ChapterPDF Available

Lessons from My Extended Classroom: Tempering Technological Utopianism with Circumspection

Authors:

Abstract

Shortly after I was appointed NMP, I bumped into an opposition politician who remarked somewhat wryly, "I hope you will also reflect the concerns of Singaporeans out there who fear things like facial recognition." As a social scientist whose life's work has oriented around studying fears and apprehensions people have about technology, along with their gratifications and gains from technology use, I was surprised by his presumption that I would gloss over the former and harp on the latter. Upon reflection, the fact that I am a professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design that nurtures future technologists must have led him to believe that I was unequivocally in the pro-technology camp. Furthermore, his assumption that Singapore's intelligentsia unquestioningly embrace technology is understandable, given our country's relentless pursuit of innovation in government, industry, and higher education.
 !"#"# $ %
#&#'()*"The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Sll Necessary in Parliament++
," !-#'.#
Lessons from My Extended Classroom:
Tempering Technological Utopianism with Circumspection
Professor Lim Sun Sun, Singapore University of Technology and Design, 13th session
Shortly after I was appointed NMP, I bumped into an opposition politician who remarked
somewhat wryly, “I hope you will also reflect the concerns of Singaporeans out there who fear things
like facial recognition.”
As a social scientist whose life’s work has oriented around studying fears and apprehensions
people have about technology, along with their gratifications and gains from technology use, I was
surprised by his presumption that I would gloss over the former and harp on the latter. Upon
reflection, the fact that I am a professor at the Singapore University of Technology and Design that
nurtures future technologists must have led him to believe that I was unequivocally in the pro-
technology camp. Furthermore, his assumption that Singapore’s intelligentsia unquestioningly
embrace technology is understandable, given our country’s relentless pursuit of innovation in
government, industry, and higher education.
After all, Singapore’s relationship with technology has long been framed in utopian terms,
conjuring visions of blissfully well-connected citizens in futuristic habitats basking in the glow of
innovation-driven economic vitality (e.g., Ministry of Communications and Information, 2018).
Indeed, it is often mused that Singapore is also ruled by technocrats who avidly nurture strong
synergies between education and industry while investing heavily in R&D and innovation (Lee and
Haque, 2006). Within the civil service, policy making relies heavily on detailed scenario planning and
forecasting—increasingly informed by big data—to strategize the country's domestic priorities and
international positioning (Quah, 2013; Ting and Tang, 2019). From the inception of the first IT Plan
(Teo and Lim, 1999) to the present Smart Nation blueprint (Hoe, 2016), Singapore has aggressively
exploited technology to develop a knowledge-based economy where every sector is augmented with
technological solutions, from massive physical infrastructures to pervasive, inconspicuous digital
code.
It is precisely Singapore’s unbridled zeal for all things technological that led me to recognise
the value of my position in parliament. My research on technology domestication by families and
young people has vested me with a deep appreciation for the benefits but also the harms of technology
(Lim, 2016). I therefore saw my parliamentary term as a prime opportunity to draw linkages between
academic research, democratic discourse and policy making. In retrospect, I believe I was able to shed
light on a range of issues at the critical intersections of technology and society as I will further
elaborate.
An Extended Classroom
To begin with though, I found it highly ironic that I had been appointed as NMP. Back when
the scheme was first mooted in Parliament in 1989, I was a news-obsessed teen who followed
international and local politics avidly. I can still recall fierce criticisms of the scheme as sounding the
death knell for opposition politics through anointing critics who were not accountable to the
electorate. The assertion was that NMPs’ moderately dissenting voices would translate into meek
opposition that would impede democratic debate in Singapore. I remember agreeing with such
critiques and questioning the utility of NMPs. Thereafter, as the scheme matured, I observed the
contributions of successive cohorts of NMPs with some interest, noting the less typical views they
aired given their relative independence and interest to represent the perspective of specific sectors.
Yet I never imagined that I would myself become one. Nevertheless, when I was nominated
by my university in 2018 and subsequently the higher education sector as one of its shortlisted
candidates, I seriously pondered over how I would honour the spirit of parliamentary debate, while
 !"#"# $ %
#&#'()*"The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Sll Necessary in Parliament++
," !-#'.#
answering the duty to represent academia. I reflected on my long-term involvement in public service
and public education via such bodies as the Media Literacy Council, National Youth Council and the
National Council for Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation. Because Singapore has been technologizing
so intensely for the past few decades, my research expertise is often sought for salient sociotechnical
trends and their implications for social cohesion within households and across the community.
