Despite the growing public interest, the ANU is maintaining its official silence on Lee Kuan Yew’s honorary Doctor of Laws. Still no mention of the award ceremony on the ANU web site nor any attempt to justify the award in the face of growing criticism. One can only assume that this is a decision that is proving very difficult to justify in public.
No attempt is being made to be accountable to the broader ANU community on this decision. My enquiries about the decision making process for the award have run into a brick wall. I was referred to the Minutes of the ANU Council meeting of 8 December 2006 but these provided no information at all given that the Lee Kuan Yew matter was considered in a confidential session. I have also been trying to get some details of the relevant Honorary Degrees Committee meeting, but as yet no luck on this either. It is important to remember that the ANU Honorary Degree Rules state that:
A proposal must be addressed to the Chair of the Committee and delivered to the Head, Council and Boards Secretariat who must send it to the Committee for consideration and, if supported by the Committee, for recommendation to the Council. [Note that “the Committee” is defined in the rules as the Honorary Degrees Committee.]
I must admit that I am now wondering if the Honorary Degrees Committee was bypassed in this rather mysterious process. I will keep New Mandala readers posted on this.
A good indication of the level of discomfort at ANU is provided by an email from the Dean of the College of Law that is circulating within the ANU (and outside):
As you know, the ANU is on Wednesday of this week conferring an honorary doctorate on the former Prime Minister of Singapore Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This has produced a storm of protest, both within our College and outside it. The essence of the protest is that it does not sit easily with a College and a University that values human rights and academic freedom to honour a person, whatever his tangible achievements in nation-building in Singapore, whose regime was associated with the erosion of those values and the suppression of freedom of speech and expression.
It is a matter of particular concern that, because Mr Lee Kuan Yew is to be awarded an honorary LLD, there may be an assumption in relevant communities that the ANU College of Law is somehow implicated in the decision, whether by way of initiation or endorsement.
In fact, neither I, as Dean of the ANU College of Law, nor, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else in the College, was consulted on the proposal or took part in the decision. Indeed, I was unaware of the decision until I received an invitation to the ceremony. As I understand it, the decision was a decision of the ANU Council, following a proposal from the Chancellor.
Given that the decision is a fait accompli and, in the nature of things, effectively irreversible, it is a matter for individuals now to determine how they wish to respond. Many have registered their protests with the Vice Chancellor, who has forwarded them to the Chancellor. I have informed the Vice Chancellor that I will not be participating in the degree ceremony. I have also informed him that neither do I expect many, if any, colleagues in the ANU College of Law to participate, if only because of our College Advisory Board meeting that day.
I believe that the decision to honor Mr Lee Kuan Yew was driven in part by the desire to strengthen our ties with the National University of Singapore, with whom we are a partner in the International Association of Research Universities. May I say that, whatever one thinks of the decision, and whatever criticism one makes of it, the controversy surrounding it should not be taken to detract from our good relations and connections with the National University of Singapore, with whom we continue to explore opportunities for fruitful collaboration.
The ceremony is to take place at University House, this Wednesday, March 28 at 11.00 AM. Protests are planned. Another email circulating at ANU states:
I am writing to inform you that there will be a gathering to protest the ANU’s decision to award the former Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr. Lee Kwan Yew, an honorary degree in Law. All concerned members of the ANU community are invited so please feel free to come along and/or invite others to attend. If you happen to have a class at that time it would be a great symbol to encourage as many of your students to go and for yourselves to lead them there. I’m sure most of you are aware of the autocratic and repressive regime that Mr. Kwan Yew presided over, and still heavily influences, so I encourage you all to attend this event as a sign to the ANU that pandering to corrupt (former) world leaders will be condemned by its members.
New Mandala will be there.
21 responses so far ↓
1 John Francis Lee // Mar 26, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I know that I was inspired by the Georgetown University Law Students Expression of Revulsion when the crimnal Alberto Gonzales had the temerity to address them.
2 Chris Fry // Mar 26, 2007 at 8:17 pm
This is the kind of row that will look mean spirited and foolish in a few years time.It reminds me very much of the weak minded behaviour of Oxford dons when over a decade ago they denied Margaret Thatcher an honorary degree, probably the most distinguished alumnus of the university at that time.Lee Kwan Yew is a remarkable Asian statesman and the honorary degree does not imply approval of all his actions.
