Another compare and contrast exercise with two articles from today's Sydney Morning Herald (free registration req'd, but full articles reproduced below the jump).

Item 1: The University of NSW plays down fears about Singapore offshoot. After the University of Warwick pulls out of setting up a campus in Singapore over concerns about academic freedom and financial risks, UNSW displays no such fears, partly because the Australian university had closer ties with the region and a more firmly established brand name. It also turns out UNSW will receive about A$80 million in funding from the Singaporean Government.

Item 2: When the credits roll out a person of interest. A profile of banned movie director Martyn See.

Welcome to Singapore, potential UNSW academics.

University plays down fears about Singapore offshoot

The University of NSW has moved to allay fears about academic freedom and human rights at its planned $200 million-plus Singapore campus.

But university management has conceded it cannot guarantee protection of its academic staff in Singapore, given the city-state's harsh laws governing public comment and defamation.

UNSW is one of only two foreign universities granted special status by the Singaporean Government to set up fully fledged independent teaching and research institutions offering undergraduate degrees.

It expects to open the doors of its Changi campus, to be called UNSW Asia, to up to 15,000 students from early 2007.

Yesterday it said its dean of commerce and economics, Professor Greg Whittred would be the Singapore campus's first president (vice-chancellor).

However, the other overseas institution approved by Singapore, the University of Warwick in England, said last week it would not proceed with a full-scale $354 million university campus because of concerns about academic freedom and financial risk.

Advertisement
AdvertisementAccording to the student newspaper, the Warwick Boar, the university also had concerns about Singapore's ban on homosexuality and certain religious practices and about possible legal reprisals against academic-related comments "that might be seen as being outside the boundaries of political debate".

Under Singapore law, foreign institutions are not allowed to criticise local politics.

UNSW has already secured a State Government-endorsed bank loan of $113 million for the Singapore campus. But it will also receive about $80 million in capital works funding from the Singapore Government, a figure the university's deputy vice-chancellor (international and development), John Ingleson, has refused to confirm or deny, on the grounds that it is commercial-in-confidence.

Speaking from Singapore yesterday, Professor Ingleson said he had been assured by the Government there that students and academics would enjoy complete academic freedom on campus. He dismissed concerns raised by the Warwick pull-out, arguing that UNSW had "a more nuanced view of how Singapore and [its] society worked".

He conceded, however, that the university would be powerless to protect its academics should they fall foul of the Government over issues of public comment.

"There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any country … in that sense, our staff and our students will be subject … off-campus to the laws of Singapore like anyone else," he said.

Professor Ingleson believed Warwick's decision was based on financial risk rather than concern about academic freedom.

He said UNSW was not exposed to the same risk as Warwick because the Australian university had closer ties with the region and a more firmly established brand name.

When the credits roll out a person of interest

Martyn See did not make a pornographic film, but the first-time Singapore director says he may as well have. He shot a profile on the country's leading opposition figure, Chee Soon Juan.

Making a party-political film is as serious as making pornography in the island state. The fallout from Singapore Rebel, a 26-minute film that documents Chee's political journey without naming his Social Democratic Party, has highlighted the Government's sensitivity to political debate.

Seven months after See, 36, withdrew his "objectionable" film from the Singapore International Film Festival, he is still under police investigation. Two human rights organisations have raised See's case and what they believe is the misuse of Singapore's laws to punish government opponents and deter people from expressing dissent.

"I decided to explore why political opposition in Singapore was marginalised by the media, the Government and the public. I wanted to zoom in on one person," See says. "I was aware I could run into censorship problems, but not a full-blown investigation. It came as a shock."

Advertisement
AdvertisementFriends of See who are unconnected with the film have been questioned by police in recent weeks. One, the activist blogger Jacob George, reported this on the internet. While the film has been banned, no charges have been laid. It can still be seen in Singapore via Amnesty's Asia-Pacific web portal.

See's problems started with the festival requesting that he withdraw the film because it was "objectionable under the Films Act". Organisers told him that if he withdrew the film, the matter would be dropped. Failing that, the full extent of the law would apply. He withdrew it but submitted it, on request, to festivals in New Zealand, Malaysia and the US.

"I am telling the truth as objectively as I can. I praised the [People's Action Party] Government at the beginning. [The film] is hardly subversive, not seditious, and not defamatory in any way. Singaporeans are mature enough to be able to judge," he says.

In May, he was called in for a "cordial" police interview. Police have confirmed there was an investigation but have given no details. In August, See was called for a second, "more politically skewed", interview. "The police asked me, 'Why did I send the film out knowing it was objectionable?' They asked if I was a member of a political party … did I have continuing contact with Chee Soon Juan? I told them I was not a member, but I did have ongoing contact with Chee."

See surrendered his camera and tapes of Singapore Rebel after the second interview. Then, in mid-September, the same police officer asked two of See's friends to come in for interviews. "Right after that Amnesty and SEAPA [the South East Asian Press Association] spoke out," says See, who is wary about making himself, rather than censorship restrictions under the Films Act, the issue.

Under the act, it is illegal to make or show party-political films. However, a 2002 Hong Kong-made documentary on the state's founding father and long-time prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, has been shown in Singapore.

"It's the equivalent of pornography; the penalties are as harsh," See says. If charged and convicted, he could face up to two years' jail or a fine of up to $US100,000 ($78,700). He calls the act outmoded but concedes few Singaporeans are "clamouring for any change".

In Singapore Rebel, Chee is asked why he pursued politics, knowing the sensitivities. Within months of joining the opposition in 1992, he was accused of misappropriating funds and sacked from the National University of Singapore. He had to sell his house and car to pay for a defamation suit, and has been called a liar by the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.

"All it means is the PAP wins and if the PAP wins, Singapore loses," Chee says. "When my children grow up they will know what their father stands for. It doesn't matter what Lee Kuan Yew says."

See's next project will be a short film about Said Zahari, who was detained without trial from 1963 to 1979 under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (now the Internal Security Act). "I am glad I hung out with Chee Soon Juan for a couple of years, with people who are less fearful," he says. "It rubs off on you."