Can Singaporeans think?

Can Singaporeans think?

SINGAPORE - It would not be surprising if such a question has been weighing on every Singaporean’s mind at one point of time or another. This is by no means an exhuastive topic, and it may not be possible to cover every inch of ground.

Singapore has always been governed using a top down approach. Put simply, the government decides every facet of a Singaporean’s life from the management of his national savings to the type of flat he is supposed to stay in. Ordinary Singaporeans have no part to play in the decision-making process. In a discussion on different types of citizenship participation and non-participation in a seminal piece titled “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, Sherry Arnstein defined citizenship participation as a form of power re-distribution that enables under-privileged citizens who were excluded from the political and economic processes to be included. In a way, this will lead to the empowerment of such citizens.

Sadly in Singapore’s case, all ordinary citizens inclusive of under-privileged ones have no say in the decisions that concern them. And it is ironical when the government turns around and exhort citizens not to be reliant on it. The problem is that if citizens are not empowered through their participation within the decision-making process, when will they ever learn to be independent of the government?

That is not say Singaporeans cannot think in general. It is quite comforting to note that there are substantial number of Singaporeans who seek ways and means to highlight their concerns. In the past, it used to be sending forum letters to our mainstream media. The problem is that the chances of such letters getting published depends a lot on the political sensitivity of its contents and a huge dose of chance of course. Thus, the online media offers an attractive alternative. And it is pretty easy to set up an online interest group for individuals with a common interest to band together. In fact, the online media is fast becoming the collection vase for the thoughts of thinking Singaporeans.

Reverting back to the under-privileged citizens, their continued marginalization is further reinforced by a deeper malaise entrenched within our establishment - your credibility is determined by the strength of your educational certificates. The under-privileged citizens remain at the losing end because the latter cannot afford to upgrade themselves. This malaise of discriminating Singaporeans on the basis of educational certificates reared its ugly head when Mr Lee Kuan Yew compared the “O” level certificates of Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Mah Bow Tan when the former competed with the latter at Potong Pasir constituency during the 1984 General Elections.

This condescending attitude of dismissing the thoughts of lesser qualified (in terms of paper) Singaporeans has to stop one way or another. Especially when there is a universal understanding that one cannot learn all the ropes of life in the classroom. The fact that Mr Mah lost to Mr Chiam despite having better “O” level results serves as a strong vindication of this understanding. Thus, there should be a general consciousness encouraging the appreciation of intellectual contributions by all Singaporeans regardless of educational status.

Now, we have an interesting question on our hands - can the ones who run Singapore think? My no-brainer answer would be “I don’t know”. I have never worked in the government sector (inclusive of government-linked companies) once in my life, having been in the private sector ever since I graduated. However, I did have an interesting encounter with an acquaintance of mine. Seemingly, her elder brother was doing some work for a government panel looking into improvements on different areas of concern to Singaporeans. Naturally, my conversation with her shifted to national issues. What happened was that I cited the post of a forumer at the Sammyboy Alfresco Coffeeshop forum. She excitedly called her brother on her cell phone and communicated to him the suggestions of this particular forummer. I was wondering aloud if this panel that her brother was working for was really bereft of ideas. I nearly wanted to give the weblink to Sammyboy Alfresco Coffeeshop to her brother.

An interesting area to look at is our government’s management of knowledge-based enterprises such as Research and Development programs. The results are very obvious - Singapore science obviously needs to pull up its socks. Although much criticisms have been raised about the use of scientific citations to gauge the quality of research, it is still the best form of measurement nonetheless. According to Thomson ISI, the average number of cites per science paper produced in Singapore for the last 10 years is 4.53, which places it at 92nd out of 145 countries. Undoubtedly, pro-government apologists might want to point to the fact that Singapore ranks 36th in terms of the number of papers produced. But more doesn’t mean better. A highly cited paper would be one that is considered important in that particular field, which possibly arise as a result of groundbreaking research.

Thus, the cause of Singapore’s poor performance as reflected by Thomson ISI can be attributed to the intertwining of Singapore research with our bureaucracy. Our bureacracy has a pragmatic approach to things. They want instant results, albeit in the commercial sense. Even in the tie-up between Johns Hopkins and A*STAR, the former has to fulfill a list of Key Performance Indicators. What happened was a subsequent divorce because Johns Hopkins couldn’t address all the KPIs, most of which included filing of new patented technologies. Try asking a hard-nosed pragmatic bureaucrat if he is willing to fund fundamental scientific research that may not have commercial implications. The odds of the latter saying yes is that of the sun rising from the west.

And of course, we cannot afford to miss out everyone’s favorite topic on our education system. The part about creative learning is a well-trodden one addressed by other experts. What really interests us is the role of teachers in facilitating thinking ,especially on issues of national interest. During my junior college days, I adopted a rather flippant attitude towards my studies. In short, I was the “all play no work” kind of student. I was admonished once by my form teacher, who pointed out that I have to assume more responsibilities during my upcoming NS days. I simply rebutted her that in NS, everyone just want to do the minimum and leave, and shirking responsibilities is the norm. She pressed me for my source of information. My reply was online forums and chat groups. She simply told me not to visit those sites and abstain from logging on into those chat groups. If she is reading this article of mine, she should try to answer this rhetorical question:”Do you think continued censorship will produce thinking students?”

Our education service has been criticized for being excessively robotic - the renowned 10 years series approach. My friend and I did an interesting experiment once. You see, this friend of mine took economics during his junior college days. He was asked to do an economics essay question for his assignment. It was coincidental that a third friend of ours had the same question for his economics 101 course in his undergrad institution . This third friend of ours scored an A+ for his essay, and it was graded by none other than his ivy league-trained economics professor. So we basically lifted our friend’s economics essay and he handed up his essay. We basically got a shock when my friend got back his essay - a measly 3 out of 20. The reason - the answer my friend gave was markedly different from the suggested answer scheme.

Of course, how can we ever forget our dear mainstream media? There is only dissemination of one school of thought by our ever present mainstream media - the one that toes the official line. Thus, the problem is the same one as my earlier encounter with my junior college form teacher. By boxing oneself from the multitude of other viewpoints, will one ever get to pick up essential critical thinking skills? Perhaps, my question should be made more specific by now - can Singaporeans think critically?

It is well-known that the Singapore system is governed by a plethora of rules and regulations. However, one group of Singaporeans impressed me - those who continually find ways to work around the system. Although initially disadvantaged by these rules, they managed to turn their position into an advantage. And this indicates that they have put on their thinking caps indeed. Instead of going brain dead when facing the deadly maze of the system, these chaps continue to seek creative means to churn out a pathway to their destination.

Can Singaporeans think? Yes of course. However, work must be done to create the fertile conditions for effective thinking to take place.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26059.1