The Yale-NUS Saga continues part 1 of 2

This post is in reply to this post here where Limpeh has been criticized big time, so please start by reading this post by Barrie: http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/yale-supporters-thoughts-are-as-one.html which was in response to my original post on the Yale-NUS Saga here: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/what-yale-nus-fiasco-reveals.html You may need to read these pieces first, then you can grab a cup of coffee and let's begin, okay?

I am only going to do this once because I said I'll do it. For the record, Barrie has left me some rather rude and nasty comments on my blog which I have deleted. All that name-calling was uncalled for Barrie. (All comments are moderated.)  Now Limpeh is not bothered by strong language nor am I PC in any way, I am pretty easy going and happy for people to disagree with me, tell me I am wrong, I tell them they're wrong and we thrash it out. That's fine - but this Barrie got pretty personal and this is the kind of petty behaviour that has stopped me from participating on Singaporean forums. So this is a one off for my readers (as much as for his readers), okay? I don't wanna get into a flame war as that kinda shit is just stupid, so with some trepidation, let's begin.

I welcome a friendly debate but I am not interested in a flame war, no thanks.

For those of you who didn't bother to click on that link (and I know some of you won't click on that link), let me summarize it for you in a nutshell. Basically Barrie's points can be summarized as follows:

• NUS has no control over what the Singapore government does. Like Yale, NUS is but an academic institution. 
• The US government has a lousy record on human rights, so Yale has no right to talk about human rights. 
• Muslims in the US are subject to a lot of harassment by the police. 
• S377A (criminalizing gay sex between consenting adults) is okay because it's not as bad as what America does to their Muslims. 
• I was referred to as a "UK/European wannabe Sg blogger"

LOL, after compiling these bullet points, this is going to be easier than I thought when I realize just how flimsy his argument is. Oh dear, this Barrie has a very "Yale insult Singapore, I very lose face one you know? So I must attack them back." attitude. Let me deal with these points one at a time.

"Never mind that the very excuse to absolve Yale is that it is the US govt and not Yale who abuses Human Rights. Problem is, if that is good excuse to absolve Yale, why not NUS, which also has no control over what the Sg govt does?
See the one dimension mindset? Yale right means NUS wrong. Duh."

Hold on. Pull the hand brake. let's go back to Yale's statement, which I shall cut and paste for your reference:

“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 I have absolved Yale from the US government's abuse of human rights as they are a university, an academic institution and not part of the government. But where does NUS come into the argument? NUS is not and was never part of the argument. So why is Barrie dragging NUS into the argument when it wasn't even mentioned in the Yale statement? Could it be a less-than-subtle and very desperate measure to try to get NUS students (current and alumni) in his side to try to insinuate that they have been disrespected by either Yale or myself?

Look, if NUS actually did say anything - say if NUS criticized the US government for their record on human rights or if they had even responded to this statement by Yale in any shape or form, then yeah I might have passed some judgment on the role of NUS and their choice of response. But as such, NUS didn't say anything - all these counterattacks on Yale (and all that about American human rights abuses) didn't come from NUS, oh no, they came from Singaporean netizens who do not represent or speak on behalf of NUS. What is going on here? Is Barrie confusing Singaporean netizens for the NUS and basing this entire counter-argument on that confusion?

The Netizens do not represent NUS, only NUS represents itself.

So Barrie, to begin with - let's establish a few ground rules here. Please do not put words into the mouths of the Yale College Faculty and please do not put words into the mouths of NUS officials. You do not speak on behalf of NUS and please do not pretend for a moment that you're doing anything more than expressing the opinion of a private individual, much like what I am doing now. NUS has not been a part of this debate yet - the entities involves so far have been:

• The Yale College Faculty
• The Yale-NUS College staff
• The Singapore government (of whom, the NUS is not a part of) 

Now did Yale blame NUS for the lack of civil and political rights in Singapore? No.
Did Yale ask NUS to do anything to try to improve the human rights situation in Singapore? No.
What did Yale ask Yale-NUS to do? I refer you back to the statement: the answer is there. Do not get carried away and do not put words in Yale's mouth. Do not misquote them and do not misrepresent them. You do yourself no favours in doing so and you only discredit yourself if you insist on doing so.

