TR EMERITUS

By Fang Zhi Yuan According to a Straits Times report on 9 October 2008, Nanyang Technological University (NTU) fell eight places to No.77 on the list of 200 universities  in the latest survey of international universities by The Times of London Higher Education supplement. Judging from the negative publicity NTU has received worldwide over its censorship of an interview of opposition politician Chee Soon Juan from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) which was due to be published in the students' bulletin, The Nanyang Chronicles, its ranking is expected to plummet over the next few years. The university's broadcast network had ran a news bulletin on Chee after he visited the school in late August to meet students to promote "political awareness and activism" on the campus. Chee was told by security personnel that his "unsolicited visits" were not welcomed and he needs to write in to the unversity for permission to do so. (He has done so and the NTU Students' Union have rejected a SDP's request to organise an event where the party can address students) Nevertheless, students from The Nanyang Chronicle, a university press and The Nanyang Spectrum, the campus television manage to obtain an interview with Chee during his short visit. But school officials pulled the bulletin off the airwaves after three days, and stopped a planned news article about Chee's visit, citing concerns school media were airing "unsolicited views" from an "uninvited" persons. Peeved by the censorship of their university media, NTU students organized a protest at Hong Lim Park last Sunday on 5 October 2008 to protest against the university's policy of censorship which made its way into international news as Reuters and the Agence France Presse wrote reports. A petition was presented for the nearly 70 people who showed up in support to sign. It also sparked off the setting up of an online newspaper, The Enquirer to be run independently and financially from the university. Had the university allowed the interview to be published, none of this backlash from the students would have happened. After all, according to students responsible for the alleged article, it was written in a "non-partisan" and "neutral" manner simply to report on Chee's visit. Given the general political apathy prevading Singapore's university campuses and the unspoken fear of being associated with opposition politics, few students would have a bade an eyelid at what Chee got to say, much less to be influenced by him. Instead, the university officials chose to adopt a hard-fisted approach to clamp down on the students' publications which is supposedly to be run autonomously by the students themselves. It was an overkill and in the end, they shot themselves in foot. The contentious issue here is more of the flagrant disregard of the students' political maturity and ability to think and judge for themselves rather than the point-blank censorship itself. In short, they do not want to be treated like kids to be lectured on what is right and wrong. The university was caught completely off guard by the furore its unwarranted action had stirred, initially publicized via Singapore's largely voracious anti-establishment blogosphere and subsequently the protest at Hong Lim Park which attracted international media attention. As a fledging university struggling to attract post-graduate students, tutors and researchers, to boost its international standings, surely this is a price too high to pay for. Why would the brightest brains be attracted to an institution where its students have to be shielded away from an opposition politician ? For the sake of short-term political expediency to appease the government, NTU has sacrificed its long-term vision of being an internationally renowned institution of learning and research. How an "unsolicited" visit by an opposition politician can lead to an "unsolicited" bad publicity bordering on a public relations disaster is anybody's guess. The resultant outcry has undone years of marketing and branding by the university and it may take quite to reverse the damage.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan "A giant in politics", "A Singapore patriot", "A hero of the people", "A great man", "The father of Singapore democracy" - these are some of the superlatives by Singaporeans to eulogize a political leader who passed away last Tuesday. And no, he is not the "Father" of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, as many would have thought. On the contrary, he is the nemesis of Lee when he was alive - Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, a charismatic and popular opposition leader who ruffled Lee's feathers so much that he once confided in Singapore's ex-President Devan Nair that one day "I will make Jeyaretnam kneeled down at my feet to beg for mercy." JBJ, as he is fondly known, has moved on before Lee, but he certainly made a graceful political exit