractive investment destination.

We adopt the same approach in tackling many other challenges, be it housing, ageing population or climate change. Recognise the challenges early, take a long-term view, find solutions, discuss, find compromises and prevent problems from spiralling beyond control. We should strengthen this collective, constructive approach and avoid falling into the divisions and dissensions that plague other societies.

Mr Speaker, let me conclude. It is a fact of life that good things always get carried to excesses and then get misused. Free market competition is a good thing, and so is capitalism; they promise more jobs and better lives for people, but they are often marred by greed and exploitation. Democracy remains the best system of governance known to humankind, but faith in the system can be weakened by populism and divisive politics. Social media connect people and give voice to the previously voiceless, but falsehoods and manipulation can also proliferate in that space too.

In all these instances, society needs to recognise the problem and respond, and governments need to intervene in order to preserve the positive objectives and merits of the systems, what they set out to do. 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, understand nature, 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, sometimes not even very hidden.

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.

Academic institutions should internalise the principles I stated earlier. At the minimum, they should not undertake activities that expose their students to the risk of breaking the law. 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.

Governance everywhere, of countries, companies and educational institutions, has become far more complex because of technology and the free flow of information. Governance calls for judgement and that judgement has to reflect the country's norms. Most countries share fundamental values such as the rule of law, incorruptibility and open discourse. But the way these values are expressed will vary from country to country, depending on their histories, social values and cultures.

In some societies, individuals are more concerned about how far can I extend my fist; but in Singapore, Singaporeans worry when my fist will reach your nose. I have tried to explain Singapore’s approach. In an increasingly globalised world, we must not try to impose one country’s values and culture on others, or unthinkingly import values and culture from elsewhere into our society. We must certainly work across boundaries and learn from one another, but we must do so while understanding and respecting each other’s contexts and norms. That is the best strategy for Singapore to progress and live peacefully in a diverse and inter-connected world.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation of what happened in Yale-NUS College. I have two supplementary questions. One is, with this incident, what does it mean for the future of Yale-NUS College? Will the Ministry sort of exercise greater scrutiny on YNC over the programmes it carries out or the lecturers or academics that it engages? And two, can we still continue to have a liberal arts education here in Singapore bearing in mind our local context?

Mr Ong Ye Kung: I will answer the second question first and then the first. As I mentioned earlier, we value open inquiry and critical thinking amongst our students, and liberal arts education will continue to have a place in the Singapore education system. So, from that perspective, we value the partnership with Yale in running Yale-NUS College because they bring us a good quality liberal arts education. From Yale University's perspective, they value that partnership too because they can then have a liberal arts education delivered in Asia in Singapore.

In fact, I would like to add that in NUS, there is a University Scholars Programme, which is quite similar to a liberal arts education.

For the partnership between Yale and NUS to work, both sides must agree to abide by the principles I set out earlier. The withdrawal of this project does not affect the partnership. The standard of the project is so far off the mark, I think both sides agree there are no implications on academic freedom. But I would not rule out that in time to come, there will be incidents that test our partnership. When that happens, I expect both sides to have to constantly evaluate the strength of our understanding and adherence to the principles I stated earlier.

Assoc Prof Walter Theseira (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just have two supplementary questions for the Minister. The first is, would the Minister agree that the AUs should develop clear guidelines for assessing academic rigour and to communicate that clearly to faculty and external parties? The governance concern here is that these standards were not communicated early and properly to the relevant parties; and that makes the decision seem arbitrary.

The second question is that the Minister expressed concerns about the suitability of numerous individuals connected to the case and he outlined criteria for what makes a suitable educator or facilitator. I wish to ask if this means that the policy is, that there should be a black list of sorts, that our AUs should not engage individuals on this kind of list that would meet these criteria. I think this is concerning, because it raises the risk that Universities will overreact and put people on such a list when they should not be.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The first point is a fair one and I would expect AUs to have clear guidelines on how they set their academic standards. I believe they do have these. If it is not done robustly or detailed enough or not communicated well enough, I would encourage them to do so.

As for the second issue, I think we have to leave a lot of room for educational institutions to decide for themselves. Whether a person is suitable to be a teacher or instructor at all, that is a relevant consideration. Because, in universities, to be a tenured professor, it is a very high bar. So, it is not a new concept – it is not just the course content but the person has to meet certain standards.

I do not think it is practical to have a blacklist. We have to leave room for the Universities to exercise judgement.