Yale-NUS is (like Yale and NUS) just an academic institution at the end of the day and all the Yale faculty has asked Yale-NUS (note, not the Singapore government, but just Yale-NUS) to do is 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." Why should they do that as a liberal arts college?  "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.”

I'm sure the academics at Yale are no fools when it comes to Singaporean politics - nothing they do or say can affect any kind of major change in the political situation on the ground in Singapore. They may offend some people, spark off some debates (like the one we're having now) but at the end of the day, things will return to status quo after the dust has settled. What they can do is to influence the way Yale-NUS conducts itself in their academic research, the way they treat and teach their student cohort and the way they represent the name of Yale in Singapore and Asia.

By that token NUS doesn't even come into the picture at all. The academics at Yale were concerned about the development of Yale-NUS College as a liberal arts college - NUS (not to be confused with Yale-NUS) was never once mentioned in their statement - so this was never about NUS per se, but more about the faculty at Yale-NUS being able to deliver in Singapore.

Please note that I am not blindly condoning what Yale has done - I am merely pointing out that anyone who enters into a joint-venture like that would try to exert some influence over what happens. Is this statement the most tactful, effective way to communicate this influence? No, it isn't, not in the context of Singapore anyway given what Singaporeans are like. Was there a better way to exert this influence in a more subtle yet more effective manner? Well of course there is.

At no point in the statement did Yale ask for the PAP or Singaporean government to repent and change their ways. Hell no. They knew better and steered well clear of that. The Singaporean government is going to do what the hell they want and like regardless of what Yale says.  All they talked about was the Yale-NUS entity and really, if Yale-NUS was but the rich mistress of the PAP, ie. prestige of Yale, funded by the Singapore government, mouthpiece of the PAP, then it would have little credibility, not even amongst Singaporeans. It is in seeking a such a partnership with Yale that one gets an international credibility to the institution - so why are Singaporeans like Barrie so surprised when Yale does exactly what one expected Yale to do?

Guess what defined the Yale-NUS working relationship at the end of the day?

Another reader 7-8 did hit the nail on the head when he commented the following: "This is a multi-million dollar project that Singapore should have had the guts to walk away from, but didn't. If you want to talk about maturity, the NUS people should have had the maturity to do the right thing, say "fuck you" and walk away. But they didn't"
.So let's get this straight - Yale was not questioning or challenging the Singapore government, rather it was raising concerns that a liberal arts college (a very American concept) may face certain challenges when transplanted into a totally different social, cultural and political context in Singapore given the situation on the ground in Singapore - how valid these concerns are.... (I'm choosing my words carefully here) are debatable and that's what we must do: debate in a mutually respectful manner, engaging all parties in the discussion without getting overly defensive.

The next point that Barrie made is summarized as follows:  "The US government has a lousy record on human rights. Muslims in the US are subject to a lot of harassment by the police, so Yale has no right to talk about human rights

I agree that yes the US government does have a lousy record when it comes to human, civil and political rights and that the treatment of Muslims in America leaves much to be desired. There is indeed bigotry and intolerance in  America - no one is disputing that. But should that fact stop Yale (or anyone for that matter) talking about human rights?

No, we should all talk about human, civil and political rights - it is an important issue that concerns all of us. Let's talk about the current situation in Syria at the moment. After 13 months of internal conflict, the UN estimates that over 9000 people have been killed, the majority of them being civilians. It is tense conflict that seems to have no end in sight as Russia and China keep blocking any UN resolution to deal with the situation on the ground in Syria. The situation on the ground in Syria is getting more and more desperate by the day as President Assad shows no hesitation when it comes to butchering innocent civilians, including women and children. It is tragic, it is sad and it is a catastrophe.

