What the Yale-NUS fiasco reveals

Man there are so many hot topics coming out of Singapore at the moment I can barely keep up! OK I promised my reader David Hu a post on this issue and I apologize for having taken this long.

david huApr 7, 2012 01:28 PM

Hi limpeh, how have you been? I am 17 this year and is currently studying in a jc in sg. Recently, there have been much commotion about the yale-nus liberal arts college. I have two questions for u, the first ones being do you think whether the liberal arts college can flourish here given the political climate here. Secondly, the burning question in my heart is that how does employers value a liberal arts college education? I have heard some unfavorable comments from my friend talking about how 'useless and stupid' it is to go to a liberal arts college because you are just wasting your time after all. Please take time to answer my question, especially the latter one which is of paramount importance to me as the nus-yale liberal arts college is one of the institution that i am considering. Thanks!

Now, may I begin by thanking David for the question. Do I think that a liberal arts college can flourish in Singapore? Well, it's a question of supply and demand really - I see it as a business really. If there are students willing to pay good money to enroll in the college, then yeah it will flourish. I believe that the association with Yale will certainly lend a certain amount of prestige factor to the Yale-NUS College - can you go wrong with such a formula? NUS is a great university, so is Yale. Can such a marriage produce an offspring which is just as brilliant if not more brilliant than both parents? Hmmm... I believe there will be the cynics who will say, "yeah it's not Yale is it?"

I am afraid it may turn out to be the poorer cousin who is a distant relative but is simply not the real thing. We have a good example in the UK - there's Oxford Brookes University, the first response that you will get is always this, "yeah but it's not the real Oxford University is it?" So the bottom line is that it depends a lot on supply & demand and given that they expect to launch next August, it may be a bit premature to try to judge their success before their launch?

And as for how employers see a liberal arts college education, well I am not going to give you a simple answer: I have discussed this issue last year: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/q-getting-job-in-finance.html, http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/q-jobs-in-banking-part-2.html and http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/for-peixian-business-world.html to name a few. But for your sake, let's revisit this issue. Employers certainly don't expect universities to teach you everything you need to know for the job - there are some jobs which depend on a high degree of technical knowledge that they will teach you at university (medicine, engineering, architecture) and then there's the world of business where you're expected to learn practically all of what you need to know on the job (marketing, banking - the business world in general). What is the point of bothering with a degree then? It is simply a piece of paper that proves to the employer that you're of high calibre.

Now I am going to use the example of the UK as we have over 100 universities here and I am going to use the current league tables which ranks these universities as a guide. You may view the most recent UK league table here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012  At the top of the list, to get into any of the top 5 universities: Cambridge, Oxford, St Andrews, LSE and UCL - well you need to be pretty awesome and have excellent grades. But anything towards the lower end of the table, come on - you don't need to be a genius to figure this out. Would excellent students with good grades go to a university languishing at the wrong end of the league table? Hell no. There's an element of GIGO = garbage in, garbage out. These universities take in students with very poor grades and as the saying goes, you can't polish a turd. They dumb down the courses, make the exams very easy so they won't end up failing all of these stupid students and the result is that these degrees from such crap universities are not worth the paper they are printed on.

So if I were to take two Singaporeans who have UK degrees - Lee Kuan Yew and Seng Han Thong, a look at their universities is a simple and direct way to verify if they are made of good stuff or rubbish.

Lee Kuan Yew: Cambridge, Law no. 1 out of 95  (ie. best law department in the whole UK)
Seng Han Thong: Brunel, MBA, no. 97 out of 116 (ie. they're crap, they'll accept any idiot who can pay the fees, ie. SHT is a bueh-tak-chek idiot, but we knew that anyway.)

Yes it's an elitist world, but the message is simple: frankly, it doesn't matter what Lee Kuan Yew studied that Cambridge, the fact that he went to Cambridge means that doors will open for him anywhere he goes because of the respect it commands. As for Seng Han Thong, well where do we begin with this joker? I still can't figure out why the hell the PAP would want to be associated with a joker like that when there is no shortage of quality graduates from much better universities within the PAP.

In short, Seng Han Thong is a bueh-tak-chek idiot because he cannot get into a better university, that's why he ended up with an MBA from a university rotting away at the bottom of the league tables. Now, back to your question: can we treat all liberal arts colleges as a monolithic entity? Hell no. There are good ones and bad ones - and that's what league tables are for. Frankly, as an employer, I'm far less interested in what you studied, I'm far more interested in where your university ranks in the league table - that will instantly tell me if you're made of good stuff or crap.

