Jewish vs Singaporean Mothers' Questions: Malaysian Answer

In this year’s ‘Teachers Day Rally’ the Prime Minister of Singapore last week exhorted Singaporeans to change the way they approach education to encourage and develop greater creative thinking. To illustrate his opinion on why Singaporeans are less creative than others (which is not necessarily untrue), he compared Singaporean mothers to mothers in Israel this way: "In Israel, when a child goes home his mother would ask ‘How many questions did you ask today?’ In Singapore, the mother would ask ‘How many marks did you get for your test?’ ‘No prizes for guessing which child grow up to have more depth and breadth, and which one will suffer from tunnel vision and stress’" Of course we don’t believe all Singaporean mothers or Israeli mothers do what the PM said they do. He was generalising a bit. Although the Singaporean audience took a light-hearted laugh to that, I fear the comparison and perhaps more will stay in many less well-informed and analytic minds.

So lest they get the wrong idea and think that there is a genetic or cultural cause to the issue, the PM should have put it in its proper context. For example, he could have qualified his joke by telling Singaporean mothers not to seriously imagine that by asking their children the question he said Jewish mothers ask is a ‘sure fire’ way to develop their creativity. Or reminded them that in the course of history the Jewish people have had their fair share of achievements and catastrophes that no one can entirely dismiss as not attributable partly to their culture which includes what Jewish mothers teach their children. But more importantly, he should have stated that the problem of creativity and its inhibition by established institutions (i.e. not just parents and teachers but also those in power) is not a new one. It has been there for time immemorial and the Jews suffer from that as much as everyone else. Einstein who was a Jew summarised it pretty much by saying that ‘It is surprising how creativity can survive formal education’. Just to put things in perspective, I’ve not read anywhere that Einstein had attributed his well-known creativity to his Jewish origin or his mother asking him about the number of questions he asked in school. But he did either switch off or drop out entirely from school! Of course, by that small example I am not recommending that mothers hope the same happens to their children. But I do mean to say that governments and established institutions may be the greater cause of the problem - something not apparent to many present at or who read about the Teacher's Day rally.

PM Mahathir of Malaysia said essentially the same last weekend when he talked about how policy makers earlier and Islamic influence in school in recent years affected the educational outcome of an entire race so dear to him. His equivalent of PM Goh's 'mother question' parable was one about no one daring to question Islamic interpretations that resulted in schools requiring students to play footballin long pants. To be fair, he also recognised that established institutional influences were not the only cause - laziness and taking the easy way out were some others. His honesty at this late a juncture when his motive is questionable did not help but nevertheless instructive.

For those who know what Singaporeans and the Singapore government are like (a generalisation, of course) the real reason why creativity is an issue was not really because they see the value of creativity and independent thought for its own sake. Though to be fair, some do see it that way. Like the Singapore PM alluded, the more important reason was to make Singaporeans more entrepreneurial (better term for making more money) in this environment of increasing competition so as to ensure Singapore’s survival in a more globalised world. Creativity and independent thought are just the means to get to that, hopefully. Therein may lie Singapore’s real problem but that is not said or worse may not be admitted. For the overriding desire to make money has never been a problem to them. Making less or not enough is. For those familiar with the topic of making money, it is perhaps not unfair to again generalise that that is also where the Jews excel. That attribute besides others is also the reason for some of their historical troubles but that is a separate topic. Perhaps, that was not a coincidence. For the PM must surely have a greater power of observation than to only notice Jewish mothers’ one question on their children’s schooling!

So why did the Singapore PM chose to use the above comparison? Instead of saying for example, that Sim Wong Hoo’s mother probably never asked him ‘how many marks he scored’ daily. He could have easily checked with Sim Wong Hoo if that was the case. Perhaps he has a basis for that. Perhaps as a race, the Jews are indeed more creative. For there can be many examples of that. The likes of Einstein and Feynman were some of that. And Goldman, Morgan and Salomon are good money making examples.

But one probably cannot but admire the Jews for their ultimate of all creations. Were they not the ones that came up with the nice notion that began with the claim that man is created in the image of God? Perhaps it does not matter to many that that claim was probably to get those with equally egoistic imagination (but may be less independent minds) to feel good enough to buy into the whole scheme which so happens include the notion that Jews are ‘the special children’ of God while all other humans are only ‘His children’. We all know what a vast institution and following that creative notion had helped create over the last 2,000 years.

Given the above examples, one can possibly understand how some people may be convinced that the Israelis are indeed more creative than say Singaporeans. Who else but an especially creative people would be able to come up with an idea that can make so many feel so good telling themselves that they are not their equal? Of course, the Bible did not really say that literally but then which one who follows that book read it that way? (Although here we are only looking for examples of Jewish creativity, one may wish to keep in mind that they also have other characteristics that may be partly the cause of less desirable events like the Exodus, the Holocaust and the sorry state of affairs in present day Middle East. Unless of course, one looks at those events simplistically and thinks it was someone else’s fault alone.)