Besides sharing my insights in these committees, I make it a point to give public talks, write opinion-
editorials, and field print and broadcast media interviews to raise public awareness about emerging
societal concerns. Since I have always strived not to be an ivory tower academic but one who believes
strongly in policy engagement and public education, this invitation to serve as NMP held some
appeal.
I resolved to view Parliament as an extended classroom in which to teach and articulate
academic insights that are theoretically grounded and empirically validated, with a view towards
informing policy making and public discourse. I thus pledged to weigh in on issues where I felt that
academic perspectives would be valuable, especially to counter the instinct towards technological
utopianism. These included resistance to digital payments, governance of the use of big data,
investment in digital literacy education, improvement in data sharing practices, regulatory overreach
in eradicating online falsehoods, support for gender diversity in the technology sector, and
accountability in electronic waste. I leveraged my parliamentary speeches to share relevant research
findings in a clear and compelling fashion that would resonate with the lay audience and inform
parliamentarians.
This goal was important to me because of my personal endeavour to raise the quality of
research communication in and by academia. On any issue of national import, if the public does not
understand what is at stake, they cannot make well-informed decisions as consumers and citizens. It is
my staunch belief that promoting thought-leadership and public education is a vital role of academics.
The rise of online disinformation and the intensifying use of social media have enabled the
untrammelled dissemination of false claims by faux experts. Consumers in our increasingly strained
attention economy are inundated with information from a plethora of sources, and finding it
increasingly difficult to distinguish attractively-packaged soundbites from academically-informed
discourse.
In his thought-provoking book The Death of Expertise, Tom Nichols (2017) decried the fact
that the explosion of online information has paradoxically produced less well-informed citizens who
in turn disparage intellectual scholarship and cast doubt on experts. He argues that such ignorance
breeds disengagement by the citizenry and undermines the democratic process. In this regard, I
consider it more pressing than ever that academics are able to proactively and constructively convey
the goals and value of their work to the broader public. Singapore’s unique NMP scheme provides
academics with a viable inroad. After all, academic research must not merely reside in journal articles,
hefty tomes and data repositories but must be shared and communicated with the wider audience
whose lives it shapes. I committed to doing more within this extended classroom of mine.
This classroom grew larger still when Singapore went into lockdown from April to June 2020
to curb the spread of Covid-19. During this “circuit breaker” period, I was invited by government
ministries and agencies, non-profit organisations, and other Members of Parliament to offer guidance
to the public on managing our technology use in the home in light of the sudden switch to work-from-
home and online learning. During these webinars that I conducted via Zoom or Facebook Live, the
questions posed by the audience reflected considerable distress around managing children’s healthy
device use, moderating personal over-reliance on technology, and resolving family tensions that had
been triggered by technology. Audience members were often reassured when I told them that their
situations were neither unique nor unusual, and welcomed my suggestions for effective management
strategies. I was glad to have these public platforms to tap my academic expertise and provide useful
 !"#"# $ %
#&#'()*"The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Sll Necessary in Parliament++
," !-#'.#
pointers that could help the public make sense of that extraordinary period. Although I would have
likely contributed to such public education efforts as an academic, I do not deny that my NMP
position helped to raise my public visibility and draw greater attention to the causes I champion.
Beyond the Chamber
But every classroom inevitably has its quiet moments. We NMPs experienced those moments
acutely, especially during adjournment motions. All Members of Parliament can raise adjournment
motions to air issues of their choice. These are only tabled at the end of each sitting, capping what is
typically a long and draining day for all members. Hence, once the main business of the day such as
the debating of bills has been completed, most members leave in haste to attend to other obligations,
leaving the parliamentary chamber dishearteningly hollow. Besides the Leader of the House and the
political office holder who must remain to respond to the member’s motion, most Cabinet members
would also have left by the time the motion is debated. Raising an adjournment motion can thus feel
like an exercise in futility because one seems to be speaking to an empty house.
I found myself in that exact position when I tabled a motion titled, “Why Fear the Fear of
Failure? Imperatives for Refining our Education System”. Drawing upon my experience as a
professor and a parent of two school going children, I chose to make a case for rethinking Singapore’s
approach to education. I argued that the achievement orientation underlying our education system,
with its intense focus on examinations and grades, instils in Singaporeans an unhealthy fear of failure.
