Is Singapore too straight-laced for its own good?

[ecureilx]

Well I personally think the pendulum doesn't have to be swung from one extreme to another. Why can't we have a little of the best of both worlds?

Which is happening since GCT took over the reins .. including the current tacit approval to repealing section 377A

Best of both worlds, did you say ???

[x9200]

But Singaporeans are creative.

The government leads the way in culturing creativity, the very independent and anti-establishment media here takes the cue, and starts inculcating creativity in the local populace.

The hiterto uncreative people known as Singaporeans gradually learn to be creative, and after a few years can claim to have become genuinely creative.

That's gotta be your version of sarcasm....or a joke, right?!

Creativity is closely linked with the freedom of thinking. I am talking here not about politics but free exploration of subjects and willingness to take a risk to do something novel. These are the missing prerequisites and it's pretty obvious why they are missing. But it is possible to change it and I witnessed it first hand. It takes years though.

[earthfriendly]

Micro-management like govt campaigns telling you what to think and act (courtesy campaign, use of fines...), heavy emphasis on test score in school can interfere with the creativity process. With the best of intention, MOE did embark on a unschooling movement. I wonder what happen to it and are parents receptive? I believe kids are born with lots of imagination and creativity and it is the system and adults that ruin it for them. I see it as a problem when adults/parents constantly dictate to kids what to do and think. Like my daughter said, life is hard for her (all kids?) because I am constantly telling her "to do this, do that and I am just a kid!". I couldn't agree more.

The advent of internet has been helpful to help spur creativity around the world.

"although teachers say that they like creative students, teachers also say creative students are “sincere, responsible, good-natured and reliable.”

[movingtospore]

I was reading that report with interest and I find it amusing to know that Woz was implying he supported bad behavior. On the back of my mind, he was pushing the freedom of expression on a country that praised itself on orderliness. Not that freedom of expression is bad until it became detrimental to the society.

Singapore might be sterile and boring to a certain extent but if chaos and expressive actions run rampant for the sake of individual freedom , then, I would rather choose the former.

Free thinking doesn't mean chaos. It means having the ability to form your own opinions without being told what to think, being able to solve problems independently, and being able to be critical. Within a corporate culture, what he's talking about is finding people who can independently create something from nothing and come up with and apply really innovative, game changing ideas.

[sundaymorningstaple]

local lad's statement is a prime example of exactly what Woz was talking about. Statements here are always cut & dried. Chiseled in stone. Most have little ability to "read between the lines" here, and phrases or words are only given a single meaning. Black & White. Yin or Yang. Contextual subtleties are lost on them for the most part.

[carteki]

Looking for something else I found this image yesterday...


http://www.glasbergen.com

There is a ton of money (read many many zero's being tossed at IT innovation and development) yet the websites that I've seen resulting from this are poor poor copies of their western counterparts. Why?

The topic of graffiti was discussed here in 2009. Here is an excerpt of the best response:

I think Singapore's anti-graffiti approach is spot-on as it teaches teen punks that there is will be no mercy for vandalism of any type. We could do with such stringent legislation (and a bit of caning) in other countries too.

Whereas I think there are inherent problems with the approach.

Firstly we have to recognise the difference between street art and painted vandalism, both of which are forms of graffiti. Graffiti just means it was done without the owner's permission.

Gahment-sanctioned "graffiti" sites totally miss the point. Not because permission is granted to graffito a particular wall or property, but because the subject of that graffito is censored. Art, in any form, fails to reflect the cultural heart-beat of a nation if it has to be sanctioned (like Speaker's Corner).

Art may question or scrutinize the gahment, the status-quo, the social ills of a society - but there is no point in permitting graffiti if the content is then censored.

The middle ground would be to establish graffiti sites, but to give free-reign to the artists' expression. QED, there is no "vandalism" but the spirit of street art is retained, at least in some small degree. But we know that is not the Singapore way...

[/url]

[carteki]

At the same time you have the following post from NutNut:

This Kid is Insane and also not Singaporean

Hey, Check out Taylor Wilson website

He has built a Fusion reactor and a Nuclear bomb detector all by the tender age of 17 years old! 31st person to privately create a Nuclear Fusion reactor!

Cool or what!

Just wanted to share it with you all.

[ScoobyDoes]

See that's where you're wrong...... its creativity!

[x9200]

Looking for something else I found this image yesterday...

[..]
There is a ton of money (read many many zero's being tossed at IT innovation and development) yet the websites that I've seen resulting from this are poor poor copies of their western counterparts. Why?

