Surfing and Thinking

Ok, so I decided to go and view the web after watching parts of the Rose Parade, live from Pasedena,CA, USA. Then at 5pm the Rose Bowl begins.

Anyway I was just reading the blogs of Singapore (heh, sort of like the Pirates of the Caribbean) and I came upon Mr McDermott's page, Singabloodypore, and read what he posted on New Year's Day (my time, 2 Jan SGT). And I found this really well written essay which I will reproduce here.

Our smart students not willing to think critically

I FIND it ironic that after decades of praising the education system for producing students who are adept at memorising formulas, a skill that has enabled them to be world beaters in international mathematics and science competitions, the Government now wants youths who are able to express their opinions about what sort of Singapore they want to build.

Unfortunately, as in the case of the bilingual policy, we cannot have our cake and eat it, a fact that has taken the Government some time to figure out.

The more we reward students for their ability to memorise model answers, the less willing students will be to use their critical minds. Why should they risk getting low grades by expressing critical, unorthodox views when it is so easy for them to just be spoon-fed by their teachers?

In his article, 'Lost generation or future leaders: Our call' (ST, Dec 30), Mr Verghese Matthews questions whether figures of authority have instilled in young people the critical spirit and the moral courage to use it for the good of society.

He is optimistic that there is hope yet for Singapore's future: 'I am confident that there are many young critical thinkers in our society who are testing the waters.'

I applaud Mr Matthews' attempt to bring into public discussion the question of whether enough is being done to encourage critical thinking among Singaporean youths, but alas his article has come two decades too late for my generation.

Having gone to a top secondary school and junior college, and now doing my undergraduate studies at a local university, I can safely say that there is an appalling lack of passionate, critical thinkers, even among the intellectual elite of Singapore's youth.

It is not that my generation does not have smart people with critical-thinking skills. The problem is that too many of my peers lack the moral courage to speak out after going through an education system that rewards conformity and punishes originality.

We have become a generation of sheep, too afraid to challenge the authority of our herders. The few wolves left among us who do challenge the status quo run the risk of being labelled as anarchists and troublemakers.

It is no wonder that many have become so jaded that they no longer feel it worth their while to carry on expressing their views, choosing instead to either remain quiet or to head for greener pastures elsewhere, in which case they run the risk of being labelled as 'quitters'.

In both cases, the ultimate loser is Singapore, for conformity results in stagnation, while 'invention is always born of dissension', as the French philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard so rightly pointed out.

In 1784, the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote his famous essay 'What is Enlightenment?' in which he appealed to his countrymen to have the courage and resolution to use their own reasoning skills instead of blindly depending on the authority of so-called experts. More than two centuries on and in a country far away from his beloved Prussia, his emotional appeal still remains relevant.

Sadly, the works of Kant seldom take pride of place on the bookshelves of many of our policy-makers, who would much rather fill their shelves with more 'practical' books, such as those by economist John Maynard Keynes.

The price Singapore is paying for their narrow reading habits is an entire generation of lost sheep: Gen S. My generation.

Jamie Han Li Chou

I do not necessarily agree with Jamie on some of the things that are brought up. I do think Jamie makes a valid point though.

First allow me to critique a little:

I do think that policy makers need a grounding in some theoretical philosophy, I personally prefer Rousseau and the Romantic movement, which some might say is a reaction against Enlightenment thinking. However I think Jamie is being unusually harsh to the policy makers. Being interested in getting a PhD in Public Policy myself, I've come to realise that a firm grounding in economics is extremely important to any policy maker. Keynes, Smith and the likes, were not soul-less bean counters. Smith afterall wrote during the Enlightenment period.

Practical books are neccessary for practical purposes. No point having a leader who can tell me about the Post-Modernist thinkers and not work out the economic impact of implementing a new education policy. I personally know some policy wonks, and I will say that they do have philosophical leanings and they can hold their ground against the cafe-variety intellectuals. But to quote my favorite policy wonk, Professor Tommy Koh, "I'm a Pragmatic Idealist." We can have ideals, but if we run with just our ideals, we will not be the men who builds a system that lasts longer than a lifetime. How many revolutions have failed because there was no structural development to the ideology?

Now allow me to back Jamie up:

Yes I think my generation is not dissimilar from the previous generations. We're coffeeshop rebels. Yes the shops may have changed from Yup Ho Lai to Starbucks, but we're merely coffeeshop rebels. SO the grumbling is kept to a mumbling level and people get on with life. That is the general feeling of my generation.

Of course we have the Cosmopolitants (as our good SM Goh called it), and they have seen the world outside and like to quote fantastic philosophers and use big theories to make a point to argue for change. But they're nothing more than cafe-variety intellectuals. I really loathe those kinds of people. Dropping big names and theories but have no practical way of bringing about reform or revolution.

We can speak out, but until we have some plan in place, speaking out does little. Furthermore we must adapt to local situations. Lenin took Marx and Russified it, and then Li Dachao and Mao took Lenin-Marxism and made it into a Chinese Communism, and eventually Maoism. Singaporeans will not rise up because Kant said so. It must revolve around local needs and wants. We must work with the latent mumblings and grumblings and nuture it to make it loud and productive.

Quiting is not an option either. I know too many of my friends who want to leave and go elsewhere. Singapore is not home for them. All I can say is good riddance to bad rubbish. Yes they may be my friends, but I have scant respect for quitters. I truly love my home. The place where my ancestors picked to settle in for commercial and religious reasons (yes we were Catholic before we left China). I feel a sense of connection and the urge to help reform the system.

I believe that any generation will produce leaders to reform the system. I think that my generation has barely begun flowering and maturing, but already we are hard at work debating and discussing. Granted that most blogs are about mundane and idiotic things, but there are a few that strive to create a lively debate. I know that most forums are full of the same people, but we keep on debating. I also believe that over the years there are more level-headed people joining the fray. The PAP bashers are still around, but there are also more pragmatic idealists out there who strive to change the system without necessarily being rabidly anti-establishment. Reformers versus Revolutionaries.

Well that's my New Year's spiel. Off to surf more and maybe add comments.

Have a wonderful 2005 and may the intellectual debates continue to flourish. For my part, I'll try to be more like Lu Xun and be the alarm clock to wake my fellow intellectuals up.