dignified and unbowed. In spite of the numerous defamation law suits filed against him by the PAP leaders which bankrupted him and banned him from running for public office for almost a decade, JBJ managed to discharge himself from bankruptcy, rebuild his legal career and founded a new political vehicle to continue his struggle - the Reform Party in July this year. Singaporeans by and large knows he is on the side of truth, righteousness and justice. No matter how much the PAP and the state media tried to demonize him for the past 3 decades since he made that fateful decision to enter politics in 1971, no mud ever stick on him. When news of his passing first broke, the state media made a feeble attempt to character-assassinate him again by publishing a "condolence letter" by the Prime Minister to JBJ's sons which contained an ungracious and unjustified outburst accusing him of seeking to "destroy the PAP and Singapore's system". JBJ was also dismissed as being "irrelevant" to the younger generations of Singapore who grew up with little connection to him. They were soon forced to eat their own words when hundreds of young Singaporeans turn up at the wake of JBJ to pay their last respects to him. Within a week, Singaporeans across the generations were galvanized to action: 1. A Facebook group in memorium of JBJ was set up by two Singaporeans, Mr Melvin Tan and Mr Jacob George which has now become the largest group in Singapore with over 2,500 members. 2. A candlelight vigil was organized by the same group for JBJ at Hong Lim Park last Saturday which saw a respectable turn out of over 200 Singaporaens. 3. A blog, JBJ Memorial, was set up by Mr Eugene Yeo to preserve JBJ's legacy so that future generations of Singapore may know the man for who he really is. 4. An open letter penned by Ms Dana Lam and Ms Braema Mathi, and signed by a dozen Singaporeans was sent to the Prime Minister to create a professorial chair in his name at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore (NUS). Foreign observers will be astounded by the cathartic outpouring of grief, love and remorse by Singaporeans who are typically stereotyped as being "rational" and "unemotional" for a man who has been out of the political limelight for almost a decade (JBJ lost his NCMP seat in 1999 after he was declared bankrupt a second time). The media may have forgotten him, the PAP wants Singaporeans to forget him and few Singaporeans know much about him, but every Singaporean from the elite minority, the middle working class to the HDB heartlands knows the high price he paid for his political convictions whenever his name is mentioned. JBJ embodied a youthful, pristine and almost naive form of idealism which many Singaporeans yearned for in a materialistic, merciless and souless society where the only worthy goal in life is to accumulate more material possessions and cash than your neighbor next door. Singaporeans have been taught right from the young in schools that a degree on paper is the gateway to a better future. When they step into working life, they were told that their size of their pay package is dependent on paying for top talents to run the country. Even in their golden years, their forced savings in the CPF is disbursed at the whims and fancies of the nanny state. Where millions of dollars are needed to lure PAP leaders to serve the nation, JBJ pay millions of dollars for just a chance to serve but to no avail. He is a man ahead of his times. His political creed, beliefs and ideals which calls for a fair and just society where Singaporeans can have a real voice in Parliament went against the PAP's self-preservation instincts which has never allowed an alternative centre of power to emerge in the first place. Even his critics and detractors who disagree with him respect him for his unwavering devotion, to his very last day, a true patriot who fought for Singapore irregardless of which side of the political spectrum he is on. On 1st October 2008, Singapore lost a prodigal son. He may be gone, but he will never be forgotten. History will be a lot kinder to JBJ in the years to come and his merits will surely be re-evaluated with which he will take his rightful place as a towering figure in the political annals of Singapore.  Read More →

