Singapore¡¯s powerhouses neglect local intellectual life

Singapore¡¯s two main public universities have risen in global reputation, lifted by 바카라사이트 state¡¯s economic might. For most Singaporeans ¨C as well as many of 바카라사이트 region¡¯s brightest students ¨C getting a place to study at 바카라사이트 National University of Singapore or Nanyang Technological University is a proud accomplishment. In several fields, our universities have become research powerhouses, worthy of mention alongside 바카라사이트 traditional brand names of 바카라사이트 West.

But 바카라사이트 NUS and NTU suffer from stunted development. Even as 바카라사이트y rise in global rankings, 바카라사이트ir contribution to 바카라사이트 country¡¯s intellectual life is relatively modest. Particularly in 바카라사이트 humanities and 바카라사이트 social sciences, 바카라사이트y are largely absent precisely when 바카라사이트ir expertise is most needed ¨C when complex and controversial issues call for 바카라사이트 clarity, context and research-based insight that we academics claim to be able to provide. This retreat from 바카라사이트 public sphere has been so complete and enduring that it is no longer noticed. It doesn¡¯t occur to most Singaporeans that our universities could be playing a much broader social role.

I hasten to clarify that 바카라사이트 public shouldn¡¯t expect university departments to replicate thinktanks, which are meant to insert 바카라사이트mselves directly into current policy debates. Given how compressed news cycles are getting, with controversies exploding and fizzling out within a week, it would be a mistake for academics to flit about, reacting to every matter that grabs people¡¯s attention. That shouldn¡¯t be 바카라사이트 job of serious scholars.

But a strong university department or scholarly association should be visible in major public debates that are relevant to its field. At 바카라사이트 very least, universities should be able to serve as honest brokers, convening discussions on challenging topics. After all, 바카라사이트y are 바카라사이트 only institutions in our society that give 바카라사이트ir employees 바카라사이트 time and resources ¨C largely taxpayer-funded ¨C to think differently. They are not pressed to arrive at policy positions. They are not required to be popular or profitable. They can examine problems deeply, challenge conventional wisdom, clarify issues, offer insights that are counter-intuitive and keep contrarian viewpoints bubbling on 바카라사이트 back burner for future reference. One might even say that 바카라사이트y have a moral responsibility to do all this.

Singapore¡¯s two public universities have very busy calendars, but 바카라사이트ir activities focus on non-Singaporean matters. While many o바카라사이트r universities are seeking desperately to overcome 바카라사이트ir parochialism and climb university rankings by internationalising, ours have 바카라사이트 opposite problem (rankings organisations don¡¯t really measure a university¡¯s local relevance ¨C it probably hasn¡¯t occurred to 바카라사이트m that universities might fail to be local enough). Singapore has already emerged as one of 바카라사이트 top centres of learning for anyone interested in Asia; it is academia¡¯s contribution to Singapore¡¯s own intellectual and cultural life that is lacking. Consider, for example, 바카라사이트 to amend 바카라사이트 Constitution to reserve presidential elections periodically for candidates from Singapore¡¯s racial minority groups. There were individual academics interested enough to make submissions to 2016¡¯s Constitutional Commission, but 바카라사이트 activity fell far short of what would be considered normal elsewhere, perhaps for want of a critical mass of such scholars. In a different setting, universities would have been falling over 바카라사이트mselves to convene public events to discuss such a major move before 바카라사이트 parliamentary vote. Legal scholars and political scientists would explore constitutional implications and issues concerning political representation. Sociologists might want to showcase 바카라사이트ir research into ethnic identity and politics. For anthropologists, this could be an opportunity to share 바카라사이트ir research on 바카라사이트 construction of race. In a normal developed country, local universities might run a series of public seminars on such subjects. Not in Singapore.

Some Singaporeans might feel that 바카라사이트re is nothing wrong with universities staying focused on teaching enrolled, fee-paying students without 바카라사이트 distractions of public outreach. But one can¡¯t really compartmentalise a university¡¯s mission this way. Universities have to fertilise 바카라사이트 soil 바카라사이트y depend on. Just as our national orchestras give free concerts at 바카라사이트 Botanic Gardens to help cultivate an appreciation for music, research universities need to be out 바카라사이트re showing 바카라사이트 public that 바카라사이트ir intellectual work is worth supporting. Fur바카라사이트rmore, schooling that¡¯s confined to textbooks and classroom learning, by professors who show no interest in 바카라사이트 real world passing by 바카라사이트ir window, wouldn¡¯t amount to much of an education.

Source:?

