Singapore’s limits show a possible future for Hong Kong academic freedom

Singapore has been an open academic society with considerable academic freedom and independence, but there are also restrictions – many of them unwritten
The Lion City highlights how carefully crafted limitations on such freedoms can coexist with a successful academic system

Philip G. AltbachandGerard A. Postiglione

Published: 9:15am, 17 Sep 2020

Why you can trust SCMP

Hong Kong faces an inflection point in its higher education future following the social unrest and imposition of the national security law. As such, it is worth looking at Singapore’s experience as a semi-democracy with limited university autonomy and its own restrictions on academic freedom to reflect on what this might mean for Hong Kong.

Both places have had success building effective higher education systems during the past half a century. Hong Kong’s academic future now faces many questions in light of the new law and the prospect of restrictions on academia. Singapore, with restrictions in place, seems to be sailing along at the same time.

With closely matched populations, gross domestic products and highly developed service- and finance-based economies, the two places have some essential similarities. Both were British colonies. They have among the most effective higher education systems in the world.

Hong Kong has three universities in the top 100 of the Times Higher Education global academic rankings, while Singapore has two. Mainland China itself has six. Both are among the most internationalised higher education environments in the world.

A key difference is that Hong Kong is inextricably linked to mainland China. Singapore, meanwhile, has been independent since 1965 and does not have to worry about China.

04:30

Independent bookstores struggle under national security law in Hong Kong

Like Hong Kong, Singapore has been an open academic society with considerable academic freedom and independence of teaching and research. There is freedom to publish the results of academic research in all fields and for academics to comment in the local or international media. The universities have considerable autonomy in governance and decision-making.

There are restrictions, though, many of them unwritten. Crossing often invisible “red lines” can have consequences, although the velvet glove is more often employed than the iron fist. Faculty members who speak out too vociferously on political issues, involve themselves too actively in opposition politics or write too critically on proscribed topics can miss out on promotions or be removed from service. Foreigners can have their contracts ended or face expensive lawsuits.

Government authorities take an interest in what is going on in the universities. Singapore’s then education minister, Ong Ye Kung, said last year: “Academic freedom cannot be carte blanche for anyone to misuse an academic institution for political advocacy, for this would undermine the institution‘s academic standards and public standing.”

A quote, from a recent Post article about Singapore, may illustrate expectations: “One Singaporean academic with professional connections in Hong Kong predicted the academic environment for foreign academics could come to resemble that of the Lion City.”

National security law threatens Hong Kong’s academic freedom

The government provides guidance and support for the broad direction of higher education in Singapore while the internal management of universities is left in general to the academic community. There has never been any restriction on access to information or involvement with the rest of the world.

One might summarise the Singapore reality by characterising it as limited academic freedom and limited institutional autonomy. Over time, it is an academic environment that most find acceptable and results in a well-supported, effective and successful academic system.

Much of Hong Kong’s success has been attributed to the autonomy of universities and an openness to new ideas. It has been one of the most academically free and autonomous academic systems in Asia. Until the implementation of the national security law in July, no one was fired for academic views, writings or actions as a public intellectual.

Threats to academic freedom or institutional autonomy usually made front page news and were investigated. Currently, the internet remains completely open to academics and students, but some books deemed to be in contravention of the new security law have been removed from school libraries.

03:03

Hong Kong publishers resort to self-censorship under new security law

Hong Kong’s academic atmosphere was akin to top overseas universities’ and accounted for why it was able to attract academic staff from such institutions. The University Grants Committee provides overall direction to higher education. At the same time, the universities have almost complete internal autonomy and self-management. Shared governance emphasises control by the academics with participation by the administration.

After the promulgation of the national security law, though, the University of Hong Kong’s governing council decided to override the university’s senate by firing a law professor for activities tied to political protests for universal suffrage. Academics can no longer take part in a protest movement outside campus without risking their jobs.

The new security law has raised questions within the larger academic community. Without knowing precisely what words on a page or in a classroom could be construed as secession or subversion, the campus atmosphere becomes more tenuous and threatens Hong Kong’s international attractiveness.

Without question, Hong Kong has had a freer academic environment than Singapore in the past half a century, even while both have been similarly successful within their territories and globally. The Hong Kong government insists academic freedom and expression are safeguarded, but there is a concern that education is about to become less free.

Exactly how limitations – self-imposed or external – on academic freedom, increased controls and societal restrictions will affect higher education quality and global competitiveness is unclear. Singapore might be a useful point of comparison, showing that carefully crafted limitations on academic freedom can coexist with a successful academic system.

Philip G. Altbach is research professor at the Centre for International Higher Education, Boston College, US. Gerard Postiglione is emeritus professor at the Consortium for Research on Higher Education in Asia, University of Hong Kong

Post