The small mindedness of bien pensant academics can scarcely be underestimated.Shame on them.
3 Dick England // Mar 26, 2007 at 9:38 pm
The governance of Singapore is definitely not allowed to degenerate into a mud-slinging circus. The contrasting situation in Australia is regarded by many as superior. If Mr Lee gets some mud on his coat in Australia, this will not necessarily reflect badly on SIngapore.
4 Diego // Mar 26, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Lest we forgot, our esteemed academicians who are partly running this blog are receiving salaries coming in significant part from the salaries of Singaporean students enrolled at ANU and who see Lee Kuan Yew as a hero or, at least, as somebody who is responsible for the bright economic future they, or their parents, now hold.
5 Pig Latin // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Chris Fry, true – Mr Lee Kuan Yew is a remarkable statesman. He was remarkable at, as Weber put it, having a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” He was(is?) THE man! If this is something you find admirable then your point becomes all the more laughable, acolyte and sycophant of those more powerful than yourself! For shame! Go live in Merseyside and bare your Thatcher pride! haha
Also, respect to those Georgetown students.
6 Jon Fernquest // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:11 pm
“The small mindedness of bien pensant academics can scarcely be underestimated.Shame on them.”
Shame one those who feel compelled to shame others without substantiating their petty moralising with reasons and argument.
Lee Kuan Yew is being given a law degree. He used legal means, defamation suits to undermine democracy. Politicians in neighboring Thailand were apparently inspired by his example, producing what amounts to a contagion effect. Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew’s brand of one party authoritarian government worked in tiny Singapore. His legacy of defamation suits has certainly been roundly rejected in Thailand.
Furthermore, from the above letter by the dean of the school of law, it appears that ANUs faculty of law was not consulted in awarding the degree. That fact would seem to make the awarding of the degree a sham since the faculty of law would be the one’s defining excellence, one would assume.
Scholars who have enough guts to protest this sort of thing, instead of sitting closed mouth idly watching, or perhaps in fear of some sort of delayed retribution one often gets from acting on principle, should be applauded as heros.
7 Chris Fry // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Pig Latin’s muddled and boorish response probably needs no further comment.,but for future reference he should try to avoid absurdly irrelevant prescriptive definitions which tend to be the resort of the intellectually impoverished.
As a matter of record the Oxford consensus now regards the insult to Margaret Thatcher as shameful as well as deplorable manners.I hope ANU avoids the same mistake.
8 Pig Latin // Mar 26, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Boorish? Irrelevant?!
What world do you live in? Clearly its not one that considers egalitarianism virtuous!
9 anon // Mar 27, 2007 at 12:18 am
Bad precedent for the Faculty. Singapore might not be the most liberal nation in the world, but it is still one of the more liberal nations in Southeast Asia. If the Faculty administration wants to disqualify Lee’s contributions in economy/government-building because of his human rights record now, it will also have to do so for every other statesman in Southeast Asia. And that would be very short-sighted of them.
10 Jon Fernquest // Mar 27, 2007 at 12:42 am
Diego: “Lest we forgot, our esteemed academicians….are receiving salaries coming in significant part from the salaries of Singaporean students enrolled at ANU and who see Lee Kuan Yew as a hero or, at least, as somebody who is responsible for the bright economic future they, or their parents, now hold.”
You’re going to turn me, a conservative, into a Marxist with this drivel. Please stop.
“Wisdom can be bought.” This really does get to the heart of the problem, believing that knowledge can be purchased by somehow cornering everything that has a prestigious name attached to it with money, like NUS and other Singaporean intellectual endeavours try to do, the Nouveau-Riche-Gucci-handbag-Singaporean school of thought, or non-thought, or thoughts with price tags attached to them.
There are some first rate individual scholars and scholarly products at NUS, I use them all the time, but the subterfuge with which the institutional legacies of Lee Kuan Yew try to monopolise all thought and speech, pushing everyone else out of the room, even ironically with this honorary degree, should be acknowledged as the farce (as in play-acting, not real) that they really are.
11 Singapore watcher // Mar 27, 2007 at 2:51 am
The key issue here is not a difficult one people. Academics have a role to play in trying to ensure that the institutions they work in maintain a level of integrity. This is not about being for or against Mr Lee. You can argue that what he does in his own country is his own business (and if you do then don’t moan about what anyone else does either in their country) however when an Australian institution decides to honour him then it becomes the duty of academics and others who know something about his mode of operation to speak up.
I have not seen anyone suggest he does not deserve a level of recognition for what he has achieved in Singapore (although of course there were many other minds that played a major role in the development of Singapore’s economic plan not to mention the many hard working Singaporeans who have sweated to create the “miracle” he receives accolades for). Do you really expect academics not to not speak up on an issue like this? That is what he expects – no not expects regulates to ensure.
And do not fool yourselves Singapore is a country where you can work as an academic and be critical of everyone and everything around you just not the political system of Singapore. Why don’t you complain about that!
And please tell me more about all those Singaporeans who love Lee! That is why there is a major brain drain away from the place – well at least for those who have an opportunity. Oh yeah and why is it that the opposition still manages pull more than 30% of the vote in Singapore despite the oppressive political system I suppose these people don’t count – well their 30% plus of votes only secures a couple of seats in parliament so I guess they don’t count.
Yes and please tell me about how much more open Singapore is than the rest of Asia, even if this were true (and it is surely debatable) it has no bearing on whether or not Lee should be honoured with a Doctorate of Law from ANU it is simply irrelevant to the central issue here.
And Anon I have to say your point is no point. These degrees are given as an honour and so no one has to be offered one and should not be offered one unless they deserve it. So I guess no honorary degrees for any of these people and it will not hurt Australia’s standing in the region one little bit. What will hurt us is when one of our leading educational institutions hands these honours over to people who have not earned them.
12 bangkokpundit // Mar 27, 2007 at 1:19 pm
“Singapore might not be the most liberal nation in the world, but it is still one of the more liberal nations in Southeast Asia. If the Faculty administration wants to disqualify Lee’s contributions in economy/government-building because of his human rights record now, it will also have to do so for every other statesman in Southeast Asia.”
Yes, but why not give Lee an Honorary Degree in Economics then. This would make much more sense and something I would personally would have no issue with – of course I am willing to accept arguments over how much Lee was *really* responsible for Singapore’s economic success.
I don’t think Lee’s human rights records would, or even should, play such an important role in an Honorary Degree in Economics, but an Honorary Degree in Law, it is just beyond the pale to give it to Lee. Lee’s success has not been in the legal field, even though he is a trained lawyer, but in economics or even management.
Chris Fry: Thatcher was an Oxford graduate. If Lee was an ANU Graduate, I would have even less concern if given in the right field.
13 Srithanonchai // Mar 27, 2007 at 5:47 pm
What about an Honorary Degree in City Planning?
14 Ben Lyons // Mar 27, 2007 at 6:29 pm
A quick note on the protest. It begins at 10:30am at University House. All staff, students and concerned members of the community are more than welcome.
Thanks for the support Andrew. Hope to see you all there.
Ben
15 Singaporean // Mar 27, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Being a Singaporean, I take a middle stand in my country’s politics. Not that I’ll be detained if I even say anything (Trust me you won’t be thrown in prison just by badmouthing the country. Doesn’t work that way.)
To the rest of the world, it might be a country of no freedom of speech, strict laws, etc but seriously if not for all these ‘restrictions’ I don’t think it would have become such a nice little city that you can live in without worrying much about the economy or crime rates.
As a ‘brainwashed’ singaporean, I do not at all feel restricted living in Singapore. In fact, I always enjoy meeting up with friends at coffee joints, etc and talk about the ’silly’ politics our government has yet again invented. (And I don’t think we’ve been thrown into jail yet) To us (or rather me and my friends), if those restrictions help to create a strong nation then we’ll accept it. Yes, we may bitch about them and maybe sulk over it for a few days, weeks, or even years but we’ll soon get over it and appreciate what it has helped us to become.
So what if our former prime minister may not be the most popular man in the world but the truth is he has helped shape our nation to be what it is today. And this is a remarkable feat as after all we’re just a tiny red dot, looking from the map.
16 Jon Fernquest // Mar 27, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“And this is a remarkable feat as after all we’re just a tiny red dot, looking from the map.”
Not so remarkable. It’s not so amazing that small Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen or Singapore, and in the future in the Iskandar Development Region across the straits in Johore, can develop more quickly. They are not saddled with the burden of a huge slow moving rural periphery like Thailand is.
The only time that Singapore has come on my radar in recent years is when I heard about the latest act of exploitation it pulled on its neighbors.
