Well it's been a long time since I've written, and this topic doesn't especially seem to be fresh, but I'm particularly appalled by the university's shocking decision to close shop even before trying out for a year.
It's easy to see how the university is at blame for choosing to quit and leave their inaugural batch of students high and dry. It's easy to point fingers at the UNSW's governing council, who were given all of 30 seconds to read through the proposal for the setting up of the Asian campus in Singapore. One of UNSW Asia's concerns was that it would be a B-school, ranked below our own local universities. I think that was one of the concerns of SMU when it was set up not too long ago too, but look at what branding has done for them. All these and more, we can easily put a finger to.
However, the more shocking thing is the lack of investigation by our own media into the reasons behind the collapse of UNSW Asia. Or should it be the case that we shouldn't be surprised cos it's anti-government to question the wisdom of EDB officials? Or anti-establishment to dig up worms when it might be the case that OUR own officials might be at fault?
In a bid to be an educational hub in Asia, or renowned in the world for educational services, Singapore needs to re-examine the real underlying reasons behind all that hubba-bubba. How is it that the UNSW officials rushed through the proposal? Was it because EDB was pushing them too hard? Why is it that Warwick University, the second to be wooed as part of Singapore's dreams to form an educational hub, decided that it was not feasible to set up a campus here? Academic freedom was cited as the reason, but what exactly was behind it? More specifically, we need to break out of the vagaries - what in the name of "no academic freedom" was Warwick and UNSW against? A clarification by the MD of EDB has nary a response to any of these more "fundamental" questions.
Granted, targets have to be set so that we can reach our dreams of being a hub (of this and that and everything else), but surely FLEXIBILITY could be arranged? Up till this point in time, the government is still very rigid. How can it move past its own authoritarian, hand-holding culture when the big shots in the party cannot even move out of the shadows of their (fore)fathers?
We already have 3 or 4 full-service universities - NUS, NTU (not Nanyang IT!), SMU and (to a lesser extent?) UniSIM. So I question the feasibility for overseas universities to take root here. If there is any, the authorities should at least allow them to carve out a niche that they could excel in - for eg. when SMU came on board a few years ago, they were able to market themselves as THE business school. Similarly, we should have art schools, sports institutions and music universities in Singapore so as to diversify the educational aspects that can be found in our country. I heard that some music school was being wooed to set up here, and I'm very gladdened to hear that news.
I think it's a typical Singaporean mentality to be kiasu and kiasee, but more often than not, rushing things through hastily without thinking of the consequences will lead to the things not being accomplished satisfactorily. In this case, it not only spells the end of cooperation between UNSW and Singapore, but more importantly, it makes a dent in our aspirations to be THE place to get your education. And as we all know, negative things and images tend to stick around for a long time to come. Pray tell, what is EDB (who incidentally is suffering from lack of proper internal controls after an internal audit by the Attorney General - its first in 46 years!) is going to do about this.
A reputation, once damaged, is going to need so much salvation to get back to where it once was.
No comments:
Post a Comment