Nanyang University Alumni Global Reunion and Resolution of the "Nantah Issue" (Continued)

... Continued

For most Nanyang students, the idyllic surroundings of Yunnanyuan and the mature attitude of the university administration gave them, for the first time, the opportunity to organize their own life. Serious academic explorations were carried out through the formation of student clubs and publication of scholarly journals. In this process, life-long friendships were struck. For many students, this was also the process through which they met their spouses. The comradeship and the sense of being together, enjoying life and sharing hardships, was strengthened by the unjust persecution of the university from outside. There is, therefore, a natural tendency among Nantah alumni to romanticize and become nostalgic about their experience at the university, and dream of anew life for the old university. This explains why it was from the heart that they responded so negatively to the suggestion that Nanyang graduates register with the NTU. On the one hand, it was a case of not wanting to have their beautiful memories tarnished by any apparent act of compromise. On the other hand, having been forced out of Yunnanyuan like an orphaned child, what Nantah alumni feared most was to be passed once again from one foster parent to another. Someone even compared the semi-official suggestion to a deliberate action to hurt the unwanted child who had been forced to live like a gypsy, by reminding him of his misfortune.

An examination of the circumstances under which the Singapore M.P. made his suggestion, however, may lead one to conclude that it was not done with the purpose of reopening the wounds suffered by the supporters of Nantah, although it apparently did achieve that effect. It might have been out of character for the paternalistic Singapore authorities to feel the need to test public opinion on a question of such importance, especially to seek the view of a group of people who, in the eyes of the authorities, were more helpful to political stability if they were made not to express their thoughts publicly. But the Singapore authorities now must have recognized that the political situation under which Nantah found itself during its 25-year existence has changed. With the disappearance of the communist threat, the bogey of the Chinese-educated as the communist agent no longer needs to be sustained. On the contrary, the family values and law-abiding virtues of the Chinese-educated are being encouraged to counterbalance a perceived threat to socio-political stability from Western liberalism. I, therefore, argue that the Singapore authorities have no need to antagonize the Chinese-educated community at whose head stand the Nantah alumni.

There is no lack of evidence to indicate that the Singapore authorities are increasingly interested in things Chinese. The study and propagation of Confucian thinking has engaged the energy of Singapore leaders for some time. Recently, there has been serious attention paid to the understanding of the socio-economy of China, for its own sake as well as for the more immediate need to obtain more reliable information on the momentous changes taking place in contemporary China, to ensure better economic performance by Singapore interests there.

I wander if the Singapore authorities are looking for a single roof under which all these activities would be housed for better coordination? I wander, too, if that single roof would be ultimately located in Yunnanyuan, in the reemerged second university? The elevation of the status of NTI may give the public the impression that the Singapore authorities are keeping their words. But no one should believe that the Singapore authorities do not realize the absurdity of elevating the status of NTI to a university merely on the ground that there can now be two universities in Singapore, as it was to shut down Nantah because Singapore could only have one university. The degree-conferring power of the NTU has not changed the nature of that institution. As another fully state-run institution, it makes no difference whether it is independent or under the wing of the NUS.

The NTU has little to offer to Nantah supporters, whether or not it is a university. The reemerged second university could only have meaning if it was something different. Could it, therefore, be meant to include some aspects of Nantah, as indeed even Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (吴作栋) has jumped onto the bandwagon to endorse the use of "Nantah" as the Chinese abbreviation for NTU?

An avenue is now open for NTU to contain one aspect of Nantah. Singapore has been talking about privatization for some time. In education, even Raffles Institution has become an autonomous school, for the purpose of presenting a more innovative educational programme to be funded by private donations. If there are good reasons for some key primary and secondary schools to become autonomous, there must also be similarly good reasons for the second university in the country to become privately run. After all, the ostensible reason given in the semi-official suggestion was that Nantah graduates would be able to help raise private funds for NTU.

It is argued, therefore, that the suggestion was made with something in mind much more serious than it has been received. The Singapore authorities would never have tolerated the harsh public criticisms of their actions against Nantah brought on by the suggestion, if they did not think that ultimately they would be able to reap a bumper harvest of praises resulting from an improvement of the "Nantah issue" which the suggestion was attempting, in its own way, to address. Could the Singapore authorities be sending a message to Nantah supporters: make a case for the return of Nanyang University to Yunnanyuan as an independent institution?

Consequently, I am prepared to recommend that, after the initial emotion aroused by the suggestion has subsided, a cool and calm response from the head be made, to see if we could meet the Singapore authorities' needs somewhere, to cause the happy return of our alma mater to Yunnanyuan. That response would state the condition under which Nantah graduates would reenter Yunnanyuan under the fold of NTU. Incorporating a forward-looking attitude of resolving, once and for all, the "Nantah issue", that condition should not include any apportionment of historical blames, but only the "Nantahization" of NTU, in the sense that NTU would become privately managed, incorporate the teaching and study of the Chinese language and culture as one of its major objectives, and open its doors to students from East and Southeast Asia. "Nantahization" should be carried out in a temporally-defined process of transition and transformation of the NTU, culminating in the reemergence of Nanyang University in Yunnanyuan.

The response, of course, would have to be backed by supporting arguments which, instead of presenting the numerous grievances of the Nantah supporters, should address the concerns of the Singapore authorities. Genuine grievances cannot be easily swept under the carpet, but the perceptions of the Singapore authorities must be taken into account and dealt with seriously. A case can and must be made which links Singapore's long term national interests with the reorganization of Chinese education especially at the post-secondary level. It must demonstrate that with the reestablishment of Nantah as the pinnacle of Chinese education in Singapore and Southeast Asia, a clear message of the commitment of the government to the fostering of eastern values would be given to the educators in Singapore, leaving them little doubt that western culture represents only one, and not even the dominating aspect of the identity or "core values" of the republic. The Nantah case must also show that equal treatment to both eastern and western cultures in Singapore will attract to the state the talents of all the groups in the region, especially the Chinese, this helping to consolidate Singapore's position as the region's only "little tiger". In this connection, a comparison of the Chinese-ness of Hong Kong and Singapore should be attempted to demonstrate Singapore's current comparative disadvantage, but especially to expose Singapore's inability to attract a significant number of talents leaving Hong Kong due to the 1997 reversion.

