Looking through STI today, I had a shock how the venture had brought about a highly-publicised debate of academic freedom in Singapore. Guess it's still pretty intricate to talk about my views at this point of time, but it is very depressing to be a Warwick Singaporean student caught in this situation.
Quoted from Warwick Boar, the Warwick daily papers in objection towards the venture,"Many international students are looking for immersion in the culture of an English-speaking advanced economy and Singapore might appear an inferior location from this perspective."
As a Singaporean, one would feel very indignant about the comments made; after all we have a world-class transportation system and a GDP per capita comparable to the countries in Western Europe. Moreover, despite most of us having ancestry roots traced to non-english speaking heritage, English is our first language in school, textbooks (except for mother tongue subjects) are all printed in English.
Yet the picture painted of Singapore here is a repressed society where there's limited human rights, a lack of freedom of speech, academic rights and where homosexuality is illegal.
Just when you feel the indignance and want to stand up for Singapore; on the other hand, Warwick had been put in a less-than-positive light in Singapore because of its concerns about lack of academic freedom.
Quoted from STI, in the article, No curbs on what scholars here can study: Tharman - "(Tharman said)... it was therefore 'not insightful' to accuse Singapore of fostering a climate that restricts academic excellence..."
And in another article, Insight: Is it hard to swallow? - UNSW deputy vice-chancellor John Ingleson says: 'It often surprises me how people have this picture of Singapore 15, 20 years ago; not the Singapore now.'
It's depressing that while overseas Singaporeans like us are still trying to overcome perceptions of decade-old statements like,"Singapore is a fine city." and "Chewing gum has been banned in Singapore" (even though now they can be chewed for medical reasons), we end up suffering the brunt of propaganda backlash from both sides.
Quoted from Warwick Boar, the Warwick daily papers in objection towards the venture,"Many international students are looking for immersion in the culture of an English-speaking advanced economy and Singapore might appear an inferior location from this perspective."
As a Singaporean, one would feel very indignant about the comments made; after all we have a world-class transportation system and a GDP per capita comparable to the countries in Western Europe. Moreover, despite most of us having ancestry roots traced to non-english speaking heritage, English is our first language in school, textbooks (except for mother tongue subjects) are all printed in English.
Yet the picture painted of Singapore here is a repressed society where there's limited human rights, a lack of freedom of speech, academic rights and where homosexuality is illegal.
Just when you feel the indignance and want to stand up for Singapore; on the other hand, Warwick had been put in a less-than-positive light in Singapore because of its concerns about lack of academic freedom.
Quoted from STI, in the article, No curbs on what scholars here can study: Tharman - "(Tharman said)... it was therefore 'not insightful' to accuse Singapore of fostering a climate that restricts academic excellence..."
And in another article, Insight: Is it hard to swallow? - UNSW deputy vice-chancellor John Ingleson says: 'It often surprises me how people have this picture of Singapore 15, 20 years ago; not the Singapore now.'
It's depressing that while overseas Singaporeans like us are still trying to overcome perceptions of decade-old statements like,"Singapore is a fine city." and "Chewing gum has been banned in Singapore" (even though now they can be chewed for medical reasons), we end up suffering the brunt of propaganda backlash from both sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment