The Art of Being Me

Just toying with some ideas here:

Expanding on what Dewdney has said above, Singapore is then likely to be vulnerable as a species-nation; its fashion genetic stock dominated by the phenotypes of homogenous dress sense and the worshipping of ubiquitous brands. Without diversity, there cannot be sustainablity for a species-nation.

An absence of a vibrant fashion culture is therefore a testament to the lack of Chance; a phenomenon previously thought to be the hallmark of Singaporean general elections, has also unexpectedly spilt into the sacred domain of Singaporean consumerism. We do not have a chance to vote, nor a chance at something fashionably different. All it takes then, is some ecological fashion disaster to render us extinct as a species-nation.

Perhaps the government should start a national campaign (their favourite activity anyway) to get Singaporeans to dress better, in the glorious name of global competitiveness and survivalism. "Dress Better, Work Better!"

How about rewarding our successful local fashion designers like how we reward our sporting talents?

Or even more irreverent would be the idea of a citizen clothing allowance every year, ala "Progress Package" style, compliments of the ruling party. That will definitely win my vote (if I get a chance to, that is).

Of course this all sounds fantastical and nonsensical, but you should see if there's a link between Thailand's blooming fashion industry and the political climate, to understand what I mean.

I take it that the fee hike issue is "resolved" when this is announced:

NUSSU Circular on Full Recess Week

Dear fellow students,

The mid-semester recess was abolished in AY 2003/2004. As a response to feedback from NUSSU, it was partially reinstated in AY 2004/2005. The mid-semester recess became a 4-day break, with every subsequent academic week beginning on a Friday. This has led to some scheduling uncertainty and has generally caused confusion among students.

After receiving much feedback from the students, asking for the restoration of the full mid-semester recess week, NUSSU has been working hard to impress on the University Administration the importance of these responses. The University Administration had indicated willingness to make a change but however, explained that it was not a straightforward process of simply increasing the number of days of recess. This is because the decision will also affect the workflow for the rest of the year. For example, increasing the number of days for the recess would overlap into the Special Term, the MINDEF black out period for National Service, the examinations period, the marking period, the commencement period, and so forth. Thus, restoring the full recess week required much planning.

Following brainstorming sessions and numerous meetings with senior university administrators, NUSSU proposed various solutions and the Administration has been receptive to examining each one to arrive at the best solution. As a consequence of these efforts, the University has now found a way ahead by modifying the way examination results are to be released.

Currently, examination results are released in three ways: through hard copy result slips which are sent to us, through the website and by NUSPhone. The results are released over a 3-day period so as to prevent the telephone lines from being always engaged.

In order to shorten this 3-day period, NUS will phase out NUSPhone with effect from AY2006/07. In its place, the University has explored other means to release examinations results, while keeping the options of hard copies and website access.

Last semester, the University undertook a pilot project with students from the Faculty of Engineering, releasing examination results via SMS. The system works in the following way. The student sends an SMS to a pre-determined number, provides his/her unique identification number, and his/her results will be SMS-ed back to that telephone number.

A wide scale trial will be conducted at the end of this semester. After the trial, the Registrar’s Office will invite feedback before making a decision on whether to continue with this system. Your feedback on this project will help the University improve the system.

For this semester, the three existing methods for the release of examination results will continue, namely, the hard copies, the website access and NUSPhone, alongside the trial of the SMS system.

With effect from AY 2006/2007, the University will extend the mid semester recess to a full week. The differences between the current calendar and the new calendar are laid out below.

NUSSU will continue to commit ourselves to uphold the interests and the welfare of our fellow students.

We thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

Regards,
Quek Boon Guan Danny
President
Executive Committee
27th NUSSU Council

It seems that NUSSU and the administration want us to believe that an "amicable resolution" has been reached by taking the lead in "moving on" to new student issues. As an NUS student, I cannot help but feel insulted by this announcement of the recess break extension just after the unresolved tension over the fee hike anouncement.

Do students look like fools with severe memory lapses? Are we supposed to cheer NUSSU on for "fighting" for that extra day of recess break, when they are as equally responsible for not "fighting" against it's reduction in the first place? Like what Molly had mentioned, a critique of NUSSU is actually a critique of their position they are forced to adopt in the bureacracy. The circular simply reinforces this point, that the administration can take away one day of recess and give it back; that all changes are top-down and thus NUSSU's voice is negligible.

And come on, our lengthened recess break is 5 days long, and not 9 days long because Saturdays and Sundays shouldn't be factored into the equation. Students, like the university staff who have the privilege of a 5 day work week, need to have proper work-life balance too.

The 2006 Singapore Forum on Politics held last Saturday at NUS and supported by Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung was a good personal experience for myself. I have a few things to say about it, but I'll have to postpone it until I find some time to organise my thoughts. Do revisit this post in the next week or so.

Anyway, for those who missed it, do watch it here.
Double yellow's detailed summary of the proceedings can be found here and a nice analysis from Sg Election '06 here

While I have already decided to move on to topics of greater interest, especially the NYP sex video, it appears that NUSSU has decided to shoot themselves in the feet again by exhuming the issue of the fee hike on my blog, when all I wanted to do is to move on.

To understand what I'm saying, please read the comments left behind by a particular Somebody in my last blog post:

Somebody has also posted his/her comments addressed to Molly Meek's comments:

My friends have defended me well, so I will not repeat some of their points. Instead, let's start by questioning the intention behind these comments: is NUSSU insecure?

Firstly, it is almost intuitively plausible that Somebody is affliated one way or another to NUSSU, and this might explain the tone and nature of the two comments. But unlike NUSSU, Mykel does not "report" claims as facts when he is uncertain. Instead, Mykel would verify his intuitions with some actual data and derive informed conclusions, as what his quality university education had taught him. Therefore, Mykel will present some facts below.


After tracing Somebody's IP address, which was blurred in the picture to protect Somebody (you're welcome!) from Mykel's overzealous hacker friends, it appears that Somebody had found this blog through a Technorati search on "NUSSU", performed on a computer within the NUS network.

