Creative psychology: Singapore can be creative meh?

essay by cheryl yow

Psychology of Creativity
Using the insights from the psychological literature on creativity,
discuss the challenges faced in developing a creative society of
Singaporeans, and provide suggestions on how this goal can
be achieved.




Creativity has an intimate link with the culture of a society.
 Cultural values either promote or hinder creativity. It is doubtful
 if the British billionaire Richard Branson with his flamboyant
personality would have been able to exhibit his creativity if he had
been born in Singapore. The dichotomy between eastern and
western society displays a glaring disparity in nurturing
creativity. The individualistic culture of western society
encourages creativity while the collective culture of eastern
society like Singapore with its concern for maintaining order
breeds conformity hence diminishes creativity. Singapore
prides itself of an effective, far-sighted government making it
one of the finest cities in the world; however, being scarce of
natural resources, it has to rely completely on human
resources for its economic competiveness. Ironically, due to
much obeisance to the autocratic government, Singapore
promotes more law abiding citizens rather than creative
individuals.We will look at the challenges in creating a
creative society in Singapore by discussing its child-rearing
style, its educational system and the stifled environment;
along with some suggested ideas to promote creativity.




The first challenge is the role of child-rearing in Singapore which
prescribe how children are socialized. In Singapore, the sense of
selfhood (way of being a person in society) is dictated by
‘we-ness’. Young Singaporeans are disciplined to obey their
parents and authorities and to uphold social norms. Conflicts
are viewed negatively, so individuals who behave
unconventionally are seen as disruptive rather than helping
them to redefine boundaries. Trying to stand out like the
westerners: not having a stable job, instead, living an
unrealistic dream of a struggling artist, would deemed
unwise as 'the nail that stands out get beaten down'.
Parents' authoritative moralism focuses more on
children fulfilling their filial piety - by gaining good academic
scores and getting a respectable, well-paid job. While the
West is socialized by ‘I-ness’ where its citizens are
considered independent, separate entities who are free to
pursue their interests; and western parents playing mentors,
urging children to gain early independence and to seek their
ideals; Singaporean parents focus more on children’s
short-comings rather than complimenting their achievements
and this results in the children’s negative self-construal and
self-criticism instead of enhancing themselves.



Young Singaporeans in conforming to the ideals of their
in-groups live passively: burying their individuality resulting in
Singaporean’s closed personality: a reserved, detached
attitude. Singapore collective culture encourages people to
be face-conscious. Thus, Singaporeans are seen as ego-
involved individuals who are dictated by external forces like
seeking approval or fear of being embarrassed if their ideas
are not accepted whereas western task-involved individuals
are intrinsically motivated to create for sheer pressure.
Singaporeans being too focus on main-zi ( face value) for
fear of social embarrassment tends to focus inwardly on
themselves rather than outwardly on solving problems or
creating novelties and this results in uncreative behaviour.
Thus, ineffective child-rearing style based on ‘we-ness’
that solely socialized children to be conforming and
ego-conscious stifles their innate creativity.



The next challenge is the Singapore educational system; at
best produces hardworking students who ranked among the
world’s best academically rather than creative individuals
who could win Nobel prizes. In 1997, PM Goh Chok
Thong unveiled his vision of ' Thinking Schools, Learning
Nation' that led to numerous changes in the curriculum; yes,
Singaporeans are learning but are schools thinking? With the
‘new’ freedom several reputable schools made English
literature optional rather than compulsory because these
schools do not excelled in it, thus the ‘new’ public ranking
make them focus narrowly on outcomes that is relevant for
public ranking. (http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:
_96CiZQG7dEJ:www.nira.or.jp/past/publ/review/2000summer/tan.pdf+%27
problems%2B+creativity%2 B+singapore%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1).
Singapore educational system is highly competitive,
pressurising and performance-orientated; Teachers who are
burdened with heavy workload simply transmit knowledge
for exam purposes rather than inspire. Parents are overly
involved and demanding with students' performance.
Additionally, while western students can apply to study in
eminent universities by demonstrating a talent like writing
Latin verses, entry to local universities are strictly dependant
on good academic scores. Moreover, local universities do
not offer courses with low market value like anthropology
or archaeology. The unyielding focus of both the family
and society is for students to graduate with distinction that
is correlated with higher earnings potentials. Hence, the
system produces unthinking exam-smart students. Instead
of cultivating ingenious individuals, we create a society of
competitive, performance-orientated yet passionless
individuals.




