V4i15

CLOCKWORK/NEWS

Vol. 4, Issue 15 Wednesday, February 17, 2016 Yale-NUS College, Singapore www.theoctant.org

NEWS Students Reject Call for Ambassador Chan’s Resignation

NEWS Student and media response to Ambassador’s comments deemed unsatisfactory

OPINION The “Illiberal Liberal” Narrative

STUDENTS REJECT CALL FOR AMBASSADOR CHAN’S RESIGNATION

A tongue-in-cheek-view events on campus

of

Mid-Term Break: The Octant staff will be taking a well earned rest over the upcoming break.

We hope you enjoy your midterm break and don’t miss us too much. Meanwhile, enjoy our Ambassador Special Edition. By the way, if Ambassador Chan is reading this, we’d love to get another interview!

Story by Dave Chappell, Managing Editor, and Spandana Bhattacharya, Editorin-Chief Picture credit to Dave Chappell

y an overwhelming margin, the student body of Yale-NUS College support Ambassador Chan Heng Chee’s continuation on the Yale-NUS Governing Board.

Ambassador Chan and felt that she was unfairly attacked. One respondent wrote, “the whole movement against Ambassador [Chan] is wrong in every way. Extremely selfish and rash.”

The Octant conducted a campus-wide poll, following the publication of an opinion piece in the paper. The article suggested that Ambassador Chan’s defence of Section 377A, which criminalizes sodomy, at the Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights on Jan 27, was incompatible with her role on the Yale-NUS Governing Board and questioned whether she should remain a member. The article caused a stir in national and international media.

Others took a more neutral view. “While I personally take no issue with Ambassador Chan’s actions,” one respondent wrote, “I recognize that some members of the student body do, and they have every right to express these views, and even call for her resignation from the board.”

B

The results of The Octant’s survey indicated that the majority of students did not share this stance. On the question “Do you think Ambassador Chan Heng Chee should resign?” 85% of the 117 respondents answered “no.” Still, 62% of those surveyed indicated that Ambassador Chan should engage in a dialogue with the student body.

The administration took a similar stance on the issue. Pericles Lewis, President of YaleNUS College, in an interview to The Straits Times, said that Yale-NUS College “will not consider asking Ambassador Chan to relinquish her position… She has been an integral member of our governing board, and a firm believer in our mission and vision to build a community of learning, where all viewpoints are heard and a respectful understanding of different opinions and beliefs is tolerated and understood.”

Many of the respondents strongly supported

... (continued on page 2)

Valentine’s Day: Speaking of love, despite impending assignments, we hope you were able to spend your Valentine’s day doing something you love.

Be it paintballing, going on blind dates or spending time with your significant others.

Time to Party!: The Octant would also like to welcome our brand new social chair, Jessica Lee ’18 to the organization. Jess will be working on the Octees (our prestigious award ceremony) and other social events. We are excited for her contributions to the organisation.

Happy Birthday Mr./Ms. President: This week marks Yale-NUS’s first ever Presidential elections! Although there are only two candidates running (incidentally both highly valued members of the Octant) we strongly urge students to show up and vote. We can’t wait to see how you make Yale-NUS great again!

ICGs: Congratulations to all those who competed in the InterCollege Games. We can safely call this year’s edition a resounding success. It’s time to take a break… and maybe a shower.

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 | 1

NEWS

period and included participants from all three class years and residential colleges. In addition to being asked if Ambassador Chan should resign, the respondents were also polled on whether her comments conflicted with her role on the Yale-NUS Governing Board. A sizeable majority—79%—answered “no.”

In addition, a smaller majority indicated that her comments were not problematic. When asked “Do you think Ambassador Chan Heng Chee’s Recent Comments on 377A are problematic?” 58% responded “no.” Some said Ambassador Chan was just doing her job. “Why should an Ambassador resign for properly representing the views of his or her government on the international stage? That’s the whole point of having Ambassadors,” wrote one respondent.

Others felt that the critics misunderstood Singapore. One student wrote, “these louder individuals do not seem to understand the context of which Ambassador Chan is working under, nor the nuances of a society that does not prize extreme actions as key to handling difficult situations.”

Another wrote that “the community should… be focused on

the strides that LBGTQ community has made in recent years in Singapore, and promote those strides so that more people are aware of them.”

