The key issue here is not a difficult one people. Academics have a role to play in trying to ensure that the institutions they work in maintain a level of integrity. This is not about being for or against Mr Lee. You can argue that what he does in his own country is his own business (and if you do then don’t moan about what anyone else does either in their country) however when an Australian institution decides to honour him then it becomes the duty of academics and others who know something about his mode of operation to speak up.
I have not seen anyone suggest he does not deserve a level of recognition for what he has achieved in Singapore (although of course there were many other minds that played a major role in the development of Singapore’s economic plan not to mention the many hard working Singaporeans who have sweated to create the “miracle” he receives accolades for). Do you really expect academics not to not speak up on an issue like this? That is what he expects – no not expects regulates to ensure.
And do not fool yourselves Singapore is a country where you can work as an academic and be critical of everyone and everything around you just not the political system of Singapore. Why don’t you complain about that!
And please tell me more about all those Singaporeans who love Lee! That is why there is a major brain drain away from the place – well at least for those who have an opportunity. Oh yeah and why is it that the opposition still manages pull more than 30% of the vote in Singapore despite the oppressive political system I suppose these people don’t count – well their 30% plus of votes only secures a couple of seats in parliament so I guess they don’t count.
Yes and please tell me about how much more open Singapore is than the rest of Asia, even if this were true (and it is surely debatable) it has no bearing on whether or not Lee should be honoured with a Doctorate of Law from ANU it is simply irrelevant to the central issue here.
And Anon I have to say your point is no point. These degrees are given as an honour and so no one has to be offered one and should not be offered one unless they deserve it. So I guess no honorary degrees for any of these people and it will not hurt Australia’s standing in the region one little bit. What will hurt us is when one of our leading educational institutions hands these honours over to people who have not earned them.
That wasn’t a random ‘list’. They are living places with real people struggling to get by from the impacts of the US’s Cold War/defence policies. Yes, Iraq is one of the sickening ‘gyre’.
Have you been on a received end?
Ask yourself this question before urging people to ‘speak freely where and when you can’.
The same logic applies to other readers who defend academic freedom, exchange of knowledge, liberty, reason, etc.
Diego: “Lest we forgot, our esteemed academicians….are receiving salaries coming in significant part from the salaries of Singaporean students enrolled at ANU and who see Lee Kuan Yew as a hero or, at least, as somebody who is responsible for the bright economic future they, or their parents, now hold.”
You’re going to turn me, a conservative, into a Marxist with this drivel. Please stop.
“Wisdom can be bought.” This really does get to the heart of the problem, believing that knowledge can be purchased by somehow cornering everything that has a prestigious name attached to it with money, like NUS and other Singaporean intellectual endeavours try to do, the Nouveau-Riche-Gucci-handbag-Singaporean school of thought, or non-thought, or thoughts with price tags attached to them.
There are some first rate individual scholars and scholarly products at NUS, I use them all the time, but the subterfuge with which the institutional legacies of Lee Kuan Yew try to monopolise all thought and speech, pushing everyone else out of the room, even ironically with this honorary degree, should be acknowledged as the farce (as in play-acting, not real) that they really are.
Bad precedent for the Faculty. Singapore might not be the most liberal nation in the world, but it is still one of the more liberal nations in Southeast Asia. If the Faculty administration wants to disqualify Lee’s contributions in economy/government-building because of his human rights record now, it will also have to do so for every other statesman in Southeast Asia. And that would be very short-sighted of them.
Pig Latin’s muddled and boorish response probably needs no further comment.,but for future reference he should try to avoid absurdly irrelevant prescriptive definitions which tend to be the resort of the intellectually impoverished.
As a matter of record the Oxford consensus now regards the insult to Margaret Thatcher as shameful as well as deplorable manners.I hope ANU avoids the same mistake.
JFL, Some clarification – Firstly I used to live with a woman from Chile who was most offended whenever I referred to the US as America.
Secondly, my reference to Hobbes and post modern political correctness was meant to suggest that how power is used or abused has remained the same in spite of grammatical change. That from the outside Thai political subversiveness is much more obvious to us on the outside, whilst living on the inside of the West our own corruption is much less visible because we are indirectly apart of it.
“The small mindedness of bien pensant academics can scarcely be underestimated.Shame on them.”