And moving on to the Yale Resolution: oh I find you Singaporeans so predictable - but hey, don't get me wrong, I have witnessed PRCs behaving in exactly the same way. I don't understand why you Singaporeans are so insecure! You see Singaporeans moaning and groaning (or as we say in Hokkien: kao beh kao bu) all the time about the government, just take your pick: Temasek Review, Temasek Times, Stomp, TheOnelineCtizen and all over social media - there's no shortage of Singaporeans complaining about the current state of affairs in Singapore. But hey, these are primarily Singaporean websites read by Singaporeans, so we're just talking amongst ourselves, so that's okay, right? Certainly in light of recent events, there is no shortage of anti-PAP/anti-government rhetoric on these websites.

What happens when a foreigner, say a bunch of Americans get involved and want to express an opinion - even if it is simply agreeing with everything you have just said? Oh no, Singaporeans default to the "angmors are being racist, angmors hate us Asians, America must hate Singapore" and suddenly they get all up in arms and go on the counter attack. It saddens me that Singaporeans always default to playing the race card whenever there is a white person involved or in this case, a group of Americans (who may not all be white). My only conclusions is this: Singaporeans are by default racist to be begin with - so they naturally assume that other people (Americans in this case) are equally racist: an assumption which I believe is very wrong. I used to think that it is merely the older generation who are racist, but in light of recent events, I fear my assumption has been proven wrong.

Take this blog post for example: "Yale's self-righteousness is a joke" or this one "Yes, why should we work with Yale?"  Their arguments basically boils down to the argument that America doesn't have a great record when it comes to human rights (and I totally agree with that point) so Yale is in no position to lecture Singapore on human rights... Right?

Woah. Hold on a minute. Slam on the brakes. Can someone pull the emergency brakes please. Thank you. Like this person doesn't even freaking know what human rights are to begin with.

Salah lah uncle. Aiyoh awak yang sangat salah lah alamak. ("Mistake uncle, You are most mistaken, goodness me.") Don't confuse Yale with the American government.

Firstly, Yale is a university, an academic institution, whilst the enforcement of the law in America (which defends or curtails one's human rights in the USA) is the business of the US government. The academics at Yale are not involved in law enforcement, nor the creation of legislation which determines the human rights of people in America - that is done by the politicians and the law enforcement agencies (local police, criminal justice system, CIA, FBI etc). What are human rights? Now the link on wikipedia will explain it to you in full http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights but here are some of the ones that I'll like to look at:

• freedom of speech
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• the treatment of minorities 
• the treatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities 

Now these are by no means all the human rights there are - but these are the ones that concern most human rights activists. There are many more but I cannot talk about them all for now. Now all these issues are pretty much determined by the government's laws on each of those issues: take freedom of speech for starters. Singaporeans complain all the time about the censorship enforced in our media - most recently, there was an unspoken media blackout on the nationalities of the PRC drivers who have been involved in a spate of accidents. When there is an accident involving a local, the details would be in the newspapers - but if it involves a PRC driver, they seem to enjoy special privileges in having their identity concealed by the authorities. 

So as academics in Yale (in New Haven, Connecticut), whilst they have little or no influence over what the legislators 500 km away in Washington DC do when they make laws concerning human rights in the USA, it shouldn't stop them studying their society and talking about it. That's what universities do - they use academia to provide a framework to help us understand the complex societies that exist in our vibrant world.  Yale is such a respected university because they do it so well. By that token, Yale is equally critical of the American government - that's what they do as academics, they look at the way things are in the world, they study societies and they make observations like that. It's nothing personal - it's simply a question of being subjected to academic scrutiny. Now Singaporeans are afraid of this scrutiny. If they are going to be in the spotlight, they want it to look something like this: 

Now what you see in the video above, is a tightly choreographed, heavily edited presentation, which sells a certain vision of Singapore to the world. My first impression when I saw that ad was, "who would wear a jacket like that in Singapore when it's always so bloody hot?" Okay, he could be going to somewhere with very strong air-con I suppose - but a hawker centre? But there you go, that's my response as someone who has spent 21 years in Singapore. It is hard to watch an ad like that an actually walk away with anything negative to say about Singapore if you didn't know much about Singapore - and that's what Singaporeans like the west to do: present a squeaky clean image of a wonderful, modern city. Now the Yale reaction is based on academics digging deeper, beyond the sleek and flashy ads and looking at what is actually going on in Singapore. Is that any different from what Singaporean netizens are doing amongst themselves anyway?

The US Capitol on Capitol Hill Washington DC - not part of Yale, DUH!