By Fang Zhi Yuan, Mohammad Fairuz and Lim Siow Kuan (Note: we will be adapting a roundtable format for this article to solicit different opinions from our writers in the Editorial Team.) Prologue In an article titled "The centre must hold" published in the Straits Times Review on 29 September 2008 (page 22), Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew told an international audience comprising 200 diplomats and academics at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London that Singapore was able to have a stable, peaceful society largely because of his policy of treating every race equally. He next cite the example of Malaysia as having a divided society now because of a race-based education system catering to the needs of individual races instead of a unified system in Singapore where all Singaporeans attend national schools together from the primary to tertiary level irregardless of race and religion. This is what MM Lee said: "We also got everybody mixed up in the (housing estates), no longer in enclaves. Every constituency has its quota of the less successful. Everybody has the same chances in education and we choose a neutral language - English. Malaysia threw out English and went with Malay. The Chinese and the Indians decided to have their own schools. Now they have got a divided society." We now asked our panel of 3 writers what they think of MM Lee's remarks. Fang Zhi Yuan and Mohammad Fairuz are Singaporeans while Lim Siow Kuan is a Malaysian citizen and a Singapore PR now working in Singapore. In addition, we have also invited a prominent Singapore blogger and social activist, Mr Ng E Jay who runs the popular sgpolitics.net and a Malaysian Miss Renee Lim to join the panel. We thank E Jay and Renee for their time and efforts to participate in this very interesting discussion.   Do you agree with MM Lee that Singapore's education system plays an important role in its stability and prosperity today ? Zhi Yuan: Though I am a self-professed anti-PAP "extremist" blogger as reported by Zaobao (laughs), I must say I do agree with MM Lee this time. The use of English as the First Language and as a teaching medium for all schools in Singapore has brought up a generation of Singaporeans proficient in English and their mother tongue which has made the Singapore worker so prized and in demand in today's globalized economy. As for nation-building and fostering unity, it definitely had the desired impact of lessening the differences between the races and setting a common platform for them to interact with one another. Well, I do not know Bahasa and without English as the common language, I probably will not know Fairuz (laughs). During my time in primary school, I played with kids from all races - Malay, Indians, Sikhs, Eurasians, you name it, you have it ! Some of my buddies in the army are non-Chinese. I do not see myself as a Chinese or is there any need to fight for Chinese education. I am a Singaporean first and an ethnic Chinese second. Fairuz: Haha, Zhi Yuan should learn some basic Malay (laughs) instead of relying on English all the time to communicate with me ! I share the same sentiments as Zhi Yuan and MM Lee. I am glad I had my education in English instead of Malay ! I took Malay as a third language in secondary school and stopped thereafter, so my melayu is quite atrocious by Malaysian standards ! (laughs) English is the window of opportunities to the outside world. It is an undeniable fact of today. I would go on further to say that a good command of the English language is essential for one to move up the economic ladder.   E Jay: Yes, I certainly agree that a good education system is one of the key pillars of a stable and prosperous society. However, our current education system is in urgent need of reform despite being one of the best in the world, as I will explain in my answer to Question 2. Also, a sound educational system is not the only thing we have to provide. Equally important ingredients for a stable and prosperous society are civil and political rights, a free market economy, and rule of law. Currently, Singaporeans are being denied basic civil and political rights such as freedom of assembly. The entrenchment of GLCs in the economy are also making us less competitive. So while I would agree with MM Lee that our educational system has enabled us to propser to some extent, other areas of society are in need of vast improvement. From your own personal experience, being schooled in the Singapore education during your formative years, what are the areas do you think can be improved ? Zhi Yuan: The Singapore education system is too stressful. There is excessive emphasis on rote learning and memorizing of factual information with little processing or analysis involved. That is why we are churning out robots who can't think ! I doubt this "kiasu" phenomenon will change for the better any time soon. Why ? Because both the government and citizens are "kiasu" ! It goes both ways and they compound each other's problems. Now you see 2 year old toddlers going for special classes, next time we may even doing genetic testing on the fetus' IQ before it is born. No kidding, I am serious ! You know Singaporeans....(sighs) Fairuz: Every Singaporean should learn elementary Malay in Primary school till P6. Don't forget Singapore is after all part of the Johor Sultanate before Raffles somehow conned the Tengku to part with it.  Hey, don't sneer, Chinese 'squatter' (point at Zhi Yuan). We have our national anthem in Malay, our commands in the army is in Malay and our state emblem is in Malay, so why shouldn't Singaporeans learn basic Malay too ? I do not think our Chinese and Indian brothers will mind spending a hour a week learning how to say "Selamat Datang, Selamat Pagi". It will come in handy during your weekend shopping trip to JB, okay ?   