Shame one those who feel compelled to shame others without substantiating their petty moralising with reasons and argument.
Lee Kuan Yew is being given a law degree. He used legal means, defamation suits to undermine democracy. Politicians in neighboring Thailand were apparently inspired by his example, producing what amounts to a contagion effect. Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew’s brand of one party authoritarian government worked in tiny Singapore. His legacy of defamation suits has certainly been roundly rejected in Thailand.
Furthermore, from the above letter by the dean of the school of law, it appears that ANUs faculty of law was not consulted in awarding the degree. That fact would seem to make the awarding of the degree a sham since the faculty of law would be the one’s defining excellence, one would assume.
Scholars who have enough guts to protest this sort of thing, instead of sitting closed mouth idly watching, or perhaps in fear of some sort of delayed retribution one often gets from acting on principle, should be applauded as heros.
Chris Fry, true – Mr Lee Kuan Yew is a remarkable statesman. He was remarkable at, as Weber put it, having a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” He was(is?) THE man! If this is something you find admirable then your point becomes all the more laughable, acolyte and sycophant of those more powerful than yourself! For shame! Go live in Merseyside and bare your Thatcher pride! haha
JFL: Your post #8 is the most sensible thing I have seen written on this boycott subject.
I am currently reading Handley’s book and apart from the obvious spin, the other themes that come through clearly are how currupt & power hungry politicians are, and the role of the US in thai politics over several decades.
Handley documents how US policies were crucial in building up the king’s image – Quite ironic how this discussion about boycotting a conference because it might help honour the king, has degenerated in to a defence of US government and it’s freedoms.
Lest we forgot, our esteemed academicians who are partly running this blog are receiving salaries coming in significant part from the salaries of Singaporean students enrolled at ANU and who see Lee Kuan Yew as a hero or, at least, as somebody who is responsible for the bright economic future they, or their parents, now hold.
I have no “free advice” for Thais on their conduct within their own country, or outside it come to think of it.
My interest in this issue was originally due to what I thought were hypercritical attitudes of some about Thai politics and society while at the same time no such criticism of our own anglo-american-australian nations which wreck much more serious havoc outside their own borders was on offer at all. A question of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones.
As well I am furious and heart-broken at the conduct of my own country.
If there is a question of mean-spirited criticism I thought I saw it more clearly in the attacks on Thailand than I did in the concern about awarding a degree in law to the former premier of Singapore.
What ever might be said about Thai politics and society, Thailand is not a danger to the lives and livelihood of other peoples outside its borders.
The governance of Singapore is definitely not allowed to degenerate into a mud-slinging circus. The contrasting situation in Australia is regarded by many as superior. If Mr Lee gets some mud on his coat in Australia, this will not necessarily reflect badly on SIngapore.
You CAN say what you just said to me anywhere, anytime in the US.
But if I were to say something similar, i.e. sharp criticisms of certain persons or institution/s intimately involved with this coup, I would be at great risk of long jail-sentence.
Or take the Patriot Act. You can criticize, organize a protest against it openly, can you not?
But you cannot do that to the Less Majeste law here. True, some brave voices have been raised against the application of it in recent times. Notice: just against its application, because virtually no one can challange or demand the end of the law itself. Even these (criticism of its application) are very rare, very limited and carry certain risk.
I wonder why all this comes up now. Censorship and self-censorship concerning certain issues have always played roles in foreigners and Thais doing political research in Thailand, and taking part in Thai Studies Conferences, both here in Thailand and abroad.
Your comparison and your criticism is based on fallacious reasoning.
1. The question is to boycott a Thai Studies conference in Thailand or not because of official and unofficial censorship.
2. This question has nothing to do with the United States.
3. Even if we were to compare it with the US, the equivalence would be “Should an International American Studies conference be boycotted in the US because of official and unofficial censorship? If criticizing the US government at an American studies conference against the law, should it be boycotted because it infringes on academic freedom?
These questions would never even come up in the US because academic and freedom of speech exist there. There would be quite a lot of criticism of the US government at any international American studies conference. In fact, most American Studies programs are mostly comprised of critical theorists, who have no problems attacking the sacred cows in the US society.
Thai studies scholars, on the other hand, are mostly comprised of ass kissers and sycophants, who will do everything in their power not to rock the boat. I guarantee that most will be dressed in yellow and singing the praises of the king.