But continuing with the same example above, we can also learn a bit more about creativity and its development. Other than Einstein, Galileo Galilei was probably the finest example. Galileo is not Jewish and God knows what his Greek mother asked him everyday (Singapore should get their best scholars on that one for the next rally). But I believe we all know about that little story of how Galileo tried to prove to the people around him that Copernicus' suggestion that the world was not flat and not everything revolved around the Earth was right. He did not say anything about his mother’s questions either but he undoubtedly displayed creativity and independent thought. But the government and people of his time backed by some creative but more stupid interpretation of the Bible insisted that Galileo was wrong. To which Galileo’s reply was "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use". Of course, we all now accept that Galileo was right and the power operators of the institutions that persecuted him continued on with a smarter outlook than to contradict head-on with the likes of Galileo and science. But who knows that Galileo was sent into exile for that. And the fact that the suggestion that earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way round was first made 100 years before that. The guy who did that was less fortunate. He and his idea were burnt in a Christian ritual. God knows how many suffered the same fate as that guy and Galileo. Few or no followers of the Church will be told things like that. Too unimportant compared to the 'big picture'. This is but one example of what established institutions and men in power including governments can do to people and their creativity.

That is perhaps also where Singapore’s problem lies. And you will see the creativity behind the way it was made not so apparent. By that little parable about mothers, the Singapore PM may have managed to create an impression (sub-consciously at least) that the lack of creativity had more to do with the parents. When in fact it was largely because of the way the whole country was or had to operate for the last 36 years. Although the government of the time might have few other choices, it nevertheless was a major cause. For the country’s development since independence its leaders relied on 2 things that played a part in stifling creativity.

Firstly, Singapore’s early strategy for development was to rely on foreign MNCs and as LKY eloquently said ‘to act as a first world oasis in a third world surrounding' for the MNCs to operate out of. So the government put its best brains and resources into attracting and helping those MNCs operate from Singapore including giving them tax incentives their local entrepreneurs did not get. Given limited resources (as is always the case), it also effectively ignored its local enterprises and entrepreneurs. It was a case of the more equipped and better-endowed foreign companies getting premier support while the less developed local ones having to fend for themselves.

As we will see, it was also "first class support for those playing second fiddle and second class support for those fiddling on their own". Most MNCs by necessity required a work force that are more proficient with the mechanics of application and operation (to implement head office or foreign manager instructions) than one possessing a level of entrepreneurial or creative ability that may eventually threaten their employers’ existence. In other words, the MNCs were better served by having better doers than thinkers. Quite possibly, some of the foreign managers were doing it for selfish reasons. Expatriate life in a first world oasis is actually pretty good. The above elements combined to create a situation that was obvious to many Singaporeans: that the fastest and shortest path to a decent living was to work in the corporate world of the MNCs. It was the smart thing to do then. Having to operate in a mode desirable to their employer was a small price to pay for that advantage.

The Singaporeans who could not take advantage of that opportunity were the ones that were not educated in English the lingua franca of the MNCs. Or those that did not score well in the English tests conducted by the government. These people had to strike it out on their own. Sail the high seas, so to speak, the way their forefathers did for centuries, on their own. If you don’t believe this, you can talk to graduates of the original Nanyang University (Nantah). Although many of those involved would disagree (no differences in opinion allowed?), what happened to Nantah is a good example of what governments can or try to do to societies which can affect its people’s creativity. Nantah, an educational institution like many of the greatest in the west that Singapore tries to emulate, was formed spontaneously by a community of men and women that were proud of its past and hopeful for a brighter future. It came about unassisted by those in power then, the British. Its Chinese origin and focus, and relative closeness to communist thoughts practiced in China in the 50s and 60s made it a source of discomfort for another subsequent Singapore government. Which closed it down and reconstituted it in a social re-engineering exercise to manage dissent, and ensure future generations look at the world the way the government does. An exercise some politicians were cock-sure would guarantee Singapore’s future survival. It doesn’t matter how important it was to a people’s pride. Thus, a whole different language and world-view was closed in a way no modern government proud of its people (not to say their pride and creativity) had done before. At least not to my knowledge and if you don’t believe it you can go check with the Israelis. So much about encouraging diversity, differing views and confidence so necessary for creativity to even begin take root.

But that was not an issue then. Equipping and, more importantly to the government, moulding (see education ministry's motto below) children for the MNC world was top priority and paying dividends (monetary wise for the population and politically for those in power). So much so that most parents gladly cooperated by sending their children to English schools and accepting the closure of Nantah. Some even blindly go to the extent of imitating names and other practices similar to their future employers. Presumably that was advantageous. May be it was someone's idea of making Singapore look more like a first world oasis. It was a dubious necessity that needed no creativity but few cared. Like the PM would say, no prizes for guessing which the few that would be bothered by it are. But these people have undesirable (different) views. And they also 'happen' to be the ones that did not do so well in the English based environment and fell on the way side - treated almost like pariahs by their government and their more successful English-speaking neighbours. However it was easy to get rid of them because they don’t generate significant income for Singapore then. The easiest way to prove them wrong was to leave them to their own devices and see what happens. They will come running to the government for help one day and repent, or some thought. But hey, that’s not exactly Adam Smith’s laissez faire but close enough! Of course that was not the intent and so not noticed by the fathers.