I also underlined the fact that on the ground, a small minority of teachers in primary and secondary
schools have been known to engage in micro aggressions in the classroom where they use
questionable naming and shaming tactics to motivate under-performing students.
I explained that such destructive methods of highlighting failure and under-performance can
demotivate students and lead them to lose interest in the subject. They can also demoralise the
students and at worst, inflict long-term damage on their self-esteem. In light of rising concerns about
the mental health of young people, I further stressed that we must not dismiss such micro aggressions
in the classroom but must do our utmost to educate our teachers on their harms. I made a firm call for
us to collectively reshape this unhealthy culture of achievement orientation. This necessitates an
overall shift in emphasis from relative performance towards individual performance, and where
qualitative feedback is prioritized over quantitative metrics.
This was a motion I felt strongly about due to the research I had undertaken for my book
Transcendent Parenting: Raising Children in the Digital Age (Lim, 2020c), for which many parents
had shared with me the aspirations, anxieties, hopes and fears they had experienced in their parenting
journey. I wanted very much to articulate their views to an institution that could make significant and
lasting changes to our education system. And yet I was to deliver my message to a sparsely filled
parliamentary chamber, save for my fellow NMPs applauding me when I ended my speech, their
enthusiasm making up for the enveloping silence. When I lamented as such to my fellow NMP Arasu
Duraisamy as we left the chamber together, he said matter-of-factly: “It doesn’t matter. You’re not
speaking to the House, you’re speaking to the country.”
Right then, his words uplifted me somewhat, but it was only the next day that I appreciated
the full weight of their wisdom. Friends, acquaintances, and members of the public who had read my
social media posts sharing my speech commented positively and thanked me for giving voice to
challenges they had endured in parenting their children. Young adults who were not parents
themselves sent me private messages to confide that they too had been subjected to humiliating
treatment from their teachers that they steeled themselves to overcome. Clearly, Singapore has made
significant strides in schooling our youth, but the psychological toll of a hyper-competitive model
continues to haunt many. If through that motion I was able to reach beyond the chamber to echo the
sentiments of Singaporeans who find facets of our education system wanting, I consider it a
contribution to the national discussion of how education can be refined. Reaching beyond the chamber
 !"#"# $ %
#&#'()*"The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Sll Necessary in Parliament++
," !-#'.#
into the extended classroom, I hope I managed to highlight the importance of making every classroom
a safe place for learning and failure.
Joining the Dots
Perhaps one of the most important tasks teachers undertake in the classroom is to join the dots
for students–to help them understand how different pieces of knowledge are linked, and the potential
initiatives one can generate from drawing such connections. Students bounce ideas off one another,
provide mutual critique or affirmation, and combine energies to amplify interests and efforts. With the
heightened visibility from my public role, greater understanding of policy making mind-sets, and
enhanced access to broader networks of contacts, I found my ability to join the dots and connect
likeminded people more effectively.
I experienced this through supporting fellow NMP Anthea Ong’s adjournment motion on
“Closing the Digital Divide for SGUnited: Learnings from COVID-19”. She had proposed this motion
to urge for more resources to be mobilised to help low-income families that were ill-equipped to
switch suddenly to work-from-home and homebased learning during the circuit breaker. Knowing of
the research I had done on digital literacy and technology domestication by families (see Lim, 2020a),
Anthea invited me to join her in the motion. At the same time, my academic colleague Associate
Professor Irene Ng from the National University of Singapore, who conducted research on the
working poor, was also sensing a growing need for affordable digital access to be more readily
offered to low-income families.
As we had previously collaborated and co-published on low-income workers and their social
mobility challenges in a digitalising society (Lim and Ng, 2017), and she was familiar with my
research on low-income families’ technology use, Irene invited me to co-author an op-ed to highlight
the urgent need for universal digital access. Our op-ed in Channel NewsAsia (Ng and Lim, 2020)
would form the crux of my speech (Lim, 2020b) in support of Anthea’s motion. Both our speeches
clearly resonated because students, social workers, voluntary welfare organisations and civil society
initiatives reached out to me, Anthea and Irene to accelerate the momentum for greater digital support
provisions. Irene and I were subsequently invited to share our views at public webinars focusing on
the problems of digital exclusion, and we were approached by individuals and civil society groups
who volitionally shared their experiences and proposed solutions.