What should the other countries do? Well according to Barrie, as none of the other countries (especially the US) have a good record on human rights, they have no right to speak up. So we shall all keep silent, look the other way and Assad butcher another 9,000 innocent people? What about the situation in Nazi Germany during WW2 when the Nazis started exterminating the Jews in the Holocaust? Certainly, Germany could turn around and point out America's history with the slave trade and therefore tell them to shut the hell up and mind their own business.

No single country in the world has a completely clear conscience, not the USA, not UK, not France, not Japan, not China and not Singapore. No one is perfect - and by that token, that makes us all the same. We're all imperfect. The world would be a much worse place, a far more dark and evil place if we used Barrie's theory that anyone with an imperfect record loses the right to speak up about human rights and civil rights. Any kind of discourse on the issue is good and should be encouraged, rather than censured. Always engage with reason, do not censor with brute force. America has a poor record on civil rights and human rights, that we know - and with Yale talking about the issue (albeit in Singapore's context), others are responding and talking about the situation in America as well and comparing the two. The logical next step is to look at the situation on both sides and see how both parties can improve the situation in their own countries - rather than saying, "SHUT UP! SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN! This debate is now censored because no one has the right to speak!"

Sadly, Barrie has not followed through with his logic - he has not thought about what his suggestions mean. Imagine if a world if not one dared to speak up - where we don't have organisations like Amnesty International or Greenpeace, where no one raised a finger or even said a word when atrocities like the Holocaust happened, what kind of world would that be?

On to the next point: "S377A (criminalizing gay sex between consenting adults) in Singapore is okay because it's not as bad as what America does to their Muslims."

Ooh boy. Does Barrie realize just how homophobic he has come across in his last post? He can barely hide his homophobia. He thinks that gays in Singapore should be grateful and satisfied that they are not actively persecuted in Singapore. Let me quote what he wrote about S377A.

"Singapore's S377A is nothing more than on paper. We don't have the police going on a witch hunt arresting homos engaging in their sexual trysts. It is only when a crime is committed, like having sex in public, that the police will act. But then again, even heteros are not immune from police arrest if they were to do it in public. What discrimination?"

I am shocked that someone who claims to have lived in Canada - one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world - is still so incredibly ignorant and homophobic when it comes to gay rights. The issue of gay rights go far beyond not criminalizing gay sex. In Singapore, given that being gay is still technically illegal under the law (even if it is not actively enforced), it still creates an atmosphere of homophobia. Let's compare this to the UK where politicians gladly come out of the closet and serve in the cabinet and even become ministers. Now never mind politicians, even ordinary people in business are afraid to come out of the closet because of the social stigma associated with doing something illegal in a law-abiding society like Singapore. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952221,00.html

Take the case of someone in Singapore who suffers from bullying and discrimination in the workplace because his colleagues are homophobic - it leaves us in a grey area because whilst bullying and discrimination is wrong, gay sex is technically speaking illegal - so the victim would be far less likely to speak out and would suffer in silence. Compare that to other countries where being gay is completely okay, the victim would then not suffer in silence and have the confidence to do something about the situation if there is provision within the law to deal with homophobia.

Gosh, I worry if some young Singaporean gay teenager who isn't that well informed and he reads Barrie's anti-gay rhetoric on his blog; okay, Barrie, I know you're angry with Yale but please leave gay people out of this. Being homophobic is not cool, it is not acceptable and I want to counter your argument by standing up for civil rights and equality for gays everywhere - Singapore, United States, it's all Planet Earth.

Gays in Singapore have no rights or legitimacy to their relationships - whilst in quite a number of countries now, same-sex partnerships/marriages are legal and are just as valid as heterosexual relationships. It is an important landmark for equality when a country recognizes that. There are also laws in more progressive countries specifically to deal with anti-gay bigotry and hate crimes associated with homophobia.