Now, why would someone go searching for blog posts on NUSSU specifically and then proceed to leave comments that appear to protect NUSSU's interests? And to do it at around 1230am, where one should have better things to do during the busy term break? Somebody must be doing research for an essay on bloggers' opinions on NUSSU then! If not, what could be driving Somebody to post these passionate defenses in the wee morning hours?

The comment also sounded too formal; much like an official NUSSU circular to students.

After performing data triangulation (again a product of quality university education) where Mykel presents these facts to his friends to check their opinions with his own, their responses were congruent with Mykel's: Somebody must be a minion of NUSSU lah!

So now that we can believe reasonably that Somebody is affliated to NUSSU, Somebody's intentions and positionality in the two comments above are therefore of questionable character.

It is also laughable that Somebody would sign off as a student, and yet take offence with Molly's comments. If Somebody is truly a student as he/she claims, shouldn't he/she be outraged by NUSSU's partisan reporting of the dialogue session? Shouldn't Somebody be outraged that NUSSU has tried to claim credit for standing up for student rights, when they haven't even delivered any results?

Molly's comments may be blunt, but they are not off the mark. Also, she's only a Bimbo, so please be gentle with her =)

So I guess only insecure NUSSU minions would have nothing better to do at 1230am in the morning, but to scour Technorati for comments that might tarnish NUSSU's reputation. So that's what NUSSU stands for.

I end off this post with a personal note to Somebody:

While I thank you for your concerns as a fellow student out to help me from becoming entangled by repressive laws, I doubt altruism is on your agenda at all. I am led to believe, through my personal investigations, that your comment is a disguised threat, served in the interests of protecting NUSSU's reputation.

Also, your request that I should “take this seriously” sounds ridiculous because you don’t even have the “seriousness” nor sincerity in identifying who you are. Therefore, if your comments here are intended as a warning, I suggest you identify yourself first so that I can at least give you some respect as a person.

Once you have revealed your identity, please proceed to engage a lawyer and serve me a "cease and desist" letter. If not, your comments here on "breach of confidence" and "privileged access" are nothing but empty threats.

Regards,
A REAL student
Mykel

Trackback to Tomorrow.sg

Before we begin dissecting Monday's dialogue session between the university administration (hereafter UA) and the student body, let us first peruse the "report" produced by NUSSU (emphasis my own) to get a rough idea of that evening's proceedings:

Report on meeting with the NUS President

Date: 20th February 2006
Time: 1700 hrs
Venue: LT 24

This meeting was called for to clear any concerns that may still be lingering after the meeting with Provost. Among those present were Professor Shih Choon Fong, Assoc Professor Tan Teck Koon, and Assoc Professor Ang Siau Gek.

Prof Shih’s opening address

NUS has come a long way since its founding and today, the NUS degree is recognized worldwide. This is something everyone wants to enjoy. Students are provided with quality education by world standards, and their qualities are developed both professionally and intellectually. NUS hopes to create an environment that allows students to pursue interests and strengths but this has to be balanced with cost.

Cost Issues

Prof Shih states that University education is a global industry and NUS competes internationally. For world talents, we have to pay internationally competitive salary.

This accounts for 70% of operating costs.

He also informs everyone present that in Singapore, the wage increase from 2001-2006 was more than 13%. In the United States of America, the average increment is 3% per annum, which will amount to around 20% in 6 years. Compared to these numbers, the 8% increase in fees over 6 years is not a very big amount. The fee hike is deemed necessary as the salary of NUS lecturers and other academics have also risen. If the salaries of these people are not adjusted accordingly, they might leave NUS, resulting in a drop in quality and value of the NUS degree.

In response to a student’s statement that undergraduates in other countries pay less for university fees, Prof Shih states that the top tax rate in England is 50% and its value-added tax (VAT) is 17.5% and in Scandinavia, it is 70%, with VAT of 25%. However, in Singapore, the top tax rate is only 21% and GST 5%. Higher educational subsidies come at a high price of high taxation to the general population, which will not be what we want. It is also not in students’ interest if the degree is too cheap, as that will compromise the quality of our degree.

Prof Shih added that cost-cutting measures (such as outsourcing some functions) are on-going and the administration will continue to source for funds for financial aid and to support bursaries.

NUSSU President Danny Quek’s opening address

Danny reiterates the 4 commitments that the Union will like to get from the University administration – More accountability/ transparency, financial aid, more predictability, and more consultation with students.

Prof Shih assured students that they will take up the 4 points and work in the direction we said.

Questions and responses

1. The possibility of saving money for the University by reducing salaries.

Prof Shih drew attention to the clarifications on wage increase made above (under Cost Issues). He stressed again the need for the university to attract international academics so as not to compromise the quality of education and the value of the NUS degree. Hence, this may not be a viable approach to take.

2. The University can consider the approach of fee-locking so as to provide students with a sense of predictability.

Prof Shih reminded everyone present that this is a transition period for NUS. The University will be corporatised on the 1st of April 2006 and the fee hike happened to be caught in this transition period. The process for setting tuition fee has been in place for many years. This present system requires NUS to work very closely with MOE. Within such an arrangement comes a narrow time window which led to the lack of time for consultation. Prof Shih expressed regret that the management was unable to engage students for discussion this time round and urged all present to move forward as things would be different after corporatisation. Then, the management will have the flexibility to engage students and make adjustments to tuition fees only after that. The NUS Council, to be known as the Board of Trustees after corporatisation, will then make the final decision.

3. Lecturers who genuinely love teaching face pressure of research and this may potentially affect the quality of research.

To address this matter, Prof Shih felt that he has to speak to the various Deans and also the Provost to get a better understanding. He clarified that academics are evaluated for both teaching and research. Both these factors are taken into account in the appraisals of the academics. He assured all present that NUS does recognise good teachers as evidenced by annual university awards recognising not just researchers but teachers as well.

4. Looking for justifications to the fee hike issue from financial reports.

The university budget comprises of many categories. Prof Shih stressed that funds from one category cannot be used for the purposes of another category. Financial reports may reflect savings but the savings cannot be used commonly for all forms of the University’s expenditure. The best indicator is really looking at wage increases in the economy as a whole. Salaries have been rising in the past 6 years and it is unrealistic to suggest that the professors should not enjoy the same salary increases reflected in the economy. Prof Shih recognised that perhaps a different financial reporting structure could be adopted to better address the concerns of students. However, this is not something that can be done immediately. A change in the financial reporting structure has to be passed through several agencies. Prof Shih gave assurance however, that this is something that will be taken into consideration.

5. Concerns that when money is being spent on buildings and other multi-million dollar projects, there may be impacts on the other accounts even though the capital account is utilised. Student heard some people viewing the University Hall as the “Presidential Palace” and the need to clarify such misconceptions.

On this issue, Prof Shih brought out the dangers of making such statements without realising the whole picture. Statements like that only serve to do a great disservice to the University. The building of the University Hall is funded by donors and sponsors. There are no cross-over subsidies that can potentially impact the other categories in the University’s budget. In fact, the act of donors giving for buildings actually increases the net fund of the university. MOE matches the donors’ gifts dollar for dollar and this translates into the increase in scholarships and professorships which in turn increases the quality of education in NUS. Prof Shih cautioned against using emotionally-charged words to prevent doing a disservice to the university and the university’s benefactors. Donors and benefactors have been generous with us and such support is needed by the University and beneficial to the students.

6. Can there be concrete measures taken to include students in decision making at a major level? For e.g. Representation in NUS Council, Senate or a non-voting position.

Prof Shih stated that affordable quality education is the crux of the issue. We have to find a way forward after corporatisation but how to do this is unclear at this stage in time. Prof Shih brought up the need to meet with NUSSU and various student bodies to think through a way to engage one another in the common goal of achieving quality education. On the issue of representation to the Senate, Prof Shih explained that the Senate is the highest academic body in the University and is responsible for the awarding of degrees. They are also responsible for deciding the cut-offs in determining class honours and make decisions regarding the curriculum. Having student representation on the Senate spells a potential conflict of interest.

7. Are there any checks and balances in place after corporatisation to ensure that fees are increased only when necessary?

After corporatisation, the administration will work together with the students to provide an affordable quality education. A change in the fee review system could come in the form of cohort based tuition fees similar to the system utilised by SMU, or a schedule of fees like the systems in US universities. However, Prof Shih also pointed out the disadvantages that come with the cohort based tuition fees system. For example, should inflation rate happen to decrease, the students still find themselves with the pre-agreed rate. A schedule of fees on the other hand would inform students on what to expect in the next few years depending on inflation. This allows a greater degree of flexibility. Prof Shih recognised that we should not be employing a system of ad-hoc fee announcements after corporatisation. Instead, a more systematic approach would be taken and students would be engaged in discussions.

8. Can a clearer picture be provided to the students on how can we work together for future changes?

Prof Shih stressed that the past is not an indication of the future. Under the current system, the University has to work with time constraints. After corporatisation, the University will have the flexibility to work with students. He gave assurance again that students will be engaged. Prof Shih urged all present to focus on corporatisation and expresses optimism that the University will be able to manage the situation. Possible measures to be taken into considerations include a clearer representation of the University’s budget as well as the two above-mentioned models on tuition fee reviews. He recognised students as stakeholders of the University and urged students to be patient and look forward to corporatisation as a time for us to forge our own destinies.

9. The possibility of using funds raised by the University as subsidies instead of infrastructure

Prof Shih explained that donors usually give one-off gifts to achieve peaks of excellence. They do not contribute to operational costs but rather, come in to enhance the reputation and standing of NUS. What the University can do is to go to the donors and explain that costs are rising. To maintain affordable quality education, donors may be persuaded to give funds towards bursaries. Prof Shih explained that there is already an annual giving programme in place and this is doing reasonably well. Funds donated by the donors are also matched by the government and this further supports our education programme. Prof Shih expressed the need to be grateful to our donors and stated that the University is committed to doing more by urging donors to support bursaries. The development office set up 3 years ago has since been effective in raising funds for scholarships. Also, financial aid to the students has been increased threefold to $4.4 million and the University will continue its efforts in raising money for bursaries. On the point of infrastructure, one student questioned the necessity of improvements made to the Student Service Centre at Yusof Ishak House. Prof Tan clarified that there is indeed such a need and the Student Service Centre has benefited from the enhancements carried out.

10. How do MOE subsidies affect the administration’s decision and what is their stand on operating costs?

Prof Shih stated that this matter has to be clarified with the Office of Finance. He explained however, that MOE’s subsidies really go towards the teaching budget. A clearer picture will be provided in the months ahead.

11. Is it possible to promise that fees can be locked?

Prof Shih explained that fee setting is not something the University can do at this moment. Fee setting is discussed with the management and recommendations are then made. The final decision actually lies with the University Council to be known as the Board of Trustees after corporatisation. Hence, he is unable to make statements on their behalf but stated that he will bring the views of the students to the Council.

12. Perhaps regular dialogues should not stop after this issue or be something that occurs only when major issues crop up. Instead, there should be more such sessions for the President to reach out to the students.

Prof Shih reminded all present that the University has to work closely with MOE now. He expressed the need for all to take a positive attitude so that we may look forward to corporatisation. He stated again that he will bring the inputs and views of the students to the members on the Board of Trustees. We should not let this episode distract us from the many things we can do after corporatisation.

13. How was the percentage of fee hike reached? Is it possible to get a breakdown of how fees are being used?

Prof Shih responded that there is a need to evaluate the wage increases in Singapore and other countries together. As mentioned above, the wage increase in Singapore in the past 6 years has been around 13%. In other economies, including those where we compete in for talents, the wage increase has been about 20%. Ultimately, the percentage of increment was decided to be 3%. To provide a clearer picture, the University is committed to try and provide information on the different categories that make up the NUS budget.

14. Medical students suffer from a greater increase in tuition fees.

Prof Shih expressed the understanding that the increase in 3% affects the medical students more. He stated that $4.4 million has been set aside for bursaries and financial aid and the university is continuously trying to raise more funds for bursaries and financial aid. This figure should suffice for present students on campus but the University recognises the need to do more. Prof Shih expressed commitment to this and predicts that this figure of $4.4 million will likely go up in years ahead and more funds will be available to support bursaries and aid.

