Sustainability studies and the changing landscape of social science research in Singapore

Abstract

The Singapore government has traditionally invested heavily in, and focused on, the development of the hard sciences since gaining independence in 1965. This bode well for the fate of sustainability studies as the state, in the initial decades, focused heavily on performance legitimacy, emphasising issues of survivability and economic progress. With the country now at the top of global charts on many rankings on economic prosperity, the city‐state has steadily begun to examine issues of nation‐building rather than state‐building. This can be attributed, in part, to the paradox of soft authoritarian regimes that invest heavily in human capital, because in the long run, an educated electorate will want, as active and informed citizens, to participate effectively in politics. The social sciences are slowly evolving to look at the Singapore model from a comparative perspective, moving away from the dominant narrative of “Singaporean exceptionalism”, which overstates the uniqueness of the city‐state.

Homo academicus unfolds: Singapore's media discourse of social scientist's role

“…Since Singapore's independence, the country's small geographical size, situated among dominantly non-secular and Muslim centric countries, a lack of natural resources and ethnically diverse populations, has been a recurring survival notion (Nasir, 2016), which pushed Singapore to prioritise boosting its economy. In turn, this moulded the Social Science scene development, focusing on objective and instrumental research directed at economic growth.…”

“…Science has typically been reactive to national issues, as shown in most research funded by the government and ministries to solve practical problems over the last few decades (Nasir, 2016).…”

“…Although Yale-NUS was established to promote critical education and discussions with a liberal arts programme, the institution was internationally criticised as a misfit in its academic environment. Academics were concerned about the institution's academic independence when it came to upholding the open exchange of ideas (Liu & Lye, 2016;Nasir, 2016).…”

“…A second example also points to scholars' limited access to sensitive data. While the government has made some concessions regarding the publication of national data, sensitive information such as prison and rehabilitation figures remains a closely guarded secret in the nation's interests (Nasir, 2016). Another recent example also saw over 400 academics condemning NUS Press's sudden announcement to withdraw the publication of the book Coup, King, Crisis: A Critical Interregnum in Thailand, which critiqued Thailand's political crisis (Ang, 2021).…”

“…In the process, it seeks to produce normative knowledge to empower and advocate for change aimed at the betterment of society. At the same time, a critical stance is also selfreflective of its philosophical approach to research and its development (Nasir, 2016).…”