VOL. 2, ISSUE 7 TUESDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2014 YALE-NUS, SINGAPORE

NEWS

18 Nov, 2014 | 1

story May Tay | photo used with permission from the Yale-NUS Elected Student Committee

CONSTITUTION MATTERS

When Jacob Schneidewind ’18 and Hrishi Olickel ’18 attended the last of five forums organised

by the Elected Student Committee (ESC) to discuss options for student government, they were surprised to see only around 10 people in attendance. The number dwindled to about five by the end of the nearly 4-hour long session, according to Schneidewind.

Over the past few weeks, the ESC has organised five constitution writing forums open to the student body. The ESC, comprised of seven members of the class of 2017, was elected in May 2014 by the current sophomore class to help facilitate the creation of a student government. Student opinions regarding the constitution writing process and student government seem largely lukewarm and mixed.

Attendance at the constitution writing forums ranged from “high single digits to the mid-twenties”, according to Jared Yeo ’17, a member of the ESC. Given the attendance, some worried that the outcome of the sessions did not adequately reflect the views of the entire student body.

“There’s a fairly good number of people who’ve been really involved … It’s a good group size for getting things done, but not a good size to represent the majority of students,” said Holly Apsley ’18, who attended two of the sessions.

Schneidewind added that at those forums where few students showed up, “power was then shifted to … (the) people who constantly attended these sessions … they had absolute control on what the constitution could look like.” Apsley also noted that more international students attended the forums as compared to Singaporean students.

Some students cited being busy with other aspects of college life as the reason for not participating more actively in the constitution writing process. “(It is now) near the end of the semester, so there are a lot of assignments due,” said Tong Ray Nee ’18. Yun Do Ung ’18 agreed. “One of the reasons I came to this college was because I wanted to participate in this sort of active civic life. I was looking forward to these processes … but then I realised that my first semester has been so hectic … [with] academics and extracurriculars,” he said. Others were indifferent to the process. “It’s not that I don’t think we need a student

government … I (just) don’t feel like being a part of this process,” said Herman Lim ’18.

Several sophomores interviewed felt that the reason why they are less active this year is because they had already participated in a similar process last year. “Whatever had to be said we said … last year. I hope the ESC has the [notes from those forums]. It’s quite stressful and taxing to (have to) say those things again,” said Timothy Lim ’17. Rohan Naidu ’17 added that there appears to be an assumption that a student government is necessary at this point in time. “Before launching headlong into [relevant proceedings], it’s important to clarify if most people even think we need a student government now. That conversation never took place. We need to back up one step and involve people in this discussion … they’ll be more involved in the process if they decide together that they a student government is needed.”

Most students interviewed for this article agreed that the ESC has done a good job of facilitating the constitution writing process this year. “The ESC has done a lot of publicity, both online and offline, [to reach] out to the student body,” Yeo said. Some students, however, still felt that communication could be improved upon. Lim felt that the information disseminated could have been delivered in a more succinct and graphically appealing manner. Sharlene Chow ’18 suggested that the ESC could consider publicising the process with more fanfare, such as with balloons and music. “Some people may criticise this and say [I am] making light of the situation … but if that’s what you need to get more people to know … the important dates and ... the four [constitution models] in the survey, that’s better than people not knowing at all,” she said.

Among those who have participated in the constitution writing process thus far, some believe that a student government should be formed soon. “[Right now] either there is a problem and it blows up and one random person goes to the DOS to talk about it, or it doesn’t get addressed. As we get bigger, it’s not going to be viable for the [administration] to hear about things happening on Facebook,” said Apsley. Dean’s Fellow Daniel Gordon, who had served as co-president of the student council at Haverford College, said, “There are a lot of places where better communication between the student body and the administration will

be really helpful … Students are often unhappy with things that the various [administrative offices] do, but they don’t realise they have a lot of power to make these decisions themselves if they organise.”

Gordon added that at most colleges, only a small number of students actively involve themselves in student government. “It’s not necessarily apathy. All students at Yale-NUS are passionate about something, and if it’s not directly related to student government, they don’t see it important to get involved. That said, people should … find out what is going on and how it might affect them, so they can be informed voters,” he added.

According to an official statement from the Dean of Students office regarding the constitution writing process, should a constitution fail to be ratified by this semester, “other options [will be explored] next semester to implement a form of student representation and governance … [which] may include appointing selected students to serve in leadership positions and College committees.”

The student government survey created by the ESC closed on Monday, Nov 17.

STUDENT GOVERNMENT SPECIAL

Above: Incentives were offered for students to take the Constitution Survey.

