Posted on 03/06/2013 7:50:18 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies
Singapore likes to promote itself as a business-friendly country where the government has a soft touch. But by firing a professor known for criticizing the government's censorship strategies, ruling elites have demonstrated that they still have a firm hand in controlling political conversation. It should make U.S. universities rethink their research partnerships with universities in Singapore, because such relationships actually help launder the regime's reputation.
As one of Singapore's most high profile censorship critics, Cherian George is guilty of several things. In his teaching, he is guilty of corrupting several cohorts of young journalism students with ideas about press freedoms. In his role as a public intellectual, he is guilty of helping to organize and inform the country's growing community of independent bloggers and citizen journalists.
Through his research, Cherian George has long demonstrated how subtle and sophisticated censorship strategies by Lee Kwan Yew, the 89-year-old father of modern Singapore who ruled for 30 years and still holds considerable influence, allowed the country become "sustainably authoritarian." Singapore's elites, journalists, and democracy advocates have long known about these tricks. But George documented and demonstrated it, with good research and poignant comparisons to Malaysia and other neighbors. And he updated his findings as other figures moved into power within the ruling People's Action Party. Alas, his home base, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), just decided not to give George the protections of tenure. This means his contract will not be renewed, and he will lose the support that comes with his institutional affiliation.
This is actually the second time there has been high level interference with his career trajectory. In 2008, he helped lead a coalition of democracy advocates to lobby for more internet freedoms in Singapore, and helped lead a workshop to teach bloggers about their (lack of) rights. The regime ordered NTU to have nothing to do with the efforts, though that did not stop George from moving ahead on his own energy. The National University of Singapore's Law School had originally offered to host the blogger workshop, but they too were instructed to stay clear. But George helped pull the event off anyway. The next year, his case for promotion moved smoothly up the ranks within the University, but was quashed with little explanation by the University's President.
George is known for a string of investigative books and articles on how politicians in Singapore and Malaysia use the media as a tool for social control. He is Singaporean, has (had) a job in the Communication Studies department at NTU, and his career track has been derailed by the political elites he has disparaged. In 2009 he was promoted to associate professor without tenure, meaning he could have a bump in pay but not the support of a permanent job at the university.
It is difficult to dismiss George on the basis of academic merit. With degrees from Cambridge, Columbia, and Stanford, his pedigree is admirable. He has three books under his belt: the eviscerating "Air Conditioned Nation", the evocative "Freedom From the Press" and a scholarly tome comparing independent online journalism in Singapore and Malaysia that was actually published at home by Singapore University Press. George has been equally critical of the government and the press, so it is not surprising that the country's journalists have not rushed to his defense. He's had positive teaching evaluations. It is unlikely that he does not meet the academic standards of the university.
Such protections are important in every country, and a good measure of how open and democratic political life is. In the United States, for example, it was with the protection of tenure that prominent media scholar Siva Vaidhyanathan was able to call out the misguided maneuverings of the University of Virginia's trustees. Indeed, through tenacity and eloquence he demonstrated to the entire country that business leaders could make surprisingly bad management decisions for public universities.
Singapore has clearly failed a test. But what should such a failure mean for all the Western universities looking to build research partnerships there? The number of partnerships between universities in North America, Europe, and universities in authoritarian countries are growing. And the internet makes this all the more complex, because universities increasingly form virtual relationships that allow for the exchange of content without requiring investment in physical campuses. But not all universities are created equal, and many universities in authoritarian countries are tasked with serving the government rather than advancing knowledge. Singapore's universities—including NTU—invest big money research partnerships and in importing foreign academics. Such co-branding might reassure some that the government respects academic freedoms and values ideas and debate. But perhaps we need a kind of international "fair trade" program for academics. No universities with reasonable promotion and labor practices should make deals with universities that don't have reasonable promotion and labor practices.
George's treatment should raise serious questions for the future of Singapore's research partnerships. Yale now has a significant project in Singapore. NTU alone claims it has over a dozen partnerships with universities like MIT, Caltech, and the University of Washington. Local academics suspect that both the National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technical University have personnel decisions informally vetted by the government. Will the government have veto power over Yale's hiring decisions as well? Since most Western universities—including Yale—have committed to respecting Singapore's laws, will Yale's personnel decisions involve the same informal approval process?
Global partnerships can be great things for universities. Researchers learn to approach problems in new ways, and students are presented with ever more opportunities to learn about the world. But it can be tough for academic in one country to understand the rules, norms, and patterns of behavior for academic in other countries. And for even mildly authoritarian regimes, collaborating with Universities in the West can be a way of laundering their reputation.
In not giving George tenure, Singapore has demonstrated the obvious—that its universities are not like our universities. When an authoritarian government punishes its critics we need to take note. And when an authoritarian government punishes its scholars at home, Western universities have an opportunity to weigh in. Oddly, the Communication Studies undergraduate program at NTU is now entirely led by non-Singaporeans. We should not assume that Western academics can help erode authoritarian tendencies when they build research partnerships with universities in tough regimes. Instead, bringing in Western scholars and firing any local trouble makers may be the safe bet for tough regimes.