E Jay: While our schools are starting to make use of information technology to enhance the learning process and there is now more emphasis on project work rather than just written exams, much more needs to be done to cultivate creativity and independence of mind. Students are still expected to be conformists rather than thinkers. Also, schools and universities are still not providing students a well rounded social and political education. Much of what is being taught in social studies classes is just shallow government propaganda that merely glorifies the achievements of the PAP. Universities also prohibit political organizations from reaching out to students on its campus grounds, for example, SDP was recently told by NUS authorities that they were not allowed to distribute phamplets. With such a closed-door educational environment, students grow up being politically and socially apathetic, and that is very unhealthy for the nation in the long run. The lack of creativity in the student body has also indirectly resulted in declining productivity in recent years, hurting our economy.     Let's ask the Malaysian here: do you agree with MM Lee that Malaysia society is divided now as a result of its education system ? Siow Kuan: I was brought up under the National School system during my time. The scenario then in the early 80s are pretty much similar to what Zhi Yuan has described of Singapore schools. All races mingle around with one another and celebrate festivals, weddings and birthdays together. Sad to say, such harmony is no longer seen or felt in Malaysia today. The Islamization of the Malaysian civil service and society which was spearheaded by Mahathir in the 1980s not only accentuates the inherent differences between the various races, it also creates an atmosphere of mutual distrust between Malaysians. Over here in Singapore, I am known as a Malaysian. Back across the causeway, I am a Chinese first, Malaysian second. Don't you see the irony of it all ? Mahathir and Anwar are the culprits of this mess we are in now. In the 1990s, in order to stem the rising threat of PAS, Mahathir introduced a series of changes to make UMNO more 'islamic' in order to win the support of the rural Malays. During his tenure as Education Minister, Anwar introduced numerous pro-Malay policies in the national school curriculum. One of the major changes that he did was to rename the national language from Bahasa Malaysia to Bahasa Melayu. Anwar is singing a different tune now, but his discriminatory policies during that time ailenated many Chinese who pulled their children out of national schools into Chinese or private schools instead. Till now, I still don't trust Anwar. This myopic political expediency did have some short term gain at the expense of long-term interest of the country. I think Mahathir did realize his folly eventually and try to undo some of the damage with his Vision School concept before he stepped down, but it's too late, the rot has already set in. Lim Kit Siang made a call to PM Abdullah Badawi today on his blog to promulgate the "Full acceptance of “Bangsa Malaysia” as primary nation-building objective and not ketuanan Melayu or any other communal, retrogressive or obsolete concept." before he relinquishes his post. Kit Siang is trying to put on a brave front. He should know this is impossible to achieve in the next 50 years ! How can 'Bangsa Malaysia' ever become a reality while the most powerful political party - UMNO still parries its "Ketuanan Melayu" slogan to win votes ? Badawi is one of the more enlightened Malay leaders we had so far, yet there is nothing he can do to control the Malay ultras in his party. For your information, the next likely Prime Minister of Malaysia, Najib Razak once swore to a crowd that he will not hesitate to "bathe the blood of the Chinese with the keris" should the rights of the Malays be threatened. That was in 1988, if I rememebered correctly. So there you have it - a 'Bangsa Malaysia' with Najib at its helm ? Fat hope !   Renee: I came across your posting in Ani lNetto's website. As a mother of 3 school going children, I feel that I have to respond to your questions. I cannot disagree with Lee Kuan Yew's statement that our eduction system divides the people as I haven't done any research. However, as a Chinese Malaysian, I prefer to send my children to a Chinese school. This is due to the fact that unlike Singapore, the national schools in Malaysia teach all subjects except Science and Maths in Bahasa Melayu. (And even this policy might be scrapped) If English were used as per the Singaporean school system, I might consider a national school. However for nationalistic and political reasons, this will never happen.  