15. Student expressed concern over hostel fees and questioned whether the building of the Warren Residential College will lead to an increase in hostel fees.

Prof Shih reiterated that the university does not work on the basis of cross-subsidising. The real costs of upgrading the hostels are higher than the increase in the hostel fees of the students. Students in Australia and the United Kingdom have to pay substantially higher fees for student accommodation as compared to the costs of student accommodation here, which are already subsidised by MOE. Prof Shih highlighted the importance of residential experience and said that this is something the University wants to promote to enable students to enjoy a total learning experience.

He noted that university students constitute about 21% of their cohort and this is likely to increase to 25% come 2010. Students are already enjoying highly subsidised university education and this will be increasing with the increase in university students. We have to remember the other 75% that is not enjoying this privilege when speaking of a small group that is enjoying highly subsidised quality university education. Taxes collected from everyone goes to benefit about 1 in 5 now and 1 in 4 in 5 years. We should keep this in mind and remember what it means to the University when we ask for low tuition fees. As a more talented group, university students already enjoy more privileges than the less talented and this will give university students an advantage in the knowledge-based economy.

16. Can we be provided with a rough vision on what is more engagement?

Prof Shih suggested and made note of a meeting in July during the vacation to work out ways in which the University can engage the students. The session is likely to be akin to this dialogue session and will probably involve representatives from the various faculties. Prof Tan added that the administration can work with NUSSU to see how things can be worked out.

Danny Quek’s closing address

This episode showed that our students are vocal, assertive and willing to stand up for what we believe is right. We want to be heard and we need to be heard. We should also acknowledge the efforts of the administration. We thank them for their swift response to our calls for a face-to-face meeting. We have achieved such 2 sessions with the President and the Provost of NUS within a span of 4 days. This is something that has not been echoed by our counterparts.

NUSSU will appreciate it if an assurance can be made to the student body by a joint circular between NUSSU and the NUS President on accountability and transparency, financial aid, predictability and consultation.

1. Accountability and Transparency

NUSSU hopes that the administration will consider the publication of a cost-cutting report and cost-cutting measures that are taken by the various faculties.

2. Financial Aid

$4.4 million will be channelled to financial aid each year and the University will continue to raise funds to increase the figure. NUSSU also hopes the University can consider providing more elaboration on the financial aid scheme, for e.g. the criteria of applying for financial aid, the figures available for aid and the breakdown of the available financial aid between loans and bursaries

3. Predictability

The administration will look into the feasibility of the 2 abovementioned models of fee reviews. A more systematic model that enables students to be aware of their options early will be adopted.

4. Consultation

The greater flexibility that the University will see after corporatisation will lead to consultations with student representatives on major issues affecting the student body before a decision is made. A dialogue session with Prof Shih will be held in July to discuss ways in which the administration can engage the students in decision making processes.

Prof Shih’s response

These matters have to go to the Board of Trustees for approval. The administration supports the above four points and will engage in a discussion with students to discuss these issues in July as mentioned above. There will be a meeting with the Board in a month and the half and Prof Shih will bring up these points then. The four points have been noted and will need further discussion with the Board.

Prof Shih’s closing address

Prof Shih thanked all present for being at the session and stated that the opportunity to speak to students is something valued by him. The views presented will be considered and presented to the Board and the administration. The fee increase issue has been difficult but this is no indication of the future. After corporatisation, the University will have greater flexibility in the process and timing of fee reviews. The University will then engage students in consultation. Prof Shih is optimistic that with the feedback of the students, the process of tuition fee reviews will be improved especially since autonomy will provide the space to explore possible models of fee reviews. The University is committed to working more closely with the students to achieve affordable quality education. It was a helpful meeting for him personally to know where the students are coming from and he looks forward to the meeting in July.

Prepared By: Mabelle Tay Jiahui
Assistant Publications Secretary
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

Vetted By: Tay E Teng
Vice-President
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

Danny Quek
President
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

I applaud NUSSU's attempts to make their "report" more reflective of the student voice by including the exchanges that occurred. The recent surge in hits on this blog from computers in the NUS network seem to suggest that NUSSU is monitoring my blog for comments that might help them improve the dialogue sessions and the reporting of it. But that could just be speculations on my part as an evangelist of the blog's role in society. Anyway, as with all pieces of writing, this "report" has room for improvement.

It seems that NUSSU is very quick to claim victory for battles that are still ongoing. Mr Danny Quek's closing address (see above), seems to try too hard in rebuilding the scraps of NUSSU's respectability by highlighting their ability to organise dialogue sessions under short notice. "This is something that has not been echoed by our counterparts"; I'm not sure if Mr Quek is referring to NUSSU's logistical competence, or the fact that his committee has allowed two consecutive fee hikes to happen in their short term.

Even if we acknowledge NUSSU's dialogue-organising competence, it is merely a logistical skill that is honed through years of experience holding student events. Logistical competence in running dialogue sessions may contribute towards greater communication between students and the UA, but it does not translate directly into a better protection of student rights, which should have been the yardstick of NUSSU's performance in Mr Quek's closing speech.

Furthermore, the "report" is silent on the fact that the actual spheres of contention of the dialogue sessions, namely transparency and accountability issues with the UA, remain ambiguous as the President of NUS has made more promises than actual commitments. This is reflected in the constant dangling of the "corporatisation" term as an appeasement carrot. Whether the UA truly acheives a semi-autonomous position vis a vis the state remains unlikely, judging by past examples of "corporatised" government agencies. The only sensible thing for NUSSU to do now that the "negotiations" seem to be over, would be to constantly remind themselves and the UA of this unsettled agenda, especially since the UA and the student population have a mystifying tendency to forget.

In fact, after reading what a dialogue participant has posted on the fee hike forum, I become more convinced that NUSSU is trying to claim credit where it is not due:

Topic: Feedback on Prof Shih's speech today

If you all had went for the speech, you would note how prof shih kept regurgitating same facts to different questions over and over. bottomline is, this dialogue is an utter failure. nussu failed to even get assurance from prof shih on the 4 points they requested. Prof Shih said he required time to discuss the 4 points with the Board of Trustees. And it was not advantageous for both parties to agree on the 4 points nussu raised.