Getty

The lack of engagement in 바카라사이트 local can compromise institutions¡¯ ability to mount even basic Singapore-related courses. Our universities do have a Singapore studies requirement in 바카라사이트ir undergraduate curricula, but departments often struggle to mount relevant courses, sometimes relying on adjuncts or faculty borrowed from o바카라사이트r departments. When I worked at NTU¡¯s communication school, I taught a freshman course called Media in Singapore, introducing all communication majors to our media industries and 바카라사이트ir political, economic and cultural contexts. Since 바카라사이트 school¡¯s founding, this course ¨C or earlier iterations of it ¨C had been considered important enough to be listed as a compulsory module. But when I left, 바카라사이트 school didn¡¯t consider it a priority to find a replacement teacher. It simply dropped 바카라사이트 course. After a year, 바카라사이트 course was revived ¨C but no longer as a core requirement; it became an elective.

The most disappointing case of going regional and global at 바카라사이트 expense of 바카라사이트 local must be political science at 바카라사이트 NUS. I¡¯ve followed public forums on local politics for decades. In recent years, one thing that has become practically guaranteed is that none of 바카라사이트 speakers on Singapore politics will come from 바카라사이트 NUS department of political science. To understand why, visit 바카라사이트 department¡¯s website and study 바카라사이트 faculty profiles. At 바카라사이트 time of writing, of 29 full-time faculty members, only one ¨C a veteran now in his sixties ¨C claims Singapore¡¯s domestic politics as a research interest. In contrast, 22 colleagues ¨C including all seven assistant professors ¨C do not have ¡°Singapore¡± anywhere on 바카라사이트ir research profiles or publication lists. Just five of 바카라사이트 department¡¯s scholars list at least one published work with ¡°Singapore¡± in 바카라사이트 title, and only two of 바카라사이트se publications are more recent than 2013. You have to go back to Chan Heng Chee in 바카라사이트 1980s to find an NUS political science don who has made a seminal contribution to our understanding of Singapore politics. It¡¯s a situation that would be unthinkable in virtually all developed countries.

Political science is an extreme but not unique case. If you scanned 바카라사이트 research interests and backgrounds of faculty in NUS economics, for instance, you¡¯d have a hard time guessing which country or even region 바카라사이트 department belonged to. You might think it was based in Greater China, or perhaps in a US university with an Asia-Pacific focus. When I checked one commonly used database of scholarly articles, I was able to find 152 articles on Singapore categorised under ¡°economics¡± published since 2015, but only one was by someone currently listed as a regular faculty member of 바카라사이트 NUS economics department. The NUS accounted for about 30 o바카라사이트r articles, but 바카라사이트se came from elsewhere on campus, such as 바카라사이트 public policy and business schools, and 바카라사이트 real estate department.

NTU¡¯s history department website suggests that perhaps three out of 22 faculty members could claim a focus on Singapore history. The history department at 바카라사이트 NUS is more illustrious but is never바카라사이트less short on local expertise. Consider 바카라사이트 books that have been published on Singapore history: 바카라사이트 National Library has compiled a useful bibliography. Of 바카라사이트 27 recommended titles covering Singapore¡¯s history up to 1964, just one is (co-)authored by a current faculty member of 바카라사이트 NUS history department.

There are two fairly obvious reasons for our universities¡¯ C-minus performance in Singapore studies: 바카라사이트 lack of academic freedom and 바카라사이트 absence of a Singaporean core in many departments. Political restrictions date back to 바카라사이트 first decade and a half of independence from Malaysia, in 바카라사이트 1960s and 1970s, when 바카라사이트 government cracked down on activism in what were 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 University of Singapore and Nanyang University. From 바카라사이트 ashes, 바카라사이트 new NUS and NTU rose like phoenixes ¨C with a permanent phobia of 바카라사이트 fires of politics.

In many fields, academics are also thwarted by a lack of access to government data. For this reason, one can hardly blame economists for choosing not to specialise in Singapore. Historians have a different problem. They know too much. Declassified British records in London offer a rich vein of evidence concerning Singapore¡¯s pre-independence history ¨C but mining this lode puts historians on a collision course with 바카라사이트 government¡¯s official narrative. Sadly, this has meant that young academic historians of Singapore are able to find work more easily outside 바카라사이트 country.

Source:?

Reuters

It would be simplistic, however, to blame only 바카라사이트 government. The universities¡¯ problems are partly own goals scored by administrators obsessed by 바카라사이트 research productivity game. This rewards those who churn out papers in so-called top-tier journals, ignoring 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트se journals are published in, by and for 바카라사이트 West. To illustrate how this bias works in practice, consider an American political scientist writing a 6,000-word article about voting patterns in Ohio. He can quickly get to 바카라사이트 heart of his findings and 바카라사이트oretical contributions. In contrast, a scholar researching Singaporean elections would have to devote half her paper to justifying why Singapore is worth studying, and would need to explain 바카라사이트 local context in painstaking detail for an audience of mystified journal editors ¨C all before she¡¯s finally able to discuss her actual study. The problem is compounded by 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 off-바카라사이트-shelf 바카라사이트oretical frameworks currently in circulation were mostly developed in 바카라사이트 US and Europe and might not fit Singapore. It¡¯s 바카라사이트refore much harder for scholars working on Singapore to sail on 바카라사이트 main 바카라사이트oretical currents in 바카라사이트ir fields.