For Nantah alumni who have always maintained that our alma mater is not against anybody's interests, that it is promoting the interest of national education so that its graduates can serve their countries more and better, we should have little difficulty in making the above points. Since our first batch of graduates completed their studies and entered the real world more than 30 years ago, we have served our countries well. Of course, if we had been treated with fairness, we could have given up even more for our countries. But the more than 10,000 of us do not have to persist in dwelling on the past, if there is truly something worthwhile in the future to attract our collective attention.

As we look into the future, we should also make an examination of the kind of Nantah we wish to resurrect. It is important to resist being sentimental and attempt to restore everything in the old Nantah. Nantah alumni cannot but be sympathetic to the saying: "However ugly our mother may be, we still love her because it is she who has brought us into this world". But we still have to face the ugliness, especially in the case of a university, because that ugliness can be corrected. Han Suyin was right to assert that no university was without its defects, and in the case of Nantah, we all know that many of the defects were linked to the external environment and caused by the constant political interference. But there were also many defects which could have been avoided. Chai Chong Yi refers to them as "strange things", but the "strangest" of them all, from the perspective of those many alumni who later proceeded to do graduate studies overseas, was the obvious lack of formal preparation for such work.

This type of response would gain for Nantah supporters some important initiative. If the semi-official suggestion was made to test public opinion, the response would give the authorities concerned what were looking for in very clearly terms. If it was made in order to lead Nantah supporters into a certain public stance which could be taken advantage of later, the response would amount to giving away very little which could eventually be used by any person to harm the cause of Nantah.

Of course, there is no guarantee that this type of response would elicit an immediate and positive reaction on the part of the Singapore authorities. But in the first instance, taking advantage of the freer media coverage, it would put on public record the unequivocal attitude of the Nantah supporters on the "Nantah issue": how they felt about the current situation, and what they thought should and could be done to improve that situation. It would make it clear to the politicians that continued politicization of the "Nantah issue" benefits no one.

It is possible to expect the beginning of a process of negotiation. "Negotiation " may perhaps be an excessively strong word, because no formal sessions at which two adversarial opponents enter into a bargain are envisaged. "Negotiation" would probably be rejected by the Singapore authorities too, for after all, they believe they hold all the cards, although they obviously are prepared to exchange some of them for something that they need. But it is expected to involve two clearly distinguishable sides who share the job of reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. The side that will be responsible for the running of the university in the future, the Nantah supporters, should have a clear slate of people as its representatives. Such peopIe should be drawn from the Nantah alumni, Chinese Chamber of commerce, Chinese clan associations, and those members at the NUS who were formerly from Nantah. If the Singapore authorities are sensitive about the sovereignty issue, non-Singapore members of the above groups may stay out of the discussions, but the Singapore Nantah supporters should feel obliged to consult them as these non-Singapore alumni not only share an interest in the resolution of the "Nantah issue", but also bear the responsibility of helping to manage and supervise the running of Nantah when it is resurrected.

Understandably, in view of the tortuous history of Nantah, each side may go into this "negotiation" with a great deal of apprehension and preconceived ideas about the other. But there is emerging goodwill as demonstrated by the Prime Minister and his Minister of Information and Culture, who gave recognition to the high quality and important contribution of Nanyang graduates in the development of Singapore over the past three decades. Undoubtedly, the process would be a long and strenuous one. But the process can become fruitful if good faith is maintained, and if both sides recognize that any resolution of the issue must be founded on real gains for all parties concerned.

For the Singapore authorities, their gain would be a public recognition that finally they are able to resolve an issue which has plagued the relationship between the Chinese community and the government of the day for 40 years. They would not only be accorded the highest praise for their magnanimity and skill by the population of Singapore, but also be treated with goodwill and respect by the Chinese communities in East and Southeast Asia. There would be a powerful momentum for the government to carry out its educational policy for the sociopolitical stability and economic growth of the state, which would be enhanced by the attraction Singapore would provide to the Chinese throughout the region. By delegating responsibility over the management of the university to Nantah supporters, the Ministry of Education would no longer be bogged down by day to day administration, which has proved to be most unproductive in terms of academic results and political relations. The Nantah supporters would gain the restoration of their beloved university, which would be managed by themselves but would incorporate the various teaching units of the NTU, The people of East and Southeast Asia, but first and foremost those in Singapore, would have access to an alternate university where they can learn about the culture and history of the region and equip themselves to defend their national identity in the course of modernization.

In making the above from the head rather than the heart response to the Singapore suggestion, all the other options for the revival of Nantah are not ruled out. Because some of the signals sent out by the Singapore authorities are regarded as positive, this equally positive response is made to ensure that even the slightest opportunity to resolve the "Nantab issue" is not lost by default.

As these thoughts are written down, despite my very strong conviction, I would not be surprised that there are other alumni who think differently. We may all share a very deep feeling for our alma mater, but we cannot assume that we also share the same views regarding its future. This is the time to bring out those views for discussion and, if suitable, implementation. There is, therefore, urgency in the Commission of Enquiry commencing its work quickly. We owe it to our alma mater and all its supporters over the past four decades to do this work smoothly, with an open mind, without prejudice, and successfully.

(按：原载 1992 年《南洋大学全球校友联欢会特刊》75页