I can't help but feel that the UA must take students as fools or jokes to be laughed at. Sigh... looks like nothing can ever happen. If only there are enough like minded souls to rise up and provide an educated, caustic, biting response to the UA's cavalier attitudes.

ONG JUN YU

The post above immediately raises the question of the reliability of NUSSU's "report". On the one hand, NUSSU "reports" that Prof Shih has given the assurance that "they will take up the 4 points and work in the direction [NUSSU] said" (See section on Mr Danny Quek's opening address). On the other hand, we have Mr Ong's personal observation of Prof Shih saying that "it was not advantageous for both parties to agree on the 4 points NUSSU raised." Mr Ong's observation of Prof Shih's reluctance to agree on NUSSU's 4 points was later confirmed as true by Mr Lim Chee Liang in the same forum thread. So who are we to believe now?

And instead of clarifying as to why there is that discrepancy in the "report", a high ranked member of NUSSU has this to say on the forum today:

Topic: Meeting with the NUS President

Wanna say a big thank you to Danny and his team of Excos for a job well done.. The massive efforts and spirit put into handling this matter have both been admirable and commendable..

The current Exco team has worked really hard for the students and had always placed student welfare as their highest priority. They definitely deserve a big pat on their backs.

NUSSU Public Relations Unit (PRU) is ever dedicated in bringing about student welfare and will continue to put in our utmost efforts to support Danny and his team.

Sincerely hope all our fellow friends here will continue to show our support for NUSSU and as we work hand in hand to bring forth better welfare and student well-being.

Have a great mid-sem break and come back more refreshed than ever for the 2nd half of our semester! :)

Good luck for mid-terms ~
Enjoy..

Cheers,

Jeffrey Goh
Chairperson
Public Relations Unit
NUS Students' Union

In conclusion, I hope this blog post dispells all my critics' view that I should give NUSSU a break and give them credit when it is due. In fact, I think NUSSU is quite capable of giving credit to themselves, irregardless of whether it is due or not. Also, as much as I want to defend NUSSU by highlighting the difficult position they are in, between the UA's absolute power and the students' rage, they have shot themselves in the foot so many times to be taken seriously.

With that, I declare the end of the fee hike protest as the agenda on my blog. I will be exploring more broad based issues like the exchanges between Xialanxue and mainstream media on the NYP sex video; the Registration of Criminals (Amendment) Act; and will Ang Mo Kio "remember" in the advent of General Elections. Stay tuned.

Trackback to Tomorrow.sg

A closed door dialogue session was held between representatives of the student population and the President last Friday. There had been efforts to consolidate the objectives of the inquiry team by a few emerging leaders, namely Farhan B. Ali, so that a uniformed stand can extracted on the part of the student representatives prior to the dialogue session.

But as much as the students tried, their efforts were to be thwarted by Prof. Shih's insistence that his personal dinner appointment was more important than an issue concerning the entire NUS student population. How can one reach an "amicable" resolution if there was at least 30 students waiting to ask questions and only one hour of dialogue time?

Anyway, here's the report on the dialogue session produced by NUSSU (emphasis my own):

Report on the Dialogue Session between students and the administration of NUS

On 17th Feb 2006, a dialogue session between students and the Administration of NUS was held at 1715 hrs in the Office of Alumni Relations, Saffron Hall. 29 students were invited to the session based on their active participation or constructive feedback on the forum. They were joined by representatives from the NUSSU Council. University Administration was represented by Deputy President and Provost of NUS, Prof Tan Chorh Chuan; Dean of Students, A/Prof Tan Teck Koon; and Registrar, A/Prof Ang Siau Gek.

This session was organized by Office of Students’ Affairs upon the request of NUSSU on behalf of the student population. The objective of this session was to improve communications between the students and the Administration as well as to seek an understanding from the students with regards to issues pertaining to fee hike.

This is a consolidated report of the agreements achieved during the meeting.

Firstly, University Administration clarified that it believes in consultation with students and cited instances where it had done so, and that it welcomes students’ feedback. However, it deeply regrets that in the case of the current fee increase, it was unable to engage students in advance in view of the tight time constraints that it had in working on the matter with the Ministry of Education. The Provost assured the students that this has been a learning experience, and that the Administration will in future, explore other approaches on the matter of fee adjustments.

The Administration believes that the impending corporatisation will bring about a greater degree of flexibility and consequently, future major decision-making will have more opportunities to consult with student representatives.

The fee hike was approved by the NUS Council and endorsed by the Ministry of Education. It is deemed necessary due to the reasons stated below:

The University has to compete in the international market with the rest of the universities in the world to attract outstanding professors to enhance the quality of education here and ultimately, the value of the NUS degree. This necessarily entails more attractive pay packages.

Operating costs as well as maintenance costs have been increasing as the cost of living in Singapore rises.

The University needs to obtain educational materials, e.g. library materials, internationally and this incurs high cost.

A substantial amount of money has been invested to improve the teaching facilities in NUS such as the life sciences laboratories and high tech stimulation equipments aimed at enhancing the learning experience of students.

On the operating surplus shown in the University’s Annual Report, the Provost explained that the values shown in the report are not an accurate representation of the financial status of the University as the financial report had to factor in other funds (e.g research and endowment funds) and donations given to the University. These funds and donations are governed by conditions that they are to be used only for the purposes specified, or that only the investment interest earned can be utilized.

The Provost went on to explain that the University has two separate budgets given by the Ministry of Education. One is the operating budget used to conduct the activities of the University and another is the budget to build new or upgrade facilities in the University. The centennial celebrations are funded through donations, sponsorships and investment incomes. The new University Hall was built with government funding and donations from benefactors. The Bukit Timah Campus is being upgraded using funds for campus infrastructure and upgrading. The University is not allowed to use tuition fees or funds from the operating budget to cover these costs, and has not done so. On cost-cutting, budget control for utilities and maintenance has been decentralised to individual faculties so as to create greater incentives to adopt cost-cutting measures.