The above category of people and their families, if not for their wealth if they were successful, would also form the so-called ‘heartlanders’ (with a not very positive connotation to it) their PM talked about not quite long ago. If one bothers to, one cannot but also notice that this group of Singaporeans is where the most entrepreneurial of its people had came from. They form the bulk of the local businesses that was not priority for the government. The Mustaffas and Kweks included. Had he done superbly in his English education, Sim Wong Hoo would now probably be only an executive (although may be a top one) in an MNC and not be heading Creative Technologies, a global company that the Singapore government so proudly extol in convenience. Sim Wong Hoo probably thanked his heavenly stars that his mother did not push him to earn an admired Queen’s scholarship, was not rich enough to send him to Cambridge, and did not name him Harry. And I doubt he would take issue with his mother not asking him questions the way Israeli mothers do. Of course, if his mother did do all the above and he has reason to be thankful, he would likely be thanking something else in imitation and not his ‘heavenly stars’ or his mother. May be that’s why Sim Wong Hoo’s mother’s tack of questioning was not analysed for a potential PM rally punch line.

Secondly, in the above situation the only significant Singaporean entity that can or may be allowed to identify and develop the creative and entrepreneurial spirit is the Singapore government and civil service. Better control. And as history had proven, that was indeed the case and in a number of instances they did do a very good job at it. SIA is a good example. But you don’t need an LKY or an Einstein to tell you that bureaucrats and governments, and creativity and entrepreneurial abilities don’t mix very well very long. And many Singaporeans can probably come up with a few cheeky comparisons of the different responses you might get from a Singaporean bureaucrat and a Singaporean Chinese businessman when you have a suggestion or a complaint. No contributions from me - it’s not my area of interest. Besides, they say that’s not so safe a creativity to display in Singapore.

But the best example of the limits of bureaucratic involvement is probably the recent case of DBS’ takeover bid of OUB. Goldman is one of the top money making firm admired and mentioned earlier that DBS paid top money for services in that cowboy-like misadventure that caused DBS shareholders another $2million to buy everyone’s scared silence. All because their supposedly top value service provider or professionals (clearly no one was paid enough to take the blame or say which one should) took a cheap swipe at their ‘Chinese businessman’ competitor. And remember the ‘they are worth every cent we pay them’ certainty just a few months before? That may be representative of Singapore’s problem. So is the fact that I’ve yet to see anything creative from Singaporeans on that incident so far!

Equally ominous is Singapore's education ministry’s seemingly creative motto: ‘moulding the future of our nation’. No prizes for asking questions on what mould means or what the future will be.

Now that the likes of China and India are open to the free market, Singapore (like many other developing countries) found that there are 2 choices: compete with the likes of China/India or the MNCs. The former is a downward journey. Over the weekend (many things happened in Singapore and Malaysia last week) LKY described this Singapore dilemma as 'squeezing between 2 huge convoys'. It is actually more like 'caught over-stretched for straddling 2 trains whose tracks are fast diverging'. That was what the 'first world oasis in a third world surrounding' strategy that worked well in the past was meant to do - straddling 2 worlds. But the China/India train is too far for Singapore to be go-between for the MNC train. So is their cost structure.

Competing with the MNCs is more salivating - greater margins. Except that that’s not the way Singapore is used to or moulded for. That’s when the government discover that the past strategy of playing compliant but expensive brand-name bridesmaids to MNCs in a poorer neighbourhood does not work as well any more (last weekend PM Goh also spoke proudly about some westerner talking about Singapore's brand name). Does not matter if it comes with premier gown fitting service in the form of the government. For the MNCs, there are cheaper and better ones to be had in the likes of China. As LKY and the likes learnt quickly from Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), the Chinese that remained in China are made of slightly different stuffs from those that came to Singapore. Never mind if SIP was supposed to be mutually beneficial - of course, with Singapore thinking it can get away with a 60% share.

So to continue to deliver, the government has to look for the edge the country needs to compete with the MNCs. Despite what it says, buying expensive foreign talents may not be worth it. There are other considerations. Surreptitiously it attempted to search for the traits displayed in the people it has ignored in the people it managed to mould which was of course glaringly absent. Saying that publicly would be admitting mistake and political suicide. The people that will be more willing to attribute their abilities or success to the government do not have what it takes. So, some better story had to be told. Like, Singapore is too small to have much home grown creativity (that is if they are not already dead). But equally small Israel was probably as instructive on governance as it was on creativity (and may be more). So someone decided that limiting the PM’s public comparison to mothers would suffice.

So the whole issue of creativity in Singapore may be a case where now that the need to meet is well apparent, the father is calling for his forsaken child to appear before him. Until that happens, mother’s tack of questioning may have to be called into question.

Everything above has to be true. I do not have the creativity or the depth of imagination to come up with the above from nothing. That’s because my Malaysian mother had never asked me how many questions I asked in school.