Which do you think it will be the case: Standing up for academic freedom,standing up for democratic principles, or kissing a lot of royalist ass in order to preserve good feelings and social cohesion? I am choosing c.
As for the name America or American, the argument as to whether US citizens should be called Americans or not is so stupid that it is a waste of time.
What else should they be called?
Citizens of the US?
But the problem with that is that both Mexico and Brazil have the United States integrated into their official names.
United States of Mexico, United States of Brazil
There is only only one United States of America, which is the official name. And why the hell does it matter to other North Americans and South Americans what the people of the USA call themselves?
I’ve never heard an American get upset because Mexico and Brazil called themselves the United States of Mexico, or the United States of Brazil. Also, I have never heard a US American get upset because a Canadian or a Peruvian referred to themselves as Americans.
Only those folks from countries with low self-esteem seem to make a big deal about it.
This is the kind of row that will look mean spirited and foolish in a few years time.It reminds me very much of the weak minded behaviour of Oxford dons when over a decade ago they denied Margaret Thatcher an honorary degree, probably the most distinguished alumnus of the university at that time.Lee Kwan Yew is a remarkable Asian statesman and the honorary degree does not imply approval of all his actions.
The small mindedness of bien pensant academics can scarcely be underestimated.Shame on them.
[…] , Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu has now been widely quoted in the South African media. He does not mince his words:. I am deeply disappointed by our vote. … – more – […]
[…] Stephen McCarthy in his book, The Political Theory of Tyranny in Singapore and Burma: Aristotle and the rhetoric of benevolent despotism, provides a good explanation on the Junta s promotion of Buddhism being a fear byproduct of … – more – […]
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
The key issue here is not a difficult one people. Academics have a role to play in trying to ensure that the institutions they work in maintain a level of integrity. This is not about being for or against Mr Lee. You can argue that what he does in his own country is his own business (and if you do then don’t moan about what anyone else does either in their country) however when an Australian institution decides to honour him then it becomes the duty of academics and others who know something about his mode of operation to speak up.
I have not seen anyone suggest he does not deserve a level of recognition for what he has achieved in Singapore (although of course there were many other minds that played a major role in the development of Singapore’s economic plan not to mention the many hard working Singaporeans who have sweated to create the “miracle” he receives accolades for). Do you really expect academics not to not speak up on an issue like this? That is what he expects – no not expects regulates to ensure.
And do not fool yourselves Singapore is a country where you can work as an academic and be critical of everyone and everything around you just not the political system of Singapore. Why don’t you complain about that!
And please tell me more about all those Singaporeans who love Lee! That is why there is a major brain drain away from the place – well at least for those who have an opportunity. Oh yeah and why is it that the opposition still manages pull more than 30% of the vote in Singapore despite the oppressive political system I suppose these people don’t count – well their 30% plus of votes only secures a couple of seats in parliament so I guess they don’t count.
Yes and please tell me about how much more open Singapore is than the rest of Asia, even if this were true (and it is surely debatable) it has no bearing on whether or not Lee should be honoured with a Doctorate of Law from ANU it is simply irrelevant to the central issue here.
And Anon I have to say your point is no point. These degrees are given as an honour and so no one has to be offered one and should not be offered one unless they deserve it. So I guess no honorary degrees for any of these people and it will not hurt Australia’s standing in the region one little bit. What will hurt us is when one of our leading educational institutions hands these honours over to people who have not earned them.
Thai studies boycott? An update
Re: John Francis Lee
That wasn’t a random ‘list’. They are living places with real people struggling to get by from the impacts of the US’s Cold War/defence policies. Yes, Iraq is one of the sickening ‘gyre’.
Have you been on a received end?
Ask yourself this question before urging people to ‘speak freely where and when you can’.
The same logic applies to other readers who defend academic freedom, exchange of knowledge, liberty, reason, etc.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
Diego: “Lest we forgot, our esteemed academicians….are receiving salaries coming in significant part from the salaries of Singaporean students enrolled at ANU and who see Lee Kuan Yew as a hero or, at least, as somebody who is responsible for the bright economic future they, or their parents, now hold.”
You’re going to turn me, a conservative, into a Marxist with this drivel. Please stop.