The Union went into the dialogue session with four key objectives:

Accountability and transparency
Assurance on Financial Aid
Predictability on fee increases
Consultation

The senior Administration has committed to the following with regards to the above points:

$3M will be injected to the existing $1.4M for student financial aid, making it a total of $4.4M for the coming year. The Provost assured that the University is actively raising funds through donations to increase this quantum available for financial aid. Students in need were also urged to consult the Financial Aid Unit where trained officers are available to help the students to work out a package best suited to their needs.

Assoc Professor Ang also provided a breakdown of the $4.4M financial aid. Half of this amount will be channeled to granting bursaries while the other half will go to interests-free loans, subsistence loans and work assistance schemes on campus.

The Provost highlighted a valid concern. He clarified that the increase in financial aid following the fee hike would not result in a situation of students cross-subsidizing each other. For the coming academic year, NUS is confident of raising $1.5 million worth of donations for financial aid. He also foresees an increased percentage of student financial aid from other sources.

The Provost acknowledged the importance of maintaining good rapport with the students. The Administration sees the value of a fee schedule and strongly believes that this will be better for all concerned. The Provost also assured the students that with corporatisation, the Administration will work towards providing a better forecast in terms of fees for incoming students. Students will be able to prepare for themselves over the years in advance and make informed decisions with such figures before entering the University. This will ease concerns of students not being able to anticipate fee hikes.

A mutual understanding has also been reached on consultation. Consultation with the students on major decisions is something that we can look forward to following the greater flexibility that will come after corporatisation. However, it is recognized that consultations will likely involve student representatives due to the impracticability of consulting with the entire student population, whose views can also be very divergent.

We realize that this session was not able address every concern the students may have but at least it served the purpose of clarifying several key issues raised in the IVLE forum. There have been several calls for greater transparency, predictability and consultation from the IVLE forum and the school Administration has given assurances on the above issues. In addition, the session also saw the school Administration giving the assurance that it will continue to raise fund for student financial aid, starting with a sum of $4.4M this year.

The dialogue ended with the Provost thanking students for their understanding and patience, and seeking their cooperation on the issue.

Prepared by:
Cheryl Chong Aixin
Director of Projects
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

Mabelle Tay
Director of Projects
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

Vetted by:
Danny Quek
President
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

Tay E Teng
Vice-President
27th NUSSU Executive Committee

This "report" is revealing in certain aspects. After re-reading it several times, I personally find the "report" to be more of an extension of the NUS President's circular to the students than an accurate attempt to capture what questions and responses were generated from the closed door session. The objective of the meeting, as underlined above in this "report", is already a clear indicator that the meeting is not consultative but executive in nature.

If it was truly a dialogue session, why do I sense the uni-directional flow of communication from the university administration to the student body from this "report"? Where's the student voice in the "report"? If there was truly an inquiry session that took place, why were the students' questions and the corresponding responses from the President excluded?

Was it probably due to the fact that most of this impossibly short session was spent by the President and his colleagues in reiterating the email circular? If the precise details of the verbal exchanges were lacking due to the time and resource constraints of those doing the transcribing, then why not use the "white elephant" webcast resources to record the proceeding of the meeting, as we've paid dearly for their (non)usage anyway? The session may have been closed-door because "consultations will likely involve student representatives due to the impracticability of consulting with the entire student population, whose views can also be very divergent", but that doesn't mean the entire student population should be excluded from knowing what took place.

My second qualm with the meeting session is the presentation of the breakdown of the $4.4 million student financial aid package. Rather than publicise the goodies we are to receive, why not reveal the cost figures that are driving up the need for the fee hike in the first place? It feels somewhat like the Prime Minister announcing the "Progress Package" and all its attendant cash bonuses, without telling how citizens will be taxed in future for their current gratifications.

My third contention with the details, as "reported" by NUSSU above, is the President's assertion that "consultation with the students on major decisions is something that we can look forward to following the greater flexibility that will come after corporatisation". Notice how the word "consultation" is used. It denotes the role of NUSSU as an advisory body, which may actually have very little power in influencing "major decisions" like this one. My old gripe that NUSSU need to be constitutionally protected by the NUS statutes need not be repeated in detail here.

Lastly, the penultimate paragraph of the "report" is perhaps an admission of NUSSU of its failure to organise an effective dialogue session last Friday. NUSSU has tried to shield itself from losing more respectability by highlighting its "brownie" victories above; assurances from the administration for "greater transparency, predictability and consultation", which could well be empty promises until the NUSSU Constitution is amended; and the promise of a $4.4 million aid package, which raises more issues on who's included and who's not.

In sum, the dialogue session was nothing more that a bad public relations stunt, aimed at calming the most vocal 29 students from the fee hike forum. The enthusiasm at the forum has calmed down significantly as well, and I suspect that the session as "reported" above has re-confirmed students' impression of the futility of student activism.

But I could be speaking too early, as another one hour closed-door session (sheesh) has been scheduled tomorrow at the Science Faculty. Then again, this is during the term break period, and I'm sure people would have better things to do than to stand up for a lost cause.

Trackback to Tomorrow.sg

There was a "wear black" silent protest staged in NUS afterall. In fact, it was so silent, no one even knew it happened today.

No alarms and no surprises. No pictures for me to take.

Lacking a symbolic artefact or an organised effort to publicise the aims of the intended protest, it looked just like any other day in NUS today. Without a cultural symbol to mobilize and effect an imaginary solidarity amongst students, every unknowing student in black gets mistaken for taking part in the protest. And even if a small number of students did turn up in black solely for the purpose of the protest, they remain as a group of individuals, lacking the interpersonal bonds that form the catalyst of what Sidney Tarrow calls, a "protest cycle".

Over at the online forum today, it was all hot air with little substance. A call for "constructive feedback" was made. Complains and ramblings with entire life histories were returned in response. Some adopted an elitist mentality and quipped others for their "childish", "unconstructive" complaining, preferring to frame their own misinformed views as the de facto solution of the issue at hand. Others questioned NUSSU and the administration's lack of transparency; some pointed out "conspiracy theories", while others even suggested that mainstream media should get involved. A rallying effort by a small group of students has succeeded in requesting for a closed door dialogue session with the Provost tomorrow. I wish them luck, even though the odds look insurmountable as the group of 29 individuals lack synergy.

So how does one make sense of all this?