Is a person who is an activist, therefore, not suitable to teach? I think, no. In fact, it is the reverse. The world over, academics and faculty are encouraged to be activists because you cannot just focus on publications and citations. To realise the impact of research and your work, faculty are encouraged to be active. So, translate your findings into patents, enterprises or, if it is in the social sciences, discuss with the Ministries your ideas and see if you can contribute to policy making. So, activism amongst faculty is actually quite encouraged.

The second question then is: how about political activism? Then, that depends on professionalism. You cannot conflate your teaching and your political activism. You cannot conflate them within a classroom; you have to keep them separate. And so long as they are kept separate, there is actually no problem. In fact, we have Members of Parliament – both PAP Members of Parliament as well as Opposition Members of Parliament – who are faculty members. And so long as they can keep those two activities separate, it is not a problem at all.

But, of course, there is a third aspect, which is, what political activism does the person stand for? I think that matters. Remember, in many American universities, if someone, if a faculty is sexist or racist, he will not be engaged, no matter how good his research is or teaching is. In Hollywood, we see the same thing. If you are convicted of a sexual offence, even if you an Oscar Academy Award winner, the studios will not engage you. Therefore, it is not just the content of the course but also what the instructor stands for. So, depending on the person's history and track record, educational institutions, I am sure, will consider carefully whether this is someone they want to engage at all.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mr Speaker, I have one clarification for the Minister. Earlier in his answer, he mentioned that for this particular incident when the project was pulled, Yale had its own independent report after it reviewed the incident. And at the same time the Minister also articulated the Ministry's position on the matter. So, I just need to clarify whether the review of this particular project was initiated by the Ministry or was it YNC's own introspection that led them to review the matter.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The simple answer is that it was their own introspection and then they informed us after that. And, of course, as they expected, Yale University then raised an eyebrow, they wanted to find out what happened and so they did an independent report by Yale University's Vice President, Prof Pericles Lewis, and they confirmed and they are satisfied that this withdrawal does not affect academic freedom in the University.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): I thank the Minister for the very comprehensive answer which I have found very assuring. I have two supplementary questions.

The first is on the four principles which the Minister had outlined. Assuming all the AUs come up with their own guidelines on what would guide them in terms of the curriculum, in the event these principles and their guidelines are not complied with, how will the Ministry intervene, if at all, and what form of interventions could these take?

My second supplementary question – and this is something I have raised previously – is that in the area of certain topics, whether it is political science or liberal arts, I think a good sensing of the local context is very important. This is where my bias is towards having more local academics than ones who are foreign-based, whether we need to achieve some form of or calibrate the right balance. So, my question to the Minister is whether something more deliberate and comprehensive could be put in place to address that.

Mr Ong Ye Kung: The first question on the four principles I outlined are for all educational institutions. We would not want them to each come up with their own principles. But they have to abide by these four which, I think, are eminently reasonable principles while protecting academic freedom. If it is breached, whether there will be an intervention from the Ministry, all I can say is that I stand before this House to answer on behalf of AUs issues about sexual misconduct in campus, about how their endowment funds are raised and used, and recently about international students in AUs. So, I, as well as my colleagues in MOE, we are accountable to the House about what happens in the AUs. So, should something go wrong, it is our duty and responsibility to also work with the University to resolve the problems and be accountable to the House.

Having said that, I would not characterise the relationship between MOE and the Universities as a regulator-regulatee kind of relationship. In fact, we are constantly in conversation. They express their concerns to us and likewise; and we find compromises, consensus on how to move forward. And that is the kind of relationship we want. Just last week, we had a workplan seminar. So, one foreign academic from the UK who attended it, said that "In the UK, we will never have a forum like this where the university leadership and MOE get together to discuss about the future of universities."

On the second question, the Member has raised that several times. It is a concern that MOE shares. We are taking various steps and I would be happy to outline maybe on another occasion all the steps we are taking to encourage more local academics to join our Universities and make sure we have a strong local core.

But apart from that, on the issue of context and understanding Singapore's context and teaching and doing research within Singapore's context, I would say that it is not just for locals. A foreign faculty can also acquire that sensitivity to our context. So, I would say it is not so much on that front. It is not so much a local versus foreign issue but that I think all academics and our institutions will have to understand Singapore's context and operate within it.

Mr Speaker: Can we have the next Parliamentary Question? Ms Anthea Ong.