Can our students think?

I recall a conversation I had with another passenger sitting next to me when I was traveling from Boston to San Francisco a few years back.  What got the conversation started was a book that I was reading.  My neighbour asked me, “Why do you choose to read the autobiography of this person?  It’s an interesting choice.”  He then introduced himself and I realised that my neighbour for the next 5 hours is a successful venture capitalist from Silicon Valley.  When he found out that I am from Singapore, he said, “Oh, you are from Singapore.  If I want to start a QC (quality control) department, Singapore will be my choice.  But Taiwan will be the place for my design lab in Asia”. 

I was perturbed by his comments and went on to ask for his rationale when making those decisions.  “Singaporeans are very good at following orders and ensuring that instructions are carried out to perfection.”  Graciously, I thanked him for his kind words, but ended our conversation with, “I wished you had swapped your choices.”

I have re-counted this conversation with many of my friends and quite a number felt that my unhappiness was misplaced.  “Each of us has our strength.  Singapore’s strength happened to be in QC and we are recognised globally as the best in it.  Is this not a good thing?”  While this could be a good thing, it certainly does not resonate well with me.  The greatest value creation comes from the innovation, generation and ownership of intellectual property, and not quality control.  You hear it from all over the world that countries are aiming towards building a knowledge-based economy, not a manufacturing-based or quality control-based economy.  Sophisticated politicians around the world will not trumpet the need for a knowledge-based economy if there is no significant merit. 

As one of the countries with the highest literacy and internet penetration rate, why do Singaporeans give people the impression that we are not good in creative work?  Many factors are at play and I see our education system as one culprit.  In our system, as long as the required format is followed and the correct formulas are applied, our students will automatically get the desired answer and the accompanied recognition (including “thinking” subjects, such as literature and history).  There is no need for our students to “think”.  After 18 long years (if not more) of being trained under this model, it is unfair to then ask our students to switch to thinking creatively and to blame them when they could not.  I have seen creative works and have engaged in creative discussions with our young, but I agree that these occasions are far and few in-between.  For our young to compete shoulder-to-shoulder with top creative talents from all over the world, our learning landscape and the way our students are being taught need to be changed.  Can you imagine, combining our strict discipline with a creative mind, what wonders can our young achieve!