Now if the American government were to start lecturing the Singaporean government about human rights, then yeah you have the right to tell them to fuck off and mind their own business. But wait a minute - this is Yale. These are a bunch of academics, not a bunch of politicians. The Singapore government does exert a lot of influence and control over NUS - but that is not the case with Yale! And what's more, these are a bunch of academics whom you're supposedly in partnership with, working together on the NUS-Yale College project. Surely that gives them the right to express an opinion about Singapore and when they speak, we'd jolly well listen. 

Now this reminds me of something I witnessed at the Peach Blossoms Marina Mandarin restaurant last year - I was there for a business dinner with some local clients and the food is excellent (but oh so overpriced). I saw this couple at the table next to us and I couldn't help but overhear what they were saying. I didn't turn around to look at them, but the conversation went like this:

Oh the food there was heavenly... if not expensive! 

Woman: Why we eat Chinese food again? I thought you said we could go eat Italian food today. I said I want to eat pasta. 

Man: You can eat Italian food anytime. This is what I want to eat today. You can order some noodles. 

Woman: I told you I don't like this place one. 

Man: Shaddup lah. When you start paying for our meals, then you get to pick where we eat. Until then, shut up and enjoy the food. You want me to pay, you jolly well eat what I wanna eat.
Woman: Why you so like dat one? I say say only cannot meh? 

"Shaddup and drink your soup lah..."

Now Singaporeans expect a lot from this NUS-Yale partnership, especially since Singapore is footing the bill for NUS-Yale. Now Singapore is behaving like the man in the Peach Blossoms restaurant. In fact, this was clearly explained in an article in Asia One by Kenneth Lim entitled 'Can't Buy Me Love'. However, what is the point of entering into such a relationship with one of the world's top academic institution if they are simply going to treat it as a business venture, where they sell their good name to the highest bidder and simply smile and pose for photos like a trophy wife who keeps her mouth shut? These are academics you're engaging with and they have a valid point. 

Listen you Singaporeans, maybe if you had made yourselves more clear before getting this far in the process, then there wouldn't be any misunderstandings. If all you wanted was a trophy wife relationship whereby you're the man in charge, then say so - but don't go into a relationship with Yale as equals and then throw a hissy fit when they actually open their mouths and express an opinion. 

After all, how many Singaporeans actually read what the academics at Yale said? Here is the full text: 

“We, the Yale College Faculty, express our concern regarding the history of lack of respect for civil and political rights in the state of Singapore, host of Yale-National University of Singapore College. We urge Yale-NUS to respect, protect and further principles of non-discrimination for all, including sexual minorities and migrant workers, and to uphold civil liberty and political freedom on campus and in the broader society. These ideals lie at the heart of liberal arts education as well as our civic sense as citizens, and they ought not to be compromised.”

Now let's see... civil and political rights, sexual minorities, migrant workers, civil liberty, political freedom - aren't these all hot topics for Singaporeans that we talk about all the time, which I have covered on my blog?  So why the anger amongst Singaporeans just because it came from a group of Americans in Yale instead of of group of people in Ang Mo Kio or Yishun? 

This reminds me of an incident that I talked about in a post last year: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/bbc-and-chinese-community-in-uk.html Allow me to quote myself: 

In 2008, I was performing at a kungfu display at a Chinese New Year event in London with a bunch of performers from China. (Yes Limpeh does adhere to the Chinese stereotype of doing kungfu/wushu - I even do lion dance and dragon dance.) We had arrived early, done our rehearsals and had some time to kill. I took a catnap and when I awoke, I just sat quietly in the corner of the room with my eyes closed - awake enough to hear the conversation that the other performers were having whilst still appearing to be asleep to the rest of them. 

They were having this heated discussion about the Chinese government and were extremely critical about the way their country was run. I grew increasingly interested as I eavesdropped for several minutes before finally opening my eyes and sitting up when they talked about the issue of Tibet and how the Chinese government had mishandled the whole issue altogether. I was pleasantly surprised at just how very critical of the Chinese government they were and I began to wake up and take more interest in the conversation.
I perked up and asked (in Mandarin), "So what do you think the right solution is to the tricky issue of Tibet then?"

"The Chinese government is doing a great job about the issue, it is not tricky at all."

"We trust our government to do the right thing - they have the best brains in power handling it."
"The West really doesn't understand Tibet - they are too quick to pass judgement on the situation."
"There are two sides to every story and people in the west do not bother to find out the whole story."
etc
Suddenly from being highly critical of their government, the moment they realized I was a part of that conversation, they were all rushing to defend and praise the Chinese communist government. 

