Singapore’s education system is the real obstacle to innovation |
|---|
|
By Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad 
The Large Hadron Collider. Photo Credit: CERN As a theoretical physicist and educator, I watched Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s 2025 National Day Rally speech through the dual prisms of science and pedagogy. His address brimmed with aspirations for research, innovation and Singapore’s place at the technological frontier. Yet beneath the surface, the rhetoric fell short of grappling with the fundamental challenges that truly underpin scientific progress in Singapore. Lawrence lauded investment in areas like quantum computing and artificial intelligence, casting these fields as the anchors of future prosperity. Any genuine commitment to basic research is welcome, especially in disciplines that require both deep theoretical insight and patient experimentation. But his narrative was rich in familiar tropes—talk of “betting on frontiers”, of relying on universities and institutes for capabilities, and visions of breakthroughs on the horizon. What appears absent is engagement with the way scientific discovery really works, rooted in a culture that values depth, risk-taking and open-ended curiosity over mere application or efficiency. In my opinion, the most serious barrier to this is in our education system. While Singapore frequently tops international benchmarks for mathematics and science, our system is still built on exams and rote memorisation rather than on nurturing risk-taking, enquiry and creativity. Many scholars and educators have pointed out that we produce students who are adept at passing tests but rarely have the chance to think beyond the textbook or experiment freely in their learning. Even as the Ministry of Education pushes for reforms, the culture of standardisation, high-stakes exams and conformity continues to stifle the curiosity essential for true scientific progress. As an educator, I have seen too few opportunities for students to fail productively, ask new questions or follow their intellectual instincts wherever they might lead. This problem is compounded by our tendency to turn to foreign talent as a bridge for gaps in science and technology. Science flourishes when ideas move freely across borders, and I do not object in principle to welcoming international researchers. The real concern is that reliance on imported expertise can become a substitute for building deep local wells of talent and aspiration. Such measures might offer a short-term lift, but lasting scientific culture depends on homegrown thinkers, nurtured from an early age in schools where curiosity, resilience and challenge are encouraged. Much of Lawrence’s speech last night highlighted examples of technological adoption—automated ports, artificial intelligence in health care, job-matching systems—without reflecting on how few of these advances originate from our own laboratories. Applying imported technologies is not the same as advancing the cutting-edge of human knowledge. Real discovery calls for a generational investment in a scientific spirit that is inquisitive, critical and bold. There is also a utilitarian thread in Mr Wong’s rhetoric: science and technology are valued mainly for their economic and job-creating potential. This view ignores the deeper value of science, its role in opening minds, questioning orthodoxies, and shaping a culture of imagination and intellectual integrity. Real change must begin in our schools. Scientific excellence is possible only if we move away from our obsession with standardised testing and academic rankings, towards nurturing the habits of mind that fuel innovation: questioning, experimenting, tolerating failure, and thinking differently. Towards this, our education system must give students more room to be creators and original thinkers, not simply skilled implementers or metronomic exam-takers. To illustrate just how transformative real scientific innovation can be, one need look no further than the world of high-energy particle physics, where artificial intelligence has already made significant contributions. At the Large Hadron Collider, for example, machine learning algorithms now play a crucial role in detecting rare particle collision events amid overwhelming background noise. This breakthrough has enabled physicists to probe more deeply into the fabric of reality and to search for new phenomena beyond the Standard Model, in ways that would be impossible using traditional analysis alone. Such developments are only possible in an environment that values creative thinking and constant experimentation. In the end, Prime Minister Wong’s speech offers much rhetoric and aspiration but little acknowledgement of the true preconditions for scientific achievement. As long as we continue to prioritise efficiency, order and imported expertise over the cultivation of local, curious minds, Singapore will remain skilled in adopting innovation from elsewhere without becoming a true source of original breakthroughs. That, for me, is the enduring divide between rhetoric and the lived realities of science. This first appeared as a post on the Facebook page of Dr Syed Alwi Ahmad on 18 August 2025. Do join in the discussion over there if you have thoughts to share. |
|
YOU MAY WISH TO READ: Schizophrenia: Singapore’s Next Great Competitive Edge Revised Social Studies Syllabus: More Brainwashing than Critical Thinking? Lessons from the death of Singapore’s liberal arts experiment |