What makes anyone think that US universities and US professors are opposed to censorship?
I’ve long suspected that Singapore and its technocratic regime serve as a model for the pro-UN advocates of global governance.
Algore, for instance.
So the government of Singapore is no better than US universities and US professors - that's damning with faint praise.
ot is still interesting to see who does Soros' bidding. Singapore not an open society, says Soros
http://www.yawningbread.org/apdx_2006/imp-248.htm
It's not much of a defense of Singapore to note that China is worse. 'I only killed one person - John Wayne Gacy is worse.'
ot is still interesting to see who does Soros' bidding. Singapore not an open society, says Soros
Soros wears pants - does that mean everyone else who wears pants "does Soros' bidding"?
I don't get the connection.
You can be business friendly AND censor anti-regime speech at the same time. One has nothing to do with the other.
The regime clearly knows what the hell it's doing in the business world, given the fact that Singapore is rich and prosperous, despite being on a barren island/swamp surrounded by poor neighbors.
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt in how they handle the press. We all know that our "free" "uncensored" press here winds up attacking business and capitalism 99 times out of a 100.
Yeah maybe Singapore knows what it's doing here.
This is the link to the article
I don't get the connection.
I believe the intended connection was "where the government has a soft touch."
You can be business friendly AND censor anti-regime speech at the same time.
Singapore certainly proves that.
I'd give them the benefit of the doubt in how they handle the press. We all know that our "free" "uncensored" press here winds up attacking business and capitalism 99 times out of a 100.
Yeah maybe Singapore knows what it's doing here.
Should we give up our First Amendment press protections and become more like Singapore in that regard?
Lovely nation on the paper only, Even living standard is on paper. I lived there for one year and sharing house with so-called upper middle class. Living standard was so low that I used to spend 90% of time outside house. Kitchen was used as closet, they never let me cook because gas is expensive. Bathroom and laundry excess was restricted because electricity and water was expensive. In public or among local people one can’t criticize government. Very suffocating place.
So was this:
TechPresident ^ | March 5 2013 | Phil Howard
Soros tool! </sarcasm>
Probably not - working in Singapore, especially for the government, requires a high level of competence. Al Gore wouldn't even qualify to work in a hawker stall. :)
Soros is a duck, if this influence peddling hatchet job walks like a duck, then Soros is likely behind it. I googled it, and sure enough Dr. Evil has been complaining about Singapore since 2006. He has NOOO problem with China of course.
Professors can be denied tenure, and we don’t know all the details, they certainly aren’t in the opinion piece. It’s dumb for an anglo blogger to expect American Universities to censor Singapore because of the firing of a professor in Singapore. Singapore isn’t called the Vienna of Asia for no reason. Obviously, it’s government protects their nation like real governments is supposed to do.
Are China critics who have been at it since 2006 thereby discredited - or do you apply this strange criterion only to Singapore critics?
He has NOOO problem with China of course.
Where did he say that?
It’s dumb for an anglo blogger to expect American Universities to censor Singapore
To refuse to partner with NTU is not to "censor Singapore."
Obviously, it’s government protects their nation like real governments is supposed to do.
What do you mean by "protect their nation": act to stifle their critics? Should the U.S. government do so in order to be a "real government"?
False. "There are lots of reasons why China invests in authoritarian regimes. And if any of the world’s toughest dictators passes away in 2013, we may be able to see how much China’s financial investments pay off in political influence." - http://philhoward.org/?p=816
I think Singapore is doing just fine.
I know that journalists are my enemies (as they have in US politics chosen liberalism).
I know that the university intelligentsia is my enemy (as we all know).
So two of my declared enemies gang up to attack a government and expect me to line up with them on fourth amendment principles.
I say, not so fast. What is Singapore doing that my enemies hate so much?
The press in Singapore is free to print anything they wish, except for anti-regime speech.
Soros is a felon in France, he has a warrant out for his arrest in Russia, he is persona non grata in Thailand ( http://www.phuketgazette.net/archives/articles/2001/article1301.html ) he has been charged with funding radical regime change, corruption, currency manipulation to the point of devastating economies, and influence peddling in every continent.
Despite that, in the US today, Soros runs the show. The American media, most of which he has “invested in” calls his influence peddling, corruption NGO’s “philanthropy”. Don’t you find it bizarre that all the major news outlets put out articles that are all in sync, including dates, headlines, pictures, and coincidentally each article with the same slant? They are passing off white house talking points as news.
Of course Singapore has to keep public enemy number 1, and the gargoyles on payroll out, or they’ll end up like us. We are NO LONGER FREE my friend, and a professor in Singapore is the least of our problems. The America hating radical activist professors in this country should have been denied as well. They are what formed Obama.
The press in Singapore is free to print anything they wish, except for anti-regime speech.
I'll mark you down for "Yes, we should give up our First Amendment press protections and become more like Singapore in that regard."
Our Founding Fathers would puke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.