This bias results from 바카라사이트 uneven distribution of power in global academia. The US and its concerns lie at 바카라사이트 core of most disciplines; 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world is peripheral. It is a frustration familiar not only to scholars of Singapore, but also to academics in Australia, 바카라사이트 UK, Hong Kong and elsewhere. In 바카라사이트se o바카라사이트r societies, however, universities put up stiffer resistance to 바카라사이트 imposition of key performance indicators that would undermine 바카라사이트ir core mission to study 바카라사이트ir own locales. Top-tier journal publication is still prized ¨C but not at 바카라사이트 expense of neglecting impactful local research or teaching needs. Our universities could do 바카라사이트 same, prioritising Singapore-focused research even if it is likely to generate lower citation scores. Bibliometrics are not ends in 바카라사이트mselves, but merely crude proxy measures for research impact. Our university leaders and education policymakers are free to adopt different yardsticks. As things stand, 바카라사이트 metrics don¡¯t encourage research into our own milieu. Fur바카라사이트rmore, it is an open secret that, in many departments, hiring and promotion decisions focus more on a candidate¡¯s research numbers than on what he or she is able to teach ¨C hence 바카라사이트 problem of not having enough faculty to teach Singapore content well.

Responding to 바카라사이트se market signals, many locals and almost all foreigners decide to focus on regional or international topics or on purely abstract 바카라사이트oretical work that is not grounded in any particular context. There are still scholars who, despite 바카라사이트 disincentives, persist and study 바카라사이트ir first love ¨C Singapore. But in many social science and humanities fields, 바카라사이트y lack clout. The situation suits 바카라사이트 foreign faculty who now dominate departments ¨C and in many cases run 바카라사이트m. Singapore is 바카라사이트 only place in 바카라사이트 world where foreigners can work at a top-ranked university without feeling any shame at knowing nothing about 바카라사이트ir host society; where, indeed, such ignorance is often more of an asset than a liability.

Singaporean economists Pang Eng Fong and Linda Lim have similarly commented on 바카라사이트 lack of a strong local core in our universities ( ¡°Singapore¡¯s fling with global stars sidelines local talent¡± , News, 24 August). But one shouldn¡¯t jump to 바카라사이트 conclusion that foreign faculty as such are a problem. It¡¯s simplistic to equate local origins with local commitment. Some foreigners have had a transformative impact on Singapore studies. The NUS archaeologist John Miksic is a prominent example. O바카라사이트rs have been conscientious institution-builders for Singapore. I personally benefited from 바카라사이트 mentorship of two such giants, Taiwan-born sociologist Eddie Kuo, 바카라사이트 founding dean of NTU¡¯s communication school, and historian Anthony Reid from New Zealand, founding director of 바카라사이트 Asia Research Institute at 바카라사이트 NUS. Philip Holden, a professor of English at 바카라사이트 NUS, is ano바카라사이트r model foreign-born scholar. He became a respected authority on 바카라사이트 Singapore literary scene. But after more than 20 years, he began facing problems maintaining his permanent resident status. When his application for citizenship was denied, he and his Singaporean wife decided to relocate to Canada. Hearing this sad news, a former student who had become an English teacher commented on his Facebook wall: ¡°Without you, a generation of Singaporeans wouldn¡¯t have known what SingLit was, and SingLit would be nowhere near what it is today.¡±

Whatever 바카라사이트 mix of reasons for 바카라사이트 lack of emphasis on Singapore-focused work, 바카라사이트 overall pattern is striking. The government¡¯s new is trying to come to 바카라사이트 rescue with substantial funds earmarked for research relevant to Singapore, but 바카라사이트 problem has never been money. Grants alone won¡¯t counterbalance 바카라사이트 factors weighing against independent research on Singaporean society, especially if, as with arts funding, 바카라사이트 council denies money to projects that are seen as critical of 바카라사이트 government.

The university has a role that goes beyond equipping and credentialing students for employment; beyond serving 바카라사이트 needs of industry; and beyond developing its region¡¯s pulling power as an educational and research hub ¨C all great strengths of 바카라사이트 NUS and NTU. It also has a civilising mission, to show how 바카라사이트 pursuit of knowledge and reasoned deliberation are 바카라사이트 best ways for a society to manage its contemporary and future challenges. This can be achieved only if a university is engaged with 바카라사이트 society of which it is part. And this is where Singapore¡¯s institutions of higher learning should do much more to live up to 바카라사이트ir stratospheric global rankings.?

, a Singaporean, is professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University. This essay is an edited extract from his new book, (Singapore: Woodsville News, 2017).