To begin with, we are sensitized to the fact that the personal is political. In the social climate of Singapore, where the ruling party has consolidated considerable electorate support through the provision of economic goodies, citizens become spoilt like children by a father who promises more sweets every election cycle. The pervasive reach of the "nanny state" in the everyday life has turned once independent Singaporeans into children who cry foul readily when their sweets get taken away.

I argue here that complaining is not an act of childishness or uninformedness but an understandable reaction to an increase in the cost of living, an issue close to all Singaporeans' hearts. In fact, complains by citizens are legitimate claims made to the state, on the capacity of the citizen exercising his or her rights. Are complains of this nature, political? Of course. Citizens make claims to their government all the time as part of the democratic processes of the state. Are complains that relate the fee hike to the PAP's technocratic style of corporatist governance necessarily conspiracy theories? I don't think so.

Furthermore, comments proposing that NUS students should quit whining about the fee hike and do something "constructive" are immensely short sighted on two counts. Firstly, their proposition that students should contribute ideas to NUSSU to appeal against the fee hike via official channels, fail to see the imbalance of power between NUSSU and the university administration. NUSSU is not constitutionally protected; the legislative reforms of 1975 on the NUS Act has effectively weakened NUSSU's capacity to act independently. Section 25 of NUSSU's constitution is a clear reminder of who the ultimate power holder is, when it comes to matters of contention like this one. This is of course further compounded by the Societies Act. So unless the university administration (and by extension, the state) is convinced of the contingency of its right to govern student matters vis a vis NUSSU, and relinquishes its power, any form of dialogue between the two would appear as nothing more than a public relations stunt.

Secondly, such furious and helpless complains are so prevalent in the forum because Singaporeans are not presented with a repetoire of viable avenues to effect social change. The amount of red tape and restrictive legislations have conditioned many of us to believe that proper channels will not work. Thus, the labelling of students as "unproductive" or "doing nothing" when they initiate silent protests or petitions is unfair. They do it not because it's sensational or passionate; they do it because official channels do not work for them historically, and they have no other avenues of recourse. Not very different from the White Elephant saga, isn't it? Viewed in such a light, these social movement initiators are actually doing more than the skeptics and the pro-establishment soothsayers, whose comments only reinstates the status quo.

So is this all nothing but a storm in a teacup? I'm not sure. But the decision to publicise the fee hike a week before the term break is clearly a strategic one; the enthusiasm and fervour will undoubtedly subside over the term break, when the sobering reality of project deadlines and term test revision hits us squarely like a slap across our faces.

Trackback to Tomorrow.sg

Hello everyone, I'm back. The ongoing debate about the SGD$180 fee hike in NUS has stirred up some fervour in me to produce this post on this almost abandoned blog. The title of was taken from a research paper which I have produced for a political sociology course. The paper's focus was on the extraction of consent from student bodies in NUS through a mixture of ideological hegemony and coercion, and it is apt that I revisit this past work of mine in light of the current context.

Expectedly, NUSSU (the student union body of NUS), has been powerless once again in effecting any form of effective bargaining process with the administration with regards to the current fee hike. This current fee hike is quite controversial in itself as the last fee hike was only 6 months ago. Just like the other spheres of Singapore society, a decision is made without the consent of those affected. To make matters worse, NUSSU and the university administration has not been transparent with the details of the entire decision making and negotiation process, resulting in a public relations disaster for NUSSU, which sent their respectability plunging to an all time low. Armoured hegemony has triumped once again.

As a remedial step, NUSSU has set up an online forum as a public space to measure student reactions and gather feedback. I have made a post there and I would like to share it with my readers here. While I disagree with the forum moderators' opinion that the fee hike should be an apolitical issue, that all postings should make no allusions to the PAP regime, I respect the forum's goals and thus a watered down version was posted there instead. Here's the full length original:

Don't Look Back In Anger: NUSSU's Black Ribbon Protest in 1997

Dear All,

Before we consider any form of direct contestation with the university administration, be it petitions or silent protests, I draw your attention to this incident in 1997 which many of us never know/will never know:

TONY TAN TO MEET UNIVERSITY STUDENT LEADERS
22 May 1997
Straits Times

DEPUTY Prime Minister Tony Tan will meet student leaders from the two universities to discuss the recently-announced university fee increases and other student concerns at the end of this month.

He said this after flagging off a walkathon to raise funds for St Luke's Hospital for the Elderly at Anglo-Chinese Junior College yesterday.

He had asked for the meeting with National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) student leaders last month, after a black-ribbon protest staged by NUS undergraduates against the fee hike.

Based on feedback from student leaders, he said the meeting will most likely cover topics such as the rationale for the increase, and how it would help the universities become world-class institutions.

The students have also asked for some reassurance on future hikes, and whether these would be moderated, he said.

DPM Tan, who is also Defence Minister, has been tasked with overseeing the development of the universities.

In March, it was announced that tuition fees for laboratory-based courses would go up by S$50 and those for non-laboratory courses by $600 each year, over the next two years, so that the universities will charge a flat fee of S$5,500 for all courses except medicine and dentistry.

This is to attract more science and engineering students.

He said that many students were not happy about the changes.

He added: "Student leaders in NUS and NTU must realise that the government and university administrations would be more persuaded by reason and logical arguments with good grounds that are put to them, than by gestures of unhappiness."

He noted the different approaches student leaders from both universities took to highlight their concerns.

In NTU, they consulted their peers for their opinions, then made a case to the administration for more bursaries and grants.

In a letter to The Straits Times' Forum Page in March, the NTU Students' Union said that three out of five students in NTU are from households with incomes not exceeding S$3,000 a month, and would be hit hard by the hikes.

Only one in five applicants received financial aid now, the union found.

The NUS Students' Union, on the other hand, initiated a "silent protest" and asked students to wear black ribbons because it found the reasons for the fee increase unconvincing and was not consulted on the issue.

Dr Tan said that how students responded to these matters was purely up to them, provided their actions did not disrupt the university's routine, disturb other students or damage property.

He said: "It is up to the students to judge which approach is more successful.”

"It is good education for them because, as they are growing up and becoming adults, they will be putting forward cases to get a result."

