Slashdot Mirror
Singaporean University Snubs Lauded (But Anti-Censorship) Professor
New submitter nifty-c writes "Singapore has invested heavily in higher education partnerships with the U.S. and launched an ambitious program of high-tech research with Western countries, but recent events have opened these links to controversy. Prof. Cherian George at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore, is a communication and information school professor and an outspoken critic of his government's censorship of the Internet. NTU recently fired him, sparking an outcry from critics who claim political interference. This week a group of faculty and affiliates at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet & Society has 'strongly caution[ed]...colleagues working in the area of Internet and society in any dealings with Singaporean universities.'"
1. This article said the man was "fired". Actually he was an associate professor who was denied tenure, i.e. a substantial promotion. Lots of associate professors are denied tenure in every major university every year, and frequently there are cries of discrimination, favoritism, cronyism, etc.
2. In order to get tenure in a major university, a candidate should be distinguished in his or her field (being considered a great teacher is nice, but that and $2 gets a cup of coffee when it comes to tenure decisions). This guy seemed to be best known for his harsh criticism of the government of Singapore... which the university depends on in many ways! Yeah, that sounds likely that they would want that guy on board.
I read the linked articles and I see that Freedom House, an NGO, says that Singapore has the same rating for political and civil freedom as Nigeria. The Economist compares the democracy in Singapore with that of Liberia. So that does beg the question... what genius sat down and said "this would be a great place to put a new campus for Yale!"
qq moar
Singapore is a remnant from the time when Western countries would support any regime, provided it would not align with the USSR. There is no freedom of press, no freedom of association in Singapore. All depends of the good will of the prime minister. But since 1959, only two different prime ministers have ever been elected, and the second one is the son of the first one.
There are elections with opposing candidates, but it's also the case in Russia nowadays. As almost all media belong to the government or the prime minister's family. The election system is over-complicated to engineer a very predictable result. While a large portion of the housing is public housing, the government makes threats to remove state funding in constituencies that do note vote for the ruling party. It is said that there is no 'perception' of corruption in Singapore. On the individual level, it might be true, with upstanding public officers. But much of the country's economy is under the control of Temasek holdings, which belongs to the state, and is a pretty opaque company.
In the end you should not expect freedom if you go to work and live as an expatriate researcher in Singapore. Money, for sure. But as you're getting this money, you also are a pawn of the state to further its control of the population, and help launder the money hidden in the city by corrupt officials throughout Asia.
........Or maybe you shouldn't listen to whatever censorship USA is telling you!
Get a clue
The age of Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Lee Kuan Yew, Muammar Gaddafi, Suharto, and the other cold war dictators is near the end. May the Singapore get the democracy and freedom they deserve. Their right to choose to be the same, but by their own choice.
Singapore is probably the country in the world that is most ready for a democracy. It is still being run by cold war tactics by a old cold war veteran of the league of the great titans of global leadership. A great old man that failed. The Emperor runs his country like so many other of the old cold war dictators.
I would probably have voted for Lee Hsien Loong as a leader. But he should get the change to win as a true open candidate instead of being the son of the Emperor.
Singapore have everything they need for a brilliant society, but it seems like they have to wait for the Emperor to die. The Emperor of Singapore has done a descent job. He has excelled in too many areas to mention. But he failed to finish the job. He build a model society in so many ways, but he has kept using the old cold war tactics long after the need was long gone.
Is it the Asian respect for the elders that keep the Singaporeans from pushing the Emperor down? I might have voted for his son as the leader of Singapore, but not as a Emperor.
Singapore is one of the countries I like the most, but the Emperor and his family makes it hard to be honest. Singapore is a country of lies and fake honour. But very close to be so much more. I enjoyed my life in Singapore, but I could not respect the lies.
Woah.. lets not go on to full Singapore bashing mode .. the country (city-state) has achieved some incredible things.. not least of which is continued economic prosperity amidst the carnarge, as well as an incredibly safe, stable and clean living habitat for the populace. Ofcourse there are gripes, freedom of speech does not stand up to the western definition of it..but atleast they are pretty honest about it.
The city and its government has punched far above its weight. I think it would only be fair to analyse the state of affairs in that context.
when a grouo pf recruiters from Singapore came to our campus to look post-docs to work at their then new A-star research hub. After their talk, a uni mate came up to one of them and asked them about working there. He must have poked fun on purpose because I overheard the recruitment lady explicitly saying its all fine as long as you don't talk about the politics.
Singapore is what is called "guided democracy(GD)". A simple way of effectively saying "do it my way or the highway". However this guided democracy has achieved enormous success and results for the last few decades taking a tiny country and putting it at the forefront of Asia as a pro business centre. It is highly likely that without being a GD then we would be looking at a very different and MUCH poorer country right now. Singapore has no mineral or natural wealth to fall back on, so was their approach wrong? That said when a "Western" University chooses to partner with Singapore and establish an adjunct there they know exactly what political arena they are entering and they deliberately make an informed decision. Additionally it is accepted in Singapore that if you openly and often criticise the ruling Peoples Action Party(PAP) you WILL eventually feel their "wrath" in some way. Thus an Associate Professor at a government University, under these circumstances, quite possibly will not achieve tenure if he is overactive in his criticism of the PAP and their methods. He knew of this likelyhood upfront. Should a Western University now change course as a result of this event? Probably not as Singapore is "changing". The PAP maintained a decent majority at the last election, but the overall 's popularity has been deminishing slightly as voters begin to seek a more open way forward and recent local elections have stunned the PAP in this regard .For a Western University to reconsider their approach to Singapore in view of this and at this time is probably not useful and would be unnecessary.
Singapore is now a hugely successful country which rewards the prosperous (low taxation, no capital gains) but it has become an extremely expensive place to live as inflation is HIGH and property prices are now EXTREME. If you are not prosperous you are allowed to purchase Housing Development Board (HDB) flats (apartments) which cost usually under one million Singapore dollars (yes that's inexpensive ,very inexpensive relative to private property in Singapore) but the occupants often have a long (45+ minutes) communte to work. That may not sound an inconvenience to non Singaporeans but is considered a lengthy commute by Singapore standards. But is has created a visible example of the large gap between the haves and have nots in the country. Just like China vast amounts of private properties have been puchased and remain empty as the owners expect a rich reward in terms of rising prices EVERY year and see NO downside. Just drive by residential skyscrapers at night and look for those apartment blocks with few lights on! This is a visible rendition of the extreme residential property inflation/speculative game in Singapore.
With all the success in Singapore there is now a dichotomy of a potential decision amongst the population. Should Singapore continue with the guided democracy because "it has worked so well", or is now the time to choose a more open democratic governance and take the risks that this brings, in return for a more open society where criticism is accepted as benefitial.
It's their country. They will decide.
It is only news when it is someone in the public light.
This guy claims to have a hate on for Singapore, but he's clinging by the skin of his teeth to hang around this repressive regime?
Since he's so loved by his supporters, perhaps his alma mater Stanford, Columbia, or Cambridge can offer this douchebag a tenure position.
Hey supporters, put your money where your mouth is.
This post didn't get many responses. This was obviously written to get a reaction and deservedly so, but what you are trying to say isn't clear. You are trying to cram too much into long sentences so. Write shorter punchier questions and to start debate you need to end with a clear question.