[There is nothing wrong about adaptive creativity. However, to create more values or high values, Singapore needs to have more innovative creativity.]
Rather
than talking about mid-life crisis, why don’t we consider innovation crisis for
the People’s Action Party? Or in a wider definition, we, Singaporeans, are
facing innovation crisis from education, political elections, employment,
housing, health care to CPF and Temasek.
Two
MIT Professors #1 think the US economy is facing innovation crisis that leads
to slow or no growth. Hence, only real innovation can help to bring back the
high growth#2 that will sustain the competitiveness of the USA in the world.
However,
for the Singapore case, for easy understanding, I suggest we use another two
terms: adaptive creativity (convergent thinking) and innovative creativity
(divergent thinking). We can then extend
the term, creativity, to a broader definition which includes creativity,
innovation and change. The following familiar examples from Singapore Inc. will
help us understand why our mid-life crisis is, in fact, an innovation crisis.
Education vs.
tuition
Adaptive
creativity:
Our
world class education system is in fact an adaptive creativity. From streaming, PSLE, SAP schools, second
language requirements to through train (IP program) and finally polytechnic and
university education, all involve adaptive process. This process has helped our
education system becomes more productive, efficient, and the final aim is to
make every school a (standard) good school.
Innovative
creativity:
There
is hardly any innovative creativity. The introduction of IB programs, liberal
arts education, and even SUTD can hardly be considered real innovation. These
are just copies and adaptive methods. The only innovation we may consider is
tuition. This is an unofficial practice outside the official and formal
education system.
Our
education system is based on a tuition free system. However, the tuition industry continues to
grow, bigger and bigger days by days. The fact is even tuition cannot run away from
the mainstream education system. It just adds values to PSLE, O and A Level
examinations.
In
a very strict definition, tuition is not an innovation. It is just a by-product of our education
system.
Presidential
and General Election
Adaptive
creativity:
Our
parliament system is not a new democracy process. However, the PAP has cleverly
adapted the system to suit its own needs. GRC, non-constituency and nominated
MPs, boundary redrawing, etc. are all adaptive creativity to keep the PAP in
powers.
The
PAP has almost used up all adaptive creativity in GE to its advantages. However,
it has failed to come out with good innovative creativity. SG Conversation, PM
live on TV, use of Facebook, and Instagram.... etc. are not innovative ways to
approach voters.
Innovative
creativity:
Presidential
election can only be considered a half innovation. Every citizen has the right
to vote in PE is better than many walkovers in the GE. However, an elected
President with limited power is an uncompleted innovation. Perhaps, the PAP has
anticipated the PE outcome will be less favourable for its proxy (e.g. PE2011)
and so the innovated PE can only stop half way just to please Singaporeans that
there is a second key to protect our reserve.
Central
Provident Fund
Adaptive creativity:
Again,
CPF is not a new thing. However, the PAP has adapted it very well. So, now we
have Ordinary, Special (retirement), and Medisave accounts. You can use these
monies under many well-structured (control) schemes for housing, medical, and
retirement planning. It is so efficient and productive and yet complicated
until not everyone knows the true operations and its meaning.
Innovative
creativity:
The
only innovation may be is how the PAP moves the CPF monies away from its
original purpose and meaning. From 55 to
62 withdrawal age, from its original aim of retirement to fund for housing
(investment), MSM, these are all methods to keep the monies in government’s
hands.
These
are arguable innovations and can be considered as another type of adaptive
creativity. This is a clever way to keep
people’s monies (for Temasek and GIC investment) but not an innovative way to
help people to maximum returns.
We
can continue to expand the examples to housing, health care, transport, etc. In
all these examples, there are no real innovations. Almost all of them are
adaptive creativity and not innovative creativity. This is why Singapore is efficient,
productive and fine under adaptive creativity. But to go to a higher level (and to help the lower income
and disadvantaged), innovative creativity is needed.
Hence,
we are now facing the challenge of innovation crisis even though age is
catching up with us to the mid-life.
#1
Inside
Real Innovation: How the Right Approach Can Move Ideas from R&D to Market -
And Get the Economy Moving, written by our instructors Eugene Fitzgerald and
Andreas Wankerl, along with Carl Schramm. World
Scientific Publishing.
#2
If
innovation only leads to high growth and without considering environment, moral, cultural and other factors, will the outcome really brings benefits
to human beings?
Comments
Post a Comment