Yesterday, Dr Tony Tan noted the different approaches student leaders from both universities took to highlight their concerns over the fees:

NTU: Student leaders consulted their peers for their opinions, then made a case to the administration for more bursaries and grants.

In a letter to The Straits Times Forum Page in March, the NTU Students' Union said that three out of five students in NTU are from households with incomes not exceeding S$3,000 a month, and would be hard hit by the hikes. Only one in five applicants received financial aid now, the union found.

NUS: The students' union initiated a "silent protest" and asked students to wear black ribbons because it found the reasons for the fee hike unconvincing and was not consulted on the issue.

So will the proposed "wear black" campaign do any substantial good? Unlikely.

Will the Call for an Extra-Ordinary General Meeting work? Maybe.

What can we do then, as students of NUS or more importantly, as citizens of Singapore?

Remember.

As Z. Bauman puts it, "the culture of a consumer society is mostly about forgetting and not learning" (1998:82), and therefore, today's NUS students must also insist that the lessons of history must be learnt and remembered.

I won’t go back too far into history, but do you even remember what happened last year?

Do you remember NKF, Peanuts, Golden Taps and T.T. Durai?
Do you remember the White Elephants outside Buangkok MRT?
Do you remember the Casinos?
Do you remember our (s)elected President?
Do you remember how an NS defaulter was invited back for a piano performance?
Do you remember the Public Transport Fair Hike and the increase in ERP gantries?
Do you remember the protest outside CPF building for more GLC transparency?
Do you remember the finger pointing after Nicoll Highway collapsed?
Do you remember that a Minister said that Gay parties help spread AIDS?
Do you remember how Martyn See was persecuted for shooting “Singapore Rebel”?
Do you even remember the NUS “Mandatory Miscellaneous” fee hike in 2005?

It’s time we start to remember.

What's more interesting is that a group of students have initiated a "wear black" campaign as a form of silent protest. I will be in campus later, armed with a camera, to see if this organised protest is being carried out at all. Stay tuned!

Trackback to Tomorrow.sg

First, a poem to set the mood for this post:

Singapore, that shopping paradise

Sleek steel and shiny concrete
Do not a proud nation make
Worthy of respect
At any rate!
What pride is there
Amid the shopping malls,
The musak, the phony waterfalls?
While the Angel of Death waits by Changi prison's walls.
But oh so modern!
But oh so squeaky clean!
But the freedom to speak out
Is still a far off dream!
No luck can follow here where mercy fears to show its face.
This island nation just another dreary duty-free shopping place.
With deafening silence
The hangman's rope is spun
And Singapore goes to bed
Another day's shopping's done.

KEVIN DEMPSEY
Bangkok Post, Monday Nov 28 2005.


While Singapore sleeps, another life is lost to the cold (ir)Rationality of the Law. As Singaporeans are urged by their government to stand resilient against international pressures for the maintenance of sovereignty, the hegemonic notion of a national identity is being stirred up once again to combat claims for human rights. You do not tell us how to run our country. This is Singapore.

With (ir)Rationality, a person is reduced to a set of letters and numbers. Nguyen becomes C856 in prison and after the execution, he becomes a statistical figure. Readily forgotten.

With (ir)Rationality, the state robs the individual of the right to violence. "Just" murder is committed while the nation sleeps. No tears are shed. No outrage from the docile citizen-peasants.

With (ir)Rationality, the opportunity for benevolent discretion is destroyed. We cannot spare Nguyen because the Law says we hang. No clemency once you're processed into the system. No maximum or minimum sentence, no deliberation of mitigating factors, just Death.

With (ir)Rationality, we hang drug traffickers while doing business with Burmese narco-traffickers, because it's good for the economy. No profits to be made from morals. No need to let the citizen-peasants know.

I wish for a better place than this.

It's 5am now. The longest hour of Nguyen's life has just begun, and his life will end after that. My prayers goes out to him and his family.

Meanwhile, the Singapore citizen-peasant prepares for yet another day of honest economic endeavours and blissful shopping.

I've been wanting to comment on the recent spar between PM's Press Secretary Mr. Chen Hwai Liang and NTU's Dr. Cherian George, when I stumbled upon this unpublished letter to ST, by the witty Steven McDermott of Singabloodypore fame:

Dear Editor

Two seemingly unrelated articles in the Straits Times caught my eye on 14 October.

The first article was yet another scathing Forum letter ("Don wasn't non-partisan in his analysis") by Chen Hwai Liang, the Prime Minister's Press Secretary. Once again, NTU academic Dr Cherian George was lambasted for certain views that he had expressed about how the Singapore government manages civil disobedience.

The second article that caught my eye was "Warwick's S'pore plan hits uncertainty". At the invitation of the Economic Development Board, Warwick University had been looking seriously into setting up a branch in Singapore. But now Warwick's senate has voted 27-13 against the idea. Why?

According to the Straits Times, the Warwick senate's "overriding concern" was the issue of academic freedom in Singapore. In particular, Warwick's arts and social studies departments expressed "overwhelming opposition" to the idea of Warwick setting up a branch in Singapore.

Taking the Chen-vs-George episode as an example of the way things are done in Singapore, are we surprised to hear about the Warwick professors' grave concerns? Surely not. There is a lesson to be learned here and I hope that our government can see it. Till then, Singapore is the loser.

I cannot agree more with Mr. McDermott's deft observation of the inherent contradiction between ST's reporting of Warwick and Mr Chen's concern that Dr. George wasn't being non-partisan enough.

This episode is telling because it reveals how the PAP's efforts of political consolidation run counter to its economic aspirations of becoming an educational hub for Asia.

So to borrow Dr. George's own analogy of "freedom from the press", it seems that the PAP now seeks to liberate itself from the academia as well. As far as the state is concerned, the academia need only worry itself with the production of skilled labour as cogs in the economic machinery.

Any deviation from this expectation would likely draw considerable flak from the state, as demonstrated by Dr George here, and also his economist colleagues from NTU who produced a controversial labour report in 2003. There's also Christopher Lingle and his run in wth the PAP in the 90's.

The score so far?
PAP: 3, Academic Freedom: 0