Some students, though, took an opposing view. One respondent wrote, “How can the comments possibly be compatible with a forward-looking, liberal arts institution in the 21st century, to defend a colonial, bigoted law from the British Empire?”

Despite the support for Ambassador Chan, the majority of respondents endorsed a face-to-face dialogue between the student body and the Ambassador. Those surveyed indicated a slight preference for a closed forum (46%) over an open forum (41%).

These views echoed the stance of the G-Spot, the gender and sexuality alliance at Yale-NUS, which has requested a closed-door meeting with Ambassador Chan. Ambassador Chan is set to attend a closed-door dialogue regarding human rights in Singapore in the first week of March, according to minutes published by the Yale-NUS Student Government

STUDENT AND MEDIA RESPONSE

TO AMBASSADOR’S COMMENTS

DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY Story by Dave Chappell, Managing Editor, and Spandana Bhattacharya, Editor-in-Chief Picture credit to Dave Chappell and Yale-NUS Public Affairs

espondents to a recent campus-wide survey expressed disatisfaction with the reaction of the media and members of the student-body to recent comments made by Ambassador Chan Heng Chee.

R

Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they were with the 2 | FEBRUARY 17, 2016

response of the student-body, the media and the administration, on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being very unsatisfactory and 5 being very satisfactory), to Ambassador Chan’s defense of Section 377A, a law that criminalises sodomy. The survey, conducted by The Octant, followed an opinion piece, published in the paper, which suggested that her comments were incompatible with her role on the YaleNUS College Governing board. The responses from the survey are presented here: Student Reaction

NEWS

The majority of respondents rated the student body’s response as either very unsatisfactory or unsatisfactory, with a mean satisfaction score of 2.3. The main issue identified by respondents was individual students speaking on behalf of the student body.

One respondent wrote, “It [the opinion piece published in the Octant] presumed that it is representative of the school/student body’s opinion when it was maybe just a few peoples’.” The respondent criticized the use of the word “we” throughout the article, as they felt that it may be misconstrued to represent the collective view, even with the disclaimer at the end.

Similarly, another wrote, “Keyboard warriors that pursue their agendas need to stop assuming that the rest of us cares about their causes. Stop imposing your views on the rest of the community and [acting] as if you are representative of all our views.”

Others, however, felt that students should be able to express their views openly, regardless of their stance. “While I personally take no issue with Ambassador Chan’s actions, I recognise that some members of the student body do, and they have every right to express these views, and even call for her resignation from the board,” one student wrote.

News Coverage The majority of respondents also critiqued the media coverage of student reactions, scoring them an average satisfaction score of 2.3. The debate was picked up by national newspapers such as The

Straits Times, Mothership.SG as well as international news sources such as The Yale Daily News, a Yale University student publication.

Many students felt that both national and international outlets had not given enough coverage of how the majority of the student body felt. One respondent wrote that the opinion piece published in the Octant “has been painted to look like the sentiment of our community.”

Respondents also expressed concern about how the media coverage of individual opinions might negatively impact the school’s perception. One respondent wrote that these comments only served to reinforce the perception of Yale-NUS “as a liberal flag-waving hotspot for the crazies,” and advised the student body against “knee-jerk reactions.”

Administration Students were, however, more positive about the response of the administration, who received a mean satisfaction score of 3.4.

Pericles Lewis, President of Yale-NUS College, in an interview to The Straits Times, said that Yale-NUS College “will not consider asking Ambassador Chan to relinquish her position… She has been an integral member of our governing board, and a firm believer in our mission and vision to build a community of learning, where all viewpoints are heard and a respectful understanding of different opinions and beliefs is tolerated and understood.”

One respondent wrote that they supported the administration’s stance on the matter and hoped that the “student body will continue to view such matters as worthy of debate and discussion with minimal hostility, even to those of opposing viewpoints.”

The Dean of Students Christopher Bridges also met with members of the G-Spot, the gender and sexuality alliance at Yale-NUS. Ambassador Chan is set to attend a closed-door dialogue regarding human rights in Singapore in the first week of March, according to minutes published by the Yale-NUS Student Government

EDITORIAL TEAM Editor-in-chief Spandana Bhattacharya Managing Editor Dave Chappell Co-News Editor Chan Li Ting Co-News Editor Elaine Li Co-Opinion Editor Justin Ong Co-Opinion Editor Annie Wang Ting Fang Co-Features Editor Yip Jie Ying Co-Features Editor Nicholas Lua Co-Arts Editor David Chia Co-Arts Editor Tan Jia Hui DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of The Octant.