You see - the Chinese are so paranoid of the west looking down on them; there is this crazy, unfounded fear of racism. The assumption of many Chinese people is that white people will be anti-Chinese and racist and it is up to the white person to prove that he is not a racist. So the default position is always to defend China against the racist white foreign devil - but what did surprise me was the fact that they considered me to be a racist foreign devil, even though I am Chinese and speak Mandarin fluently like them. But I will always be considered a foreigner - a Singaporean at best but never ever properly Chinese in their eyes.
Is this unfounded, crazy paranoia any basis of Anglo-Chinese/Sino-British race relations? 

There you go, now we have Singaporeans acting exactly the same way as those PRCs did when I tried to talk to them about Tibet. It's silly, it's crazy and it's downright ridiculous - especially since the west is not racist towards Singaporeans and they definitely don't look down on Singapore. Quite on the contrary, Singapore is seen as this model state where the government is super efficient and they are so good at making money that they have turned the island nation with no natural resources into the world's third richest country. In the words of Sandra whom I had interviewed, when I asked her what she thought of Singapore after having worked there, she said, "What an amazing country! It's beautiful. So modern. Very, very hot. Very clean and very expensive."

Beautiful, modern, hot, clean and expensive.

Sandra's opinion is pretty much representative of what people in the west think of Singapore - apart from the mention of Michael Fay, it is usually 99% positive and filled with admiration, even envy for having such an efficient government. Like I said before, Singaporeans have absolutely no reason to worry about the west (or any other country) looking down on them - so why this paranoia the moment a bunch of Americans make an observation?

Now to conclude, let me answer to a question that was left by 'Nala' as a comment on my previous post: "Yes there are increasing numbers of foreigners in Singapore, but again blame the government policies instead of directing their anger and discrimination against the people coming in. People are, like you, just looking for better opportunities, and if they can be found here with the lax immigration policies, why blame them for coming? I'm just curious how people like you think. I can understand the average Singaporean, without much exposure overseas, thinking this way and being highly xenophobic, but I'm unsure why you, with your extensive foreign work experience, would want all migrant workers from a certain country to leave as well."
.
It's quite simple really - it's not pure xenophobia against foreigners, it has entirely got to do with the fact that PRCs do not assimilate. If they assimilated, Singaporeans would welcome them with open arms - but clearly, that is not the case.

You know, it is so ironic that PRCs look at Singapore with a lot of admiration - I know as I have worked with many PRCs over the years in London, Dubai, Shanghai, Crete, Prague and Istanbul (yeah PRCs are everywhere these days...) The PRCs love and respect Lee Kuan Yew - they see him as a demi-god who can deliver miracles and they have every reason to do so give his track record. That is why so many of them want to come and live in Singapore. The moment I tell them I'm from Singapore, the first thing they tell me is usually something along the lines of, "李光耀很厉害! 李光耀很聪明!" (Lee Kuan Yew is brilliant! Lee Kuan Yew is very intelligent!") Heck, they worship and adore him far more than the local Singaporeans do.

Okay, you can't give just one man the credit for the success of the Singapore story - we have a unique way of doing things in Singapore, one that has created this success story envied by so many all over the world. People in the west look at Singapore and marvel: this is a tiny island state which is mostly made of Chinese people - but they are so much richer and more successful in every which way when you compare them to the mainland Chinese. They may be Chinese, but they're doing something special which makes them more successful than the mainland Chinese. Many just chalk this up to Lee Kuan Yew's special vision for Singapore.

Call it what you want - but Singapore has this certain "je ne sais quoi" that makes us successful. It's not one thing - it's a combination of so many factors from our values to our education system to our ethics to our social harmony that makes us succeed as a nation. Well guess what? This "je ne sais quoi" is slowly and surely being diluted by the millions of PRCs like Sun Xu who come here and have no interest in learning what this wonderful Singaporean formula is. They're not interested in assimilating or learning our ways - hell no, they think of us as dogs and cause such social problems (and they make pretty bad bus drivers too). If things go on like that, Singapore will lose its edge, it will stop being special and it will become just another ugly Chinese city like those overcrowded, ugly cities in mainland China. In short, you will lose your edge over China by becoming like China in importing so many PRCs who have no desire to assimilate.

And when that time comes (note I am not saying if, I am saying when), heck, the academics at Yale wouldn't even bother taking a second look at Singapore, ooh with someone like Sun Xu as an MP or minister. Yale wouldn't even take NUS' calls then.

So Singaporeans, will you guys just chill over this whole Yale issue? If you're still buay-song, then leave a comment and let Limpeh know what you think, thanks.

PS. If you have enjoyed this, you will want to read my other posts on the "what this reveals" series:
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/what-sengkang-bus-159-accident-reveals.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/smrt-impact.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/q-sun-xu-saga.html
http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/swiss-ft-vs-singaporeans.html