My Burmese merchant marine friends told me the stories of how their friends who had dared to defend their rights as workers were shuttled to an airport lounge when they arrived in Singapore and flown back to Burma with the help of the Singaporean government. Their fate after this, who knows.
Than Shwe flies his grandson everyday to Singapore everyday to study, I hear. Than Shwe and other elites received the medical treatment and other services they can’t consume in Burma cordoned off and isolated from the world so they can collect their economic rents. Singapore serves as a conduit for elite capital flight from Burma also, I hear.
Business relations between Singaporean elites and Thaksin business interests are known to the world now.
The solution is pretty clear, it seems. Create a little Singapore in your own country, so you can capture the economic rents for yourself that Singapore has captured. Malaysia is following in this direction, others will too eventually.
17 anon // Mar 28, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Jon, are you referring to the joke that is Malaysia’s Cyberjaya Multimedia Super Corridor?
The “little Singapore” that after 10 years, is best known for the InventQjaya money laundering scam?!?
18 Jon Fernquest // Mar 28, 2007 at 5:47 pm
No, I am referring to Malaysia’s recently announced plans after the failure of FTA negotiations with the US, one of the main reasons for the failure being constitutional requirements on Bumiputra ownership of businesses.
I’m not claiming that they will actually have the political resolve to carry it out, just that it is a good idea, an idea that people might take more seriously given the frequent failure of electoral democracy in largely agrarian states like Thailand:
ENLAI YEOH – AP
Kuala Lumpur – …Abdullah also announced the creation of four more economic regions besides the Iskandar Development Region. They are the Northern Corridor Economic Region, East Coast Corridor, the Sabah Corridor and the Sarawak Corridor. The last two are on the Borneo island in the states of Sabah and Sarawak.
“The opening up of these new economic regions, in a concerted and systematic manner, will literally change the face of the country,” Abdullah said.
The announcements, aimed at attracting foreign investments, come at a time when the country is facing stiff competition from China and India. Still, Malaysia’s economy hasn’t fared too badly.
It expanded 5.7% in the fourth quarter or 2006 from a year earlier, bringing full-year growth to 5.9%. This was slightly better than the government’s earlier 5.8% forecast, and higher than the 5.2% expansion in 2005. The expansion was attributed mainly to the sturdy growth of services and manufacturing sectors.
In its economic outlook, Malaysia’s central bank on Wednesday projected that private sector investment will expand by 10.4% this year compared to 9.7% in 2006. Public spending would expand by 11.4%, up from 6.5% last year, it said. Manufacturing output was expected to grow 6.6% in 2007. AP
19 sith // Apr 19, 2007 at 7:56 pm
[quote=Jon]Not so remarkable. It’s not so amazing that small Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen or Singapore, and in the future in the Iskandar Development Region across the straits in Johore, can develop more quickly. They are not saddled with the burden of a huge slow moving rural periphery like Thailand is.[/quote]
Neither is Singapore in any way has a natural or national resource the size of Thailand’s or any other sizeable countries.
Shenzhen and Iskandar is backed by a sizeable political, natural and national resource hinterland. Something Singapore in the 70s and even today do not enjoy.
The UN nationhood survival evaluation of Singapore when it first broke off from Malaysia is that of failure. Today it has a GDP of more than 100 Billion USD. This look pretty remarkable to me.
20 Gavin Staples // Jun 20, 2007 at 6:20 am
These lawyers often get up my nose. Singapore is one of the most succesful countries on the planet.
This is thanks to the policies pursued by Lee Kuan Yew. If his human rights record was as bad as some of these nutters think it is then no way would Singapore be as succesful as it is.
Self righteousness such as is practised by so many in the legal profession ignores the fundamental realities of life.
21 Md.Haider Ali. // Sep 7, 2008 at 1:35 am
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have the pleasure to inform you that I am a Mass media personality from Bangladesh,Having MBA degree from the Royal University of Dhaka,Bangladesh-Have been working as a managing Director of a Private Television Channel based in Bangladesh.Before holding this position,I have worked so many national and international organisations in key positions.I have vast knowledge in defferent legal issues.Currently,I need a Honorary doctorate degree(doctor of law) from your side.Pls advice me further for my details ,if needed.I am looking forwards from you very soon on this regards.
Thanks & regards
Md.Haider Ali.
Dhaka/Bangladesh.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.