The standard of English in our primary schools is so low that I have to buy Singapore English textbooks for my children. Malaysian children who attend national schools whose parents cannot give their children extra tuition would only be able to converse in good Bahasa Melayu. Outside of Malaysia, who would want to employ a Chinaman who “cannot speak Mandarin, can speak a little bit of English but very fluent Bahasa Melayu?” The Chinese schools here are open to all races and students in Chinese schools speak both good Malay and Chinese. There are many Malays in my children's school and they are mostly from the nearby kampungs. As for meritocracy, I support it in theory, but does Lee Kuan Yew himself actually think it can be implemented here, now, without any repercussions? Once you give something to someone, you cannot ask them to give it back. It is not the education system that divides the people. It is the politics and culture of the people themselves. I myself attended a national school. From the age of 13 onwards, I did not have a single Malay classmate. The good ones left, presumable due to being given scholarships to science colleges and those that stayed behind were in the lower classes. Rich Malay families nowadays also tend to send their children to international schools. Due to the above reasoning, I would like to ask Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew to please stop telling Malaysia to have a uniform education system.  We are not and can never be like Singapore. It is too late. Getting rid of the vernacular schools here would greatly reduce the potential of many of our school children to compete outside of Malaysia. What will Malaysians think of MM Lee's rather sharp critcism of their country ? Fang Zhi Yuan: (Cringes) MM Lee obviously haven't learnt his lesson. He simply loves to stir a hornet's nest ! I do not think the Malaysian leaders will appreciate his remarks and will probably interpret it as another blatant attempt to interfere in their affairs. I just hope this will go to past unnoticed without starting another diplomatc standoff after the Pedra Branca debacle. After all, it is an unspoken fact that UMNO leaders love to use Singapore as a bogeyman whenever their positions are under threat.   E Jay: Malaysians will certainly react very aversely, as they have always done whenever MM Lee has unleashed his fury at them. No doubt, their averse reaction is to some extent stoked by the ruling regime in Malaysia. But beyond politics, Malaysians should examine their own situation dispassionately and recognize that their society and political system is in need of serious reform as well. Siow Kuan: Lee Kuan Yew is a controversial figure in the history of Malaysia. The younger Malaysians have little impression of him other than a respected influential statesman of Singapore. However, the older generation who have gone through Merdeka are divided in their opinions of him. Most Malays in the Peninsula loathe Lee Kuan Yew. I am not joking, some really hate him that a mere mention of his name will make their blood boil ! Lee Kuan Yew was protrayed rather unfairly, I must say, by radical elements in UMNO and the Utusan Melayu as a racist, a Chinese chauvinist and an anti-Malay rabble-rouser during Singapore's time in the Federation. Lee Kuan Yew's call for a "Malaysian Malaysia" and his outrageous move to cobble together the "Malaysian Solidarity Convention" together with Sabah and Sarawak was seen as an act of treason by the Malays who were traumatized by his repeated calls for equality amongst races. The Chinese, on the other hand, were ambivalent towards Lee. Some see him as a dogged fighter who is brave enough to stand up to UMNO while others view him with suspicion. It may come as a surprise to you that Tan Siew Sin, who was the leader of MCA then, disliked Lee intensely and was one of those Alliance leaders who pressurized the Tunku to kick Singapore out of the Federation. Even Lim Kit Siang, who re-organized the PAP branch in Malaysia after Singapore left in 1965 to the present day Democractic Action Party isn't enamored with Lee either though their political ideals are essentially the same. When I was with the DAP, a senior leader (whose name I can't recall) told me that Kit Siang wasn't too impressed with the autocratic tendencies of Lee which he felt are worse than the UMNO leaders. Lee's words carry very little weightage amongst Malaysian Chinese today. In a way, he is quite foreign to them and has been out of the radar of their political consciousness for far too long. I do not know whether you notice this: the mainstream media in Malaysia rarely reports anything on Lee and there is a reason to it. So I do not think Malaysians in general will be influenced by Lee's words though of course I agree with Zhi Yuan that it may serve as useful fodder for UMNO.   We welcome your feedback on the above roundtable discussion. Please email your thoughts to us at: [email protected]  Read More →