Is academic freedom dead in Singapore?

On 22 March 2026, Malaysian activist Dr Fadiah Nadwah Fakir crossed the Malaysia-Singapore border. The trip would be mostly business: she was to deliver a guest lecture at the university where she had recently received her doctorate. To her surprise, Dr Fadiah was refused entry to Singapore and turned back to Malaysia at the Woodlands Checkpoint. She was an undesirable visitor, according to the receipts she posted on her social media accounts. In her own words, the ordeal was "extremely outrageous and distressing". Given that her candidature at the National University of Singapore was uneventful, if not model, Dr Nadiah alleged her "deportation" signals the state's disapproval of her research interests in postcolonial theory.

Safe and nonpolitical medieval students and scholars drinking and gambling,
from the Carmina Burana manuscript

Prof Khoo Ying Hooi, an international relations expert regularly consulted by Singapore's The Straits Times for regional and Malaysian political analysis, has opined that this incident is proof that Singapore actively polices the boundaries of academics to restrict their legitimate activities within education, and away from political activism and advocacy. Such a pity, the prof sniffs, as this overlap is the "common" mode of academic expression in the region.

Dr Fadiah's online theatrics and performative outrage may play to her social media audience,  but Prof Khoo's quiet piece presents a challenge that Home Affairs minister K Shanmugam cannot swat away easily: Was Singapore's action not just heavyhanded, but detrimental to academic freedom? Did striking Dr Fadiah also inadvertently hurt academic freedom and academic independence or autonomy, on which any functional democracy depends?

Analects 4:5

Confucius said: Men aspire to wealth and status; when these cannot be attained along the path of righteousness, the gentleman forsakes them. Men shun poverty and lowliness; when these cannot be evaded along the path of righteousness, the gentleman welcomes and suffers them.

Should a gentleman depart from righteousness, can he still shine a light on his name? A gentleman never swerves from the path of righteousness even in the sitting of a meal; it leads him in pressing moments and in times of tribulation.

- Analects 4:5, my translation

Did the Workers Party respond correctly to PM Wong's challenge?

It's been a long road, getting there to here. In 2021, Raeesah Khan (WP-Sengkang) attempted to besmirch the reputation of the Singapore Police Force in a speech to parliament. She falsely claimed she witnessed the police traumatise a victim of sexual assault. As it turned out, her party leader Pritam Singh found out it was a lie, allowed her to continue the lie for 3 months until she recanted it, then himself lied to the Committee of Privileges when it investigated her conduct, and was found out and referred to the criminal courts.

Pritam Singh was found guilty of lying and convicted in court, and his conviction conclusively upheld after appeal. And now the chickens are beginning to come to roost: Mr Singh was censured in a parliamentary motion of dishonorouable conduct unbecoming of a Member of Parliament and unsuitable to be the Leader of the Opposition.

Singapore prime minister Lawrence Wong quickly withdrew the privileges afforded to Mr Singh as the Leader of the opposition and invited the Workers Party to nominate someone else to the position. WP leadership mulled on the decision for nearly a week before rejecting the proposal entirely. Did it make the right decision?

King John surrendering his crown to the Pope's representative