Take immigration for example and I have a gay friend in Singapore who has a Canadian husband. He has just moved to Canada upon getting married and the Canadian authorities treats him like any other spouse of a Canadian citizen, there is no discrimination. Whereas if he had tried to bring his husband to Singapore on the same basis, the ICA does not recognize gay marriage and the marriage would be, "technically speaking, what you two are doing is illegal in Singapore and you should be so grateful we don't arrest you and throw you in jail."

Is Barrie really that homophobic - or is he just plain illogical? I don't know him, I can't judge (and won't judge) but my instinct is for the latter. So far, his so-called arguments have been illogical at best and that's me being polite and civil already. I doubt he really thinks that gay people in Singapore should be grateful they're not arrested and persecuted for what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms - yet at the same time, he goes down this terribly illogical argument that "yeah S377A is not perfect, but look what the US government does to the Muslims in their country, it's so much worse!"

On the issue of gay rights in the USA, look - I know, I know, America has a pretty poor record. On the ground it varies from state to state so if you're gay in New England, New York of California, yeah it is pretty progressive but if you're in the deep south in the bible belt, then you're pretty much screwed as they are so homophobic there. Heck, people like George W Bush, Rick Sanctorum and Newt Gingrich (and most Republicans) are vehemently homophobic - indeed, given how Americans have the propensity to be homophobic, isn't it reassuring to know that NUS is working with a university that does respect gay rights? Well, it is reassuring for those who respect gay rights and civil liberties anyway.

Well Barrie, two wrongs don't make a right. The way Muslims are treated in America is wrong - but so is the way gay people are expected to be grateful for not being arrested and persecuted in Singapore. Both situations are bad and both represent examples of poor human and civil rights in both countries and both Singapore and America need to reflect upon their treatment of gays and Muslims. One wrong does not justify the other - that kind of circular logic will only lead to a dark and evil world where we all look the other way when we see injustice happening in the world.

Then again, if Barrie can be so sensitive to the plight of the Muslims in America, then why is he so insensitive to the plight of gays in Singapore? Is he seeing the situation through pink rose-tinted lenses and imagines that the gays in Singapore are all happily having a gay old time, when that is clearly not the case. Given how homophobic Singaporean society is, many of them as still so deep in the closet so they are not even visible to people like Barrie and those who are out dare not speak up because of this prevailing climate of fear. Just because you have silenced the gays in Singapore doesn't mean that they are silent because they are happy and content, they are silent because they are oppressed. Either Barrie has this "out of sight, out of mind" attitude when it comes to gay rights in Singapore - or he really is homophobic and thinks they deserve no rights.

Now there's an element of really poor presentation on the part of Barrie. One starts off with a hypothesis, you do your research, collect your data and then you allow the data to tell you if your hypothesis is right or wrong. What he has clearly done is set off with a hypothesis that "Yale are a bunch of nasty horrible people" and selectively picked data which supports his hypothesis to prove his point - whilst ignoring any data that may prove his theory to be wrong. Well Barrie can do whatever he wants on his blog - but at the end of the day, Yale is still Yale. Come on, who are you trying to kid? This is Yale we're talking about. Why do you think NUS wanted to work with them in the first place?

Now I didn't go through the American education system. My education was Singaporean, French and British and I attended university in France and England. I have no real motivation to support or even like Yale or any other American university for that matter. My regular readers will know from my previous posts that I have been rather critical of American politics. I don't know who Barrie is or what university he attended (or if he even went to a university) - but he does seem to have an axe to grind with Yale and elitism in general (you should have seen some of his nastier comments on my blog where he accused me of being elitist - I have deleted those).

This is interesting because some nutter in England tried to disrupt the Oxford vs Cambridge boat race last week by jumping into the freezing river and swimming between the boats. Valid point, stupid protest. Whilst Barrie is more than entitled to hold a view on the issue of elitism, could his points have been presented in a more cogent manner - or is he merely jumping into the river without a plan? Either way, his "two wrongs make a right" argument isn't going to convince anyone. Tsk tsk.

Part 2 continues here: http://limpehft.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/part-2-of-colours-and-cultures.html