In promoting creativity in Singapore, children need to be
socialized differently. Therefore, in child-rearing, parents need
inculcate a balance sense of ‘we-ness’ and ‘I-ness’. Asian’s
hallmark of close-knitted tradition ‘we-ness’ need to embrace
some degree of individuality and flexibility. Rather than taking
an authoritative stance, parents should allow some healthy
conflicts and expose children to some situations of calculated
risk to develop their ‘adversity quotient’ in order to conquer
the inevitable to achieve their dreams. Parents need to avoid
focusing excessively on academic scores and getting intensely
involved with children’s school performance; consequently,
robbing their imagination, hence, children lose their
spontaneity and idealism which is crucial to creativity.
Parents need to be more generous with children’s deserving
compliments, though not overly superficial compliments, as
these will lead to false uniqueness bias. Criticisms used
negatively will dampen one’s self-confidence, however,
constructive criticisms that focus less on emotion or ego but
more on empowerment will help children to handle setbacks
positively. Individuals’ identities are etched in the important
years of childhood and adolescence, thus effective
child-rearing will help cultivate creativity. Government
organisations like People Association, or schools can help
parents by conducting seminars like ‘Creativity and Child
Development’ to equip parents with the necessary
child-rearing skills.



While parents help to lay the foundation for creativity,
schools could further unleash and ignite children’s creativity.
To stay competitive in the 21th century, it is necessary to
revolutionize the present system of rote-learning, meaningless
memorising and performance-based exam educational system.
Lessons conducted should not based solely on passive
theoretical construct; this has rendered children immaturity
as they are not able to apply the significance of them. For
instance, my friend’s overactive son was restless and not
performing well in a Singapore school. He was then
enrolled into the American International School in
Singapore. In one of his mathematic lessons for 12
year- olds, students get to learn about the stock market
and even have a game of it. He has since performed
exceptionally well. Thus, if students are exposed to the
reality of the world, then they become inspired to apply the
learning significance in the ‘real’ world. A holistic approach
to learning with integrated real world experiences is essential.
We also need to give more platforms for students to perform
whatever they like, of wit and imagination that is unscripted
and unpredictable. Schools could also encourage constructive
conflicts such as having more frequent mini- debates on current
events across all levels. These are highly productive for
creativity.



Additionally, the way of assessing school through ranking
systems and students through performance-based exams; set
the whole society of schools, parents and children in a
 rat-race of futile competitiveness. This increases stress,
 depletes creative energy and it resulted in Singaporeans
overly practical attitude in a functionary day-to-day existence.
Assessments could be made flexible that include mastery
skills or unique talents. Government could help to allocate
more places and opportunities for individuals to display talents
as well as provide the necessary facilities for them to further
hone their skills and creativity; and more importantly help to
give recognition for talented individuals too. They will serve
as a showcase for Singapore creative individuals and will
further encourage others to do so. Besides paying the
ministers well to avoid bribery, Singapore can also pay
these unique, talented individuals well enough to create
market value for them. Teachers should have less
workload and more time to inspire. Entry to universities
should be made flexible and universities could include
more diverse courses. Families and schools could work
together to promote a crisp culture of task-involved
individuals by focusing less on mian-zi ( face value)
and by showing them that it is alright to be different
from the norm, to be wrong, or even foolish at times,
as long as they focus on contributing ideas to solve
problems or create novelties.



Finally, the environment is a crucial factor in promoting
creativity. Singapore is seen as a ‘mall country’ –clean and
green, organised and contrived. No kid with freaky hair can
be seen and most young Singaporeans look identical: tidy
and well-scrubbed too. Even Chinatown was restored into a
theme park instead of a historical site; in Italy, some restorers
of old buildings even retain the moss on the walls to preserve
its authenticity and ancient aura. Singapore needs to stop
building more malls rather it should allocate more space for
public displays of creativity: an open space for wacky
expressions or allowing artists to perform or even draw on
some roads. Moreover, creativity has been explicitly taught
in schools! What happened to spontaneity? Can creativity be
‘planned’? Singapore needs to create a little mess and
openness in its environment to breed some wacky ideas
which allow Richard Branson to create and Googles to
develop ingeniously.



Lest people think of Singapore as merely a clean, orderly
city devoid of creativity, it is time to move away from its
sterile image as a ‘cultural desert’. Singapore with its
diversity of a unique hybrid of eastern and western
cultures has immense potential for creative expressions.
Singapore should not be afraid of new ideas but do be
fearful of old ones. The empires of the future are the
empires of the creative minds.

(1560 words)



Reference:

Ng, Aik Kwang, (2001). Why Asians are less creative than Westerners, Singapore:
Prentice Hall.


Education Reform in Singapore: Towards Greater Creativity and Innovation?
by Jason Tan and S. Gopinathan.
http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:_96CiZQG7dEJ:www.nira.or.jp/past/publ/review/2000summer/tan.pdf+%27problems%2B+creativity%2B+singapore%27&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 Retrieved 6.10. 2008