“Wisdom can be bought.” This really does get to the heart of the problem, believing that knowledge can be purchased by somehow cornering everything that has a prestigious name attached to it with money, like NUS and other Singaporean intellectual endeavours try to do, the Nouveau-Riche-Gucci-handbag-Singaporean school of thought, or non-thought, or thoughts with price tags attached to them.
There are some first rate individual scholars and scholarly products at NUS, I use them all the time, but the subterfuge with which the institutional legacies of Lee Kuan Yew try to monopolise all thought and speech, pushing everyone else out of the room, even ironically with this honorary degree, should be acknowledged as the farce (as in play-acting, not real) that they really are.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
Bad precedent for the Faculty. Singapore might not be the most liberal nation in the world, but it is still one of the more liberal nations in Southeast Asia. If the Faculty administration wants to disqualify Lee’s contributions in economy/government-building because of his human rights record now, it will also have to do so for every other statesman in Southeast Asia. And that would be very short-sighted of them.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
Boorish? Irrelevant?!
What world do you live in? Clearly its not one that considers egalitarianism virtuous!
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
Pig Latin’s muddled and boorish response probably needs no further comment.,but for future reference he should try to avoid absurdly irrelevant prescriptive definitions which tend to be the resort of the intellectually impoverished.
As a matter of record the Oxford consensus now regards the insult to Margaret Thatcher as shameful as well as deplorable manners.I hope ANU avoids the same mistake.
Thai studies boycott? An update
JFL, Some clarification – Firstly I used to live with a woman from Chile who was most offended whenever I referred to the US as America.
Secondly, my reference to Hobbes and post modern political correctness was meant to suggest that how power is used or abused has remained the same in spite of grammatical change. That from the outside Thai political subversiveness is much more obvious to us on the outside, whilst living on the inside of the West our own corruption is much less visible because we are indirectly apart of it.
Hopefully this has been less spluttering tirade 🙂
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
“The small mindedness of bien pensant academics can scarcely be underestimated.Shame on them.”
Shame one those who feel compelled to shame others without substantiating their petty moralising with reasons and argument.
Lee Kuan Yew is being given a law degree. He used legal means, defamation suits to undermine democracy. Politicians in neighboring Thailand were apparently inspired by his example, producing what amounts to a contagion effect. Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew’s brand of one party authoritarian government worked in tiny Singapore. His legacy of defamation suits has certainly been roundly rejected in Thailand.
Furthermore, from the above letter by the dean of the school of law, it appears that ANUs faculty of law was not consulted in awarding the degree. That fact would seem to make the awarding of the degree a sham since the faculty of law would be the one’s defining excellence, one would assume.
Scholars who have enough guts to protest this sort of thing, instead of sitting closed mouth idly watching, or perhaps in fear of some sort of delayed retribution one often gets from acting on principle, should be applauded as heros.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
Chris Fry, true – Mr Lee Kuan Yew is a remarkable statesman. He was remarkable at, as Weber put it, having a “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” He was(is?) THE man! If this is something you find admirable then your point becomes all the more laughable, acolyte and sycophant of those more powerful than yourself! For shame! Go live in Merseyside and bare your Thatcher pride! haha
Also, respect to those Georgetown students.
Thai studies boycott? An update
JFL: Your post #8 is the most sensible thing I have seen written on this boycott subject.
I am currently reading Handley’s book and apart from the obvious spin, the other themes that come through clearly are how currupt & power hungry politicians are, and the role of the US in thai politics over several decades.
Handley documents how US policies were crucial in building up the king’s image – Quite ironic how this discussion about boycotting a conference because it might help honour the king, has degenerated in to a defence of US government and it’s freedoms.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
Lest we forgot, our esteemed academicians who are partly running this blog are receiving salaries coming in significant part from the salaries of Singaporean students enrolled at ANU and who see Lee Kuan Yew as a hero or, at least, as somebody who is responsible for the bright economic future they, or their parents, now hold.
Thai studies boycott? An update
I have no “free advice” for Thais on their conduct within their own country, or outside it come to think of it.
My interest in this issue was originally due to what I thought were hypercritical attitudes of some about Thai politics and society while at the same time no such criticism of our own anglo-american-australian nations which wreck much more serious havoc outside their own borders was on offer at all. A question of people who live in glass houses not throwing stones.
