 |
The writer, Chong Shang Shan, is an A*STAR scientist. He has a Ph.D in Physics from Carnegie Mellon University. He can be reached at chongss@gmail.com.
Andy Ho, in this birthday wishes for Singapore, (Straits Times, 9 August 2006) wishes that we should "de-compress", "de-colonize" and "de-escalate". It is his supporting arguments for the second issue I'm commenting on. I'm not commenting on the other two.
Andy Ho wishes that we have decolonized minds, that we should be confident about our achievements without having to scratch that itch for external validation. I have no quarrel with this ideal. I just have problems with his supporting arguments for it.
He raises the John-Hopkins-A*Star brouhaha as an example of this: that we are too trusting of Westerners simply because they are Westerners. This is an illogical assertion. Is Andy Ho positively asserting that A*Star did not do their research on deciding who to pair up with? He implies that John Hopkins was given a free rein, on the basis that they are a Western institution. I am certain that it was John Hopkin's reputation as a Medical Hub that was a factor in that decision to team up with them. It's a stretch of logic to insinuate that this was because we are kowtowing to a Western institution.
In making the charge of colonialism in the decision-making of public institutions like A*Star, focus should be given to the pertinent factors of decision-making. Basing an argument about unproven accusations of racism should not be done.
Next Andy Ho asks us to consider how local universities use external examinors to validate the undergraduate curriculum and examinations. He would have us believe that every instance of this is a reflection of our psychological need for external validation. This is a groundless accusation.
He goes on to claim that in US universities don't have external examinors on their doctoral committees. This fact is false.
Students at all the top doctoral degree granting institutions all have the requirement, to ensure that their thesis committee consists not just professors of their own department. Very often the examiner is an expert from someone from a different department who is also an expert in the field fit to judge the work of that the thesis represents.
There are many reasons for external examiners, none of which have anything to with the reason that Andy Ho advances--that the committed is endorsed by the department, which has the confidence of the whole university. This is TRUE, but is not the reason for having an external examiner.
External examiners ensure that the thesis work is nonbiased. Sometimes, however much we engage in self-criticism, we can't avoid our own biases. It may be that we often criticise ourselves from certain angles, and not others. Sincere foreign criticism can alleviate this problem.
External examiners assess the relevancy of the work to recent research. It would be a severe waste if one's doctoral research were shown to be old-fashioned, wrong directed, or at best, a duplication of existing work. To alleviate this problem, frequent interaction with external sources is good idea.
External examiners judge the committee adheres to academic standards commensurate with the degree granted. The presence of external examiners prevent the university from minting degrees according to demand, without consideration of academic standards. They keep the department and hence university honest with itself. After all, universities need funding and it is easy to dumb down curriculum just to keep the pass-rate high. Running a university or research institute is not unlike running a business. If you skimp on the QC department, don't be surprised that one day, Japanese auto-manufacturers enter the market with better and cheaper products to wipe you out. Ditto educational standards.
The pattern here should be obvious. Having external examiner is part of the larger pattern of inviting open criticism from competent experts. That's the way to advance, to make oneself robust. Criticism is the only known antidote to error. The opposite is true as well: avoidance of criticism leads to ossification and self-salubratory mediocrity.
An example is in order. One factor that contributed to the Huang Woo Suk stem cell scandal was that there was no checks and balances on South Korea's Ministry of Finance from external committees. No external committee checked the grants of the scientists.
I am not asserting that an external committee is a panacea, but having an external committee could have possibly stopped fraudulent research before it becomes larger face-losing disaster.
We asians value face, do we not? But let me make this plea: it's better to lose a bit of face to gain more in the future. Again none of these reasons have anything to do with the psychological need for external validation that Andy Ho imputes to this practice.
Without this support, what exactly does Andy Ho mean by "decolonize"? I would have thought it meant the subtle racism that we engage in in our shopping centers and Hawker stalls. I would have thought it meant the kneejerk mindset present in many that "foreign equals better". The examples raised by Andy Ho do not illustrate these points.
In rejecting the ideas of a foreign power from "de-colonial" reasons, it helps not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