SPORTS/OPINION

2 | 18 Nov, 2014

story Yonatan Gazitphoto Christopher Khew

A GOOD PROBLEM

All “untagged” bicycles in Residential College Four’s storage room were thrown out on Thursday, Nov. 13th.

The tagging exercise was meant to “certify that it is a bicycle that belongs to a Yale-Nus student,” Martin Vasev ’18 said, who was the point of contact between the administration and students during the tagging process. All the untagged bicycles were assumed to belong to old Residential College Four residents who had abandoned them, and students agreed that the those bicycles needlessly took up space.

The lack of space was due to both the abandoned bicycles and increasing cycling on the part of Yale-NUS students. Director of Athletics Khoo Wainright said the latter was intentional. “When we moved in, I started a culture to try and promote people to get around by cycling, or by using their own means ... It is a good thing, but eventually it became a good problem,” he said. The incoming class of 2018, accompanied by their bicycles, only exacerbated the issue further.

The bicycle storage problem led to a growing trend where students kept bicycles in rooms and hallways—fire hazards by the Office of Housing Services (OHS) policies. According to Khoo, the tagging idea was suggested by the OHS. “When OHS comes to us, often, to remind us to remind our students not park along the hallways, they suggested that we go through the tagging exercise, which is not dissimilar to what the other Residential colleges within Utown are doing,” he said. “So we are adopting a policy that OHS has, by tagging bicycles so only authorized bikes will be able to park within our premises.”

The effort was executed by Vasev, beginning on Oct. 22 until the date of the bike disposal. In total, Vasev tagged 46 bicycles belonging

to Yale-NUS students and faculty. The OHS poster explaining the exercise explicitly said, “Upon expiry of the Registration period, we will proceed to move any bicycles that are without the official tags. These bicycles will be discarded without any further notice.” One students, however, had a different idea of how to deal with the bicycles.

The bikes could be donated to a good cause, Aleithia Low ’17 suggested to OHS. Low said she got her idea from a GOYAC club project earlier in the year donating bicycles to an orphanage. “They could have actually acquired the bicycles that were going to be discarded here,” she said. Despite the idea’s attractiveness, Yale-NUS could not donate the bikes, since the tagging was done under OHS jurisdiction, and there are legal restrictions against refurbishing, selling, or donating discarded bicycles.

Moving forward, Khoo wants to stress that the bicycle storage room belongs to the community. “Martin has tried many times to unclutter the bike room, so it would help ... when you store your bike, think of others who might be storing their bikes as well,” he said.

In the column next to this, you have seen some arguments against the formation of a student government using the current

process created by the Elected Student Committee (ESC). I want to do two things in this article: 1) explain why we need a student government as a concept, and 2) articulate why this current process is the best practical solution to the challenges faced by this college.

First, I doubt anyone would dispute that we have legitimate conflict both between groups of students and between students and administrative offices. The conflict YIRPA has had with the Dean of Students (DoS) Office, or the curriculum-related struggles all students—particularly sophomores— have undergone, or the debate over freedom of expression on confessions and elsewhere, clearly evidence the need for a unified student voice. We need a way to exert our collective influence over this college in making sure the administration is cognizant of our needs and desires. The status quo of having individual students march down to the DOS Office or the President’s Office does not provide the administration with enough information about student opinion on a broad level, nor does it ensure that all voices are represented. A student government is not a hyper-politicized, hierarchical body that enforces its will upon the population;

rather, it is a channel for recognition of student concerns and conflict resolution. It is a starting point from which we can balance immediate needs and recognize long-term changes in the school culture.

Now, to the major point of contention between my article and the opposing opinion: why should you approve this process and ratify this constitution, with a sunset clause? When you vote on the question of ratifying the constitution, you will be given two choices:

1) You can vote “No,” causing several things to happen. Anne Caroline Franklin, speaking for the ESC, states that, “Whether or not we ratify this constitution, the ESC will step down at the end of this semester and will stop having any jurisdiction over this process. From the ESC’s perspective, there is no ‘Plan B’ to ratification.” This means that we will not have a true student government to represent to the prospective first years, or to help review the common curriculum, or to provide feedback on majors to the faculty, or to facilitate the move to the new campus, ad. infinitum. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, Dean Farley has indicated that if we do not ratify the constitution, his office is considering, “... appointing selected students to serve in leadership positions and College committees.” This means that students will be making important decisions, but they will not necessarily be representative of our student body. Alternatively, we could end up with a brand-new, made-from-scratch, ESC-like structure, which is basically a student government with all the drawbacks and none of the benefits -- it would be more hasty and more rushed than the student body’s current constitutional proposal, and it would be less conducive to long-term growth and less able to deal with the concerns of our student body than the structure proposed by the constitution.

2) You can choose to make sure our collective voices are heard by voting “Yes, with a sunset clause” on the constitution, giving your consent for the student government to be formed in the method dictated by the student-voted surveys. Most importantly, the entire constitution will be re-visited next year after an initial trial period. The opposing side advocates that you vote “no,” because they feels that it is better to start this process over with much

guest column Jay Luskillustration Wikimedia Commons

A CASE FOR RATIFICATION

Above: The bicycle shed had become cluttered before the tagging exercise.

Below: Some at Yale-NUS believe students need the voice a government provides.

OPINION

18 Nov, 2014 | 3

We are not arguing for or against a student government - we are actually in favour of effective

governance, since it could provide a strong body to represent student opinion to the administration on a wide range of important and urgent issues. But there are problems with making the assumption that electing any form of student government will address these issues more effectively and efficiently.

The idea of a “student government” and the processes for its establishment were brought about by the Dean of Students’ Office (DoS) last year, with no coherent case for why we need a student government or what form one could take before the process got underway. Freshmen were not represented in the Elected Students’ Committee (ESC) during the rushed drafting of a constitution which saw minimal attendance and participation. The result of this has been an uninformed, disengaged and apathetic student body—problems we have

raised with the DoS and ESC.Given the problematic process, it is

important to consider carefully the value and ramifications of your upcoming vote. Contrary to the information provided in the ESC Crash Course posters, there are two - not three - options: a ‘yes’ vote and a ‘no’ vote. A ‘yes’ vote by two-thirds of the student body entails passing this particular constitution in its current form, complete with a poorly-defined “Sunset Clause”. A ‘no’ vote entails the disbanding of the ESC and the opening up of the process to the student body.

The sentiment exists that any student government is better than none, given the aforementioned problems. This has been reinforced by calls to urgency from both the ESC and the DoS, and to some degree this is reflective of the student body - in particular the sophomores. Their frustration, having gone through a long year of often inflammatory discussions on the constitution and government that ultimately proved fruitless, is completely understandable.

But let us step back and consider whether such a government, elected through such a process, is the best solution to the urgent problems. The lack of participation and representation in the process of drafting the constitution have created conditions - limiting possible options, introducing unchecked systemic biases - that are detrimental to the establishment of an effective and representative government. The government itself could become an additional problem, instead of the solution it should be!

We feel that knowing whether the student body actually wants a student government, and agreeing on what that entails, are questions that need to be answered representatively before we can even start to think about a process.

Assumptions also exist around the promised “Sunset Clause”. The poster states that the Clause means you agree with the constitution but only temporarily, after which

“we” can “review and evaluate...and decide if we want to make changes”. The timescale and mechanism for this have been left undefined. It is important to question who will be in charge of the alteration process, how effective and representative it will be, and whether it is open to abuse - as well as a host of other factors left unexplored. Given an ill-defined process likely subject to governmental influence and the effect of inertia, it is unwise to assume that the Clause will effectively lead to substantial improvements to the constitution. The ESC has stated it expects the constitution to stand relatively unchanged.

The potential for harms to arise within the Clause’s temporary period is cause enough for worry within a fledgling college. Decisions will have permanent ramifications on our culture, structure, and the autonomy and self-sufficiency of student body in solving problems. The image and prestige of the college depends disproportionately on its pioneering community. Therefore we have to bear these responsibilities and be particularly conscious of our decisions.

Dean of Students Kyle Farley has stated that his office will share a “contingency plan” for a “form of student representation & governance” which may include selected students and College committees should a ‘no’ vote be passed. However we should not accept that this is the sole solution. Following a “no” vote students can mobilise to directly address the problems.

The DoS’s heavy involvement has created a crutch mentality that promotes apathy towards issues within the student body. A “yes” vote creates potential for the problem to be exacerbated, adding an unmerited layer of bureaucracy, and encourage a reliance on representatives to solve our problems. Under a “no” vote this crutch would disappear creating the opportunity for student-initiated solutions.

Already proposed have been the ideas of a

guest column David Chappell, Tee Zhuo photo New Line Cinema

DON’T CAST YOUR VOTE ... AWAY

more (several years) extended timeframe, using intermediaries such as an updated version of the ESC, formed as an “organic” process to reach the formation of a government. The co-signers of this article and I argue that it is better to have a government formed with the intention of creating a long-term framework. I do not believe that this constitution ignores the concerns of classes to follow: we believe that a system has been identified that will make sure all views are represented. The compromise option, based in reality, is this option. Voting “Yes, with a sunset clause” allows our voice to be represented, ensures that we have a real, effective, functioning student government to help us through the transition to year three, and mandates we also have a system ready for slight tweaks or heavy reworking.

Overall, I think that the process that has happened to reach this point has not been perfect: there has been a lot of expected apathy. However, I believe trying to start over or draw out this process more is worse than taking concrete action now. Starting over is going to exacerbate apathy, not fix the problem. Do your part for the community, and make your voice heard. Vote “Yes,” and ensure our voices are represented today and into the future.

At the time of publication, 58 students have signed this article. For a full list of names, please visit Panopt online.

continued on page 4...

OPINION

4 | 18 Nov, 2014

panopt.org | facebook.com/panoptync | @yncpanoptCHECK OUT MORE AT:

LETTER TO THE EDITORSSend your letter to the editors (maximum word count 200) to yncpanopt@gmail.com by 5 P.M. on Friday for the chance to have it published here next week.

guest column Hoa Nguyen, Raeden Richardson, Shanice Stanislaus | photo illustration Pareen Chaudhari

A CALL AGAINST CONFESSIONS

Fellow schoolmates,

We want to bring your attention to a matter that deeply concerns us: the recent spate of personal attacks on the ‘Yale-NUS Confessions’ page on Facebook. Many of us do not belong to the page, neither are we vocal on social platforms with regards to school politics or personal disputes.

We do not speak on behalf of any groups or individuals that have been attacked, and most of us have escaped such unfortunate incidents. We are concerned for the individuals in our community whose emotional well-being and safety has been compromised due to the attacks on the page.

We are proponents of free speech and we strongly believe in the freedom of expression. We hope for a community where people practice their rights judiciously, and think twice before making a depredatory or discriminatory remark; at the same time, we know how idealistic that is, and our goal is not to penalize or condemn people for their views even if we find them unpleasant.

We instead want to underscore the importance of accountability.

An individual should be accountable for her words instead of hiding underneath the veil of anonymity. If one is capable of making a choice, he should be able to defend that choice if it is brought into question. This is the only way freedom of expression will lead to conducive conversations and meaningful debates. Using anonymity as an instrument to indiscriminately spread hateful views does nothing to promote the merits of such freedom, and only evokes distrust and insecurity, especially in such a small and closely-knit community as ours.

The Sophomore class encountered these same problems last year; given the recent events, the way we deal with this issue will speak loudest about the caliber of our community. We have the opportunity to collectively support the wellbeing of our cohort and become an active,

responsive student body that makes informed decisions.

Thus, we call out to you, fellow Yale-NUS students, to cease support for the ‘Confessions’ Page.

If you are on the page, withdraw from it. The power that ‘Confessions’ has relies on the support of its followers - were it not for its audience, the page would not self-perpetuate.

If we continue to permit the complete anonymity of expression that ‘Confessions’ promotes, we will only be indirectly supporting a culture of irresponsible practices of citizenship, thus hurting our community in unimaginable ways. If we as a community, however, choose to become more responsible in our expressions, we will slowly, but surely, move towards deserving of the freedoms we so rightfully claim.

The Administration can make all the policies it wants, but the only person who can stop these

viral, vitriolic sentiments and indiscriminating practices of power and privileges, is you. We call not for unfettered freedom of expression, but for a responsible freedom of expression. We have no desire to censor speech, nor do we intend to attach punitive consequences to any action. We strongly believe in individual rights - so long as such rights go hand in hand with ownership and accountability.

We hope that everyone understands that these attacks have emotionally affected and created a psychologically damaging experience to the affected individuals or groups. We advocate that each one of us takes ownership over our actions and choices, even if that means taking the active stance to leave the ‘Confessions’ page.

At the time of publication, 99 students have signed this Open Letter. To see the full list of names, visit Panopt online.

student council, purpose-driven committees, stop-gap measures during the creation of alternate constitutions and many more, all of which are viable alternatives. Personally, following a “no” vote, we will begin work on

the creation of an online petition portal - a crowdsourcing system for the community to raise problems, create and revise petitions, and lend their support to various ideas, among other things. The administration will be given

access to this portal.We feel consideration of the points raised in

this article are essential for casting an informed vote. We will be voting ‘no’, but you should arrive at your own, informed, decision.

continued from page 3...