As well I am furious and heart-broken at the conduct of my own country.
If there is a question of mean-spirited criticism I thought I saw it more clearly in the attacks on Thailand than I did in the concern about awarding a degree in law to the former premier of Singapore.
What ever might be said about Thai politics and society, Thailand is not a danger to the lives and livelihood of other peoples outside its borders.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
The governance of Singapore is definitely not allowed to degenerate into a mud-slinging circus. The contrasting situation in Australia is regarded by many as superior. If Mr Lee gets some mud on his coat in Australia, this will not necessarily reflect badly on SIngapore.
Thai studies boycott? An update
Khun John Francis Lee,
Well, here another example of the difference :
You CAN say what you just said to me anywhere, anytime in the US.
But if I were to say something similar, i.e. sharp criticisms of certain persons or institution/s intimately involved with this coup, I would be at great risk of long jail-sentence.
Or take the Patriot Act. You can criticize, organize a protest against it openly, can you not?
But you cannot do that to the Less Majeste law here. True, some brave voices have been raised against the application of it in recent times. Notice: just against its application, because virtually no one can challange or demand the end of the law itself. Even these (criticism of its application) are very rare, very limited and carry certain risk.
Thai studies boycott? An update
I wonder why all this comes up now. Censorship and self-censorship concerning certain issues have always played roles in foreigners and Thais doing political research in Thailand, and taking part in Thai Studies Conferences, both here in Thailand and abroad.
Thai studies boycott? An update
JFL-
Your comparison and your criticism is based on fallacious reasoning.
1. The question is to boycott a Thai Studies conference in Thailand or not because of official and unofficial censorship.
2. This question has nothing to do with the United States.
3. Even if we were to compare it with the US, the equivalence would be “Should an International American Studies conference be boycotted in the US because of official and unofficial censorship? If criticizing the US government at an American studies conference against the law, should it be boycotted because it infringes on academic freedom?
These questions would never even come up in the US because academic and freedom of speech exist there. There would be quite a lot of criticism of the US government at any international American studies conference. In fact, most American Studies programs are mostly comprised of critical theorists, who have no problems attacking the sacred cows in the US society.
Thai studies scholars, on the other hand, are mostly comprised of ass kissers and sycophants, who will do everything in their power not to rock the boat. I guarantee that most will be dressed in yellow and singing the praises of the king.
Which do you think it will be the case: Standing up for academic freedom,standing up for democratic principles, or kissing a lot of royalist ass in order to preserve good feelings and social cohesion? I am choosing c.
As for the name America or American, the argument as to whether US citizens should be called Americans or not is so stupid that it is a waste of time.
What else should they be called?
Citizens of the US?
But the problem with that is that both Mexico and Brazil have the United States integrated into their official names.
United States of Mexico, United States of Brazil
There is only only one United States of America, which is the official name. And why the hell does it matter to other North Americans and South Americans what the people of the USA call themselves?
I’ve never heard an American get upset because Mexico and Brazil called themselves the United States of Mexico, or the United States of Brazil. Also, I have never heard a US American get upset because a Canadian or a Peruvian referred to themselves as Americans.
Only those folks from countries with low self-esteem seem to make a big deal about it.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
This is the kind of row that will look mean spirited and foolish in a few years time.It reminds me very much of the weak minded behaviour of Oxford dons when over a decade ago they denied Margaret Thatcher an honorary degree, probably the most distinguished alumnus of the university at that time.Lee Kwan Yew is a remarkable Asian statesman and the honorary degree does not imply approval of all his actions.
The small mindedness of bien pensant academics can scarcely be underestimated.Shame on them.
ANU College of Law condemns Lee’s degree
I know that I was inspired by the Georgetown University Law Students Expression of Revulsion when the crimnal Alberto Gonzales had the temerity to address them.
Tutu on South Africa’s Burma vote
[…] , Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu has now been widely quoted in the South African media. He does not mince his words:. I am deeply disappointed by our vote. … – more – […]
“Carrying the Cross”: Christians and Burma
[…] Stephen McCarthy in his book, The Political Theory of Tyranny in Singapore and Burma: Aristotle and the rhetoric of benevolent despotism, provides a good explanation on the Junta s promotion of Buddhism being a fear byproduct of … – more – […]