Questions can be directed to yncoctant@gmail.com

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 | 3

OPINION

THE “ILLIBERAL LIBERAL” NARRATIVE the discussion about Ambassador Chan’s remarks, as one common reaction to the suggestion of a possible call for her resignation was that such an action would equal to a punishment for holding conservative values. This is obviously in contradiction with our school’s commitment to diversity of viewpoints. I feel compelled to write this article because I think it is regrettable if some students feel silenced, marginalized or excluded because of their opinion.

It’s something that creates a deep wound within this community.

I’m also not a big fan of elephants in the room. I think the general feeling, that there is in Yale-NUS an underlying antagonism between those holding conservative and liberal positions with regards to LGBTQ+ issues, is something that should be talked about.

Collumn by Francesca Maviglia, Guest Columnist Illustration by Roger Ko

here’s a tendency to attack left-wing individuals as the ones with authoritarian attitudes that has been recently growing in popularity—the “illiberal liberal” argument.zily used to group together a broad range of actors and realities from centrist political parties to radical activist movements in one simplistic “leftist” hodgepodge, have certain opinions and positions (for example, that LGBTQ+ individuals are entitled to equal rights).

Said liberals will violently try to censor, ostracize, punish, and otherwise silence anyone who has a different opinion (for example, that there should be a law making same-sex relationships illegal). Thus, these liberals are the actual illiberal ones—dogmatic, bigoted, thought-policing, intolerant—as they only allow their own opinions to be expressed, ultimately infringing on other people’s freedom of speech.

T

Although this narrative developed primarily in the AngloSaxon world in relation to identity politics, it has gotten so wellknown among those of us globalized enough to be familiar with American and British political discourse, that is now joyously borrowed even half a globe away. Indeed, so popular that even Singapore’s ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan recently had a go with it, in a Facebook post about the controversy triggered by Ambassador Chan Heng Chee’s remarks on 377A at the Universal Periodic Review – ironically criticizing the ‘insanity of American Academy’ through the use of a predominantly American rhetoric (if you don’t believe me, compare the quantity and content of results for a google search of “illiberal left America” and “illiberal left Singapore”).

The “illiberal liberal” argument is at best misleading and at worse deliberately disingenuous. Yet it is one that is having significant resonance, outside and inside Yale-NUS College. It’s an argument that I want to tackle because it’s particularly relevant in

It’s true—freedom of speech includes all opinions, even those we dislike. 377A, however, is not an opinion. There’s a stark difference between a personal belief and a government law. An individual opinion, as unpleasant or hurtful as it might be, does not by itself have the power to negatively affect the life of citizens in an entire country. Politics does. The claim that non-implementation of 377A nullifies its negative impact on the community is empirically untrue. The documented experiences of discrimination lived by LGBTQ+ individuals in Singapore is evidence enough. As a foreign national, I’m in no way qualified to speak for the LGBTQ+ community in this country, but local organizations like Sayoni provide plenty of material.

Taking a stance against prejudice would not make Yale-NUS formalize a position of non-tolerance towards conservative opinions, but towards institutionalized discrimination, which are significantly different concepts. This is a stance that Yale-NUS already endorsed when it included “sexual orientation” in its nondiscrimination policy. This would not be anything new. It would not be a redefinition of our values. Saying that we do not accept the political legitimization of a discriminatory law would be an application of what our values are already; it would be a choice of coherency and honoring of our values.

It’s misleading to approach political power in the same way we approach individual values. Equating laws to personal opinions doesn’t serve in conceptualizing a realistic model of reality, or in figuring out how to apply the abstract concept of tolerance in practice. It’s also a tactically effective way of deviating attention from what’s really at stake when it comes to clashing viewpoints on minority rights. It’s a lot easier to antagonize LGBTQ+ activist groups by accusing them of wanting to silence and oppress the average citizen than to justify the systematic infringement of the human rights of queer individuals.

The views expressed here are the author’s own. The Octant welcomes all voices in the community. Email submissions to: yncoctant@gmail.com

LETTER TO THE EDITORS

Send your letter to the editors (maximum word count 150) to yncoctant@gmail.com by 5pm on Friday for the chance to have it published here next week.

CHECK OUT MORE AT: theoctant.org | facebook.com/yncoctant | @yncoctant 4 | FEBRUARY 17, 2016