The topic of graffiti was discussed here in 2009. Here is an excerpt of the best response:

I think Singapore's anti-graffiti approach is spot-on as it teaches teen punks that there is will be no mercy for vandalism of any type. We could do with such stringent legislation (and a bit of caning) in other countries too.

Whereas I think there are inherent problems with the approach.

Firstly we have to recognise the difference between street art and painted vandalism, both of which are forms of graffiti. Graffiti just means it was done without the owner's permission.

Gahment-sanctioned "graffiti" sites totally miss the point. Not because permission is granted to graffito a particular wall or property, but because the subject of that graffito is censored. Art, in any form, fails to reflect the cultural heart-beat of a nation if it has to be sanctioned (like Speaker's Corner).

Art may question or scrutinize the gahment, the status-quo, the social ills of a society - but there is no point in permitting graffiti if the content is then censored.

The middle ground would be to establish graffiti sites, but to give free-reign to the artists' expression. QED, there is no "vandalism" but the spirit of street art is retained, at least in some small degree. But we know that is not the Singapore way...

[/url]

I can not really agree with this. If you are creative you will find your way. I've never heard about any true artist who had been stopped by any regime and what we have in SG is far from this. Take all the communistic states only one generation ago. There was never any problem over there with creativity and art. The trouble lays on much deeper level than the freedom of speech and political expression.

[nakatago]

Looking for something else I found this image yesterday...

[..]
There is a ton of money (read many many zero's being tossed at IT innovation and development) yet the websites that I've seen resulting from this are poor poor copies of their western counterparts. Why?

The topic of graffiti was discussed here in 2009. Here is an excerpt of the best response:

I think Singapore's anti-graffiti approach is spot-on as it teaches teen punks that there is will be no mercy for vandalism of any type. We could do with such stringent legislation (and a bit of caning) in other countries too.

Whereas I think there are inherent problems with the approach.

Firstly we have to recognise the difference between street art and painted vandalism, both of which are forms of graffiti. Graffiti just means it was done without the owner's permission.

Gahment-sanctioned "graffiti" sites totally miss the point. Not because permission is granted to graffito a particular wall or property, but because the subject of that graffito is censored. Art, in any form, fails to reflect the cultural heart-beat of a nation if it has to be sanctioned (like Speaker's Corner).

Art may question or scrutinize the gahment, the status-quo, the social ills of a society - but there is no point in permitting graffiti if the content is then censored.

The middle ground would be to establish graffiti sites, but to give free-reign to the artists' expression. QED, there is no "vandalism" but the spirit of street art is retained, at least in some small degree. But we know that is not the Singapore way...

[/url]

I can not really agree with this. If you are creative you will find your way. I've never heard about any true artist who had been stopped by any regime and what we have in SG is far from this. Take all the communistic states only one generation ago. There was never any problem over there with creativity and art. The trouble lays on much deeper level than the freedom of speech and political expression.

Which makes the whole situation much sadder, doesn't it?

[x9200]

Which makes the whole situation much sadder, doesn't it?

This brings us back to the question JR8 asked in the subject line.

[nakatago]

Which makes the whole situation much sadder, doesn't it?

This brings us back to the question JR8 asked in the subject line.

Yup.

[carteki]

I've just been sent an article from todays birdcage liner that talks about how SG has come scared of failing, so therefore there is no innovation. Admittedly there have been a couple of events that have triggered the birdcage article and the one above, but I'm beginning to wonder what the message in all of this is remembering that nothing in this country gets printed without the govts say so and these definitely are going to rile the locals.
[/i]

[JR8]

I am reminded of a series of articles in the US maybe a 10-12 years ago, describing how tyrannical the enforcement of 'acceptable opinion' is at US Ivy League universities.

The overall point being made was that surely at these pinnacles of learning, where debate, exploration, different thinking should be the entire point, why is it that everyone is being forced to only voice one set of opinions.

I don't think it is just the US either. I have a friend who is currently doing a Post-Grad in Human Rights in the UK. This person (intentionally vague) says that if anyone suggested say that Israel had a right to defend themselves against Palestinians, they would probably be lynched. QED. [Oh and apparently 90% of students, when not out on student anti-capitalist protests, use Apple laptops... wow, that's so counter-culture, not lol!]

So isn't it ironic that the leaders of the non-counter-culture US companies, in fact some of the very biggest corps in the world, who are decrying a lack of SGn creativity, are themselves products of the Ivy League thought-police sausage machine?



(Come to think of it, aren't some of these top-bods Ivy League drop-outs? Maybe that explains it!!)

[x9200]

Yep, it is ironic. Not the part of the same picture (together with Singapore) and much much better camouflaged. A simple fact that while talking about Singapore we are out of the mental box, here we are right inside.