This groundswell of views and interest spurred Irene and me to embark on further research to
understand in-depth the issue of universal digital access in Singapore and more likeminded colleagues
and students joined us. Our team captured our findings and proposals in a working paper titled “From
Digital Exclusion to Universal Digital Access in Singapore” (Ng et al., 2021) that we presented to the
senior management of the Infocomm and Media Development Authority. These efforts went on to
spark further ground actions to raise awareness of the merits of universal digital access, including a
webinar to commemorate International Day for the Eradication of Poverty titled “Finding the [WE] in
University Digital Access” in October 2021, led and organised by a group of social service
organisations including Ang Mo Kio Family Service Centre, Touch Community Services and
Engineering Good.
Overall, my parliamentary stint fortified my ability to contribute effectively and meaningfully
to such ground efforts at addressing issues of public concern. Indeed, I feel that more academics of a
greater diversity of disciplines should have a chance at serving as NMP and therefore, I chose not to
put myself up for a second term. The more academics who can experience the benefits of the extended
classroom, the better it is for academic insights to be more widely disseminated to advance robust
public discourse.
 !"#"# $ %
#&#'()*"The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Sll Necessary in Parliament++
," !-#'.#
The Report Card
Like many classrooms, Singapore’s Parliament has had more than its fair share of dull
moments. And yet, it has also witnessed epochal events, stirring speeches, controversial bills, and
legislative innovations, including the NMP scheme. Although it has fundamental shortcomings that
constitutional scholars of democratic political systems will readily call out, the scheme’s facility for
sectoral representation within Parliament is not without its merits. In a world overrun with fake news
and faux experts that is concurrently grappling with a slew of wicked problems, an avenue for
democratic discussion to be more richly infused with academic insights is welcome indeed.
 !"#"# $ %
#&#'()*"The Nominated Member of Parliament Scheme: Are Unelected Voices Sll Necessary in Parliament++
," !-#'.#
References
Hoe, S. L. (2016). Defining a Smart Nation: The Case of Singapore, Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(4), 323–333.
Lee, E. W., and Haque, M. S. (2006). The New Public Management Reform and Governance in Asian
NICs: A Comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore, Governance, 19(4), 605–626.
Lim, S. S. (2020a, April 8). The Joys and Frustrations of Home-Based Learning. Channel NewsAsia.
Retrieved October 2, 2021 from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/home-based-
learning-covid-19-coronavirus-singapore-tips-parents-12618236
Lim, S. S. (2020b, May 26). “Closing the Digital Divide for SGUnited: Learnings from COVID-19.”
Singapore Parliament Debates, 94(2). Retrieved from https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?
reportid=matter-adj-1401
Lim, S. S. (2020c). Transcendent Parenting: Raising Children in the Digital Age. Oxford University
Press.
Lim, S. S. (ed.). (2016). Mobile Communication and the Family: Asian Experiences in Technology
Domestication. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lim, S. S., and Ng, I. (2017, February 7). Guard Against Gig Economy Creating Permanent
Underclass. The Straits Times.
Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI). (2018). Digital Readiness Blueprint.
https://www.mci.gov.sg/en/portfolios/digital-readiness/digital-readiness-blueprint
Ng, I., and Lim, S. S. (2020, May 26). Commentary: The Case for Universal Digital Access, as
Home-Based Computing Becomes a Post-Pandemic Norm. Channel NewsAsia.
Ng, I., Lim, S. S., Pang, N., Lim, D., Soh, G., Pakianathan, P. V. S. and Ang, B. (2021). From Digital
Exclusion to Universal Digital Access in Singapore.
https://fass.nus.edu.sg/ssr/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2021/01/Digital-Access-20210118.pdf
Nichols, T. (2017). The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why
It Matters. Oxford University Press.
Quah, J. S. (2013). Ensuring Good Governance in Singapore: Is This Experience Transferable to
Other Asian Countries? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(5) : 401–420.
Teo, T. S., and Lim, V. K. (1999). Singapore—An ‘Intelligent Island’: Moving From Vision to
Reality With Information Technology, Science and Public Policy, 26(1), 27–36.
Ting, L. and Tang, Y. (2019). Digital Governance Model for Big Data Era–Based on Typical
Practices in Singapore, Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(2), 76–82.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.