I’m very late to the party, but I’ve only just found time to read the ESC reports. Assorted comments:

1. One of the suggestions presented in the main report [pdf] is:
   

   Step up efforts in the education system to inculcate a mindset for innovation amongst young Singaporeans.

   • Singapore must continue to develop our school curricula and assessment at the primary and secondary level to allow our students to develop the skills that can be practically applied in the real world. The establishment of the Singapore Institute of Technology and the Singapore University of Technology and Design will provide more opportunities for tertiary students to develop innovative capabilities through cross-disciplinary and practice-based learning.

   Notice that the bullet point under the suggestion has nothing to do with the suggestion itself. The suggestion is about inculcating a mindset for innovation, but the bullet point is only about developing specific skills and capabilities. The institutes mentioned are catered to specific skills that they want; it is not clear how these would solve the mindset problem.

   The mindset problem is very closely linked to Singapore’s authoritarian culture. The lack of training in specific skills is another issue altogether.

2. Point 11 in “Making Singapore a Leading Global City” [pdf], on improving Singapore’s culture sector is really strange. There is no mention of people at all. All we have is:
   

   To be a player in the league of top global cities, we need to make significant investments in our cultural capital and landscape, specifically to:
   a. Strengthen Singapore’s competitiveness as a hub for the arts by enhancing our national collection, boosting content development and increasing the depth of professional expertise, including the development of reputable degree programmes in a
   range of disciplines in the arts, and by encouraging greater discourse and research in our heritage and traditional arts. Singapore could also be the global centre in Asia for cultural scholarship and content development, such as the curation of world-class exhibitions drawing on our multicultural heritage, and the heritage content and collections of leading institutions around the world. Through international collaborations of experts and scholars, Singapore could be an influential originator of distinctive cultural experiences with global appeal.
   b. Propel growth in cultural philanthropy and sponsorship by developing or expanding related incentives.
   c. Develop the cultural tourism sector by strengthening the promotion of Singapore as a gateway to experiencing the cultures of Asia, and developing more cultural products and services that appeal to target tourist segments.
   d. Rejuvenate and position the Civic District as a premier arts and cultural destination. With the opening of the National Art Gallery (NAG) at the former Supreme Court and City Hall buildings alongside Empress Place, the Esplanade and Fort Canning, the Singapore Civic District will be the major civic and cultural heart of the city, containing Singapore’s highest concentration of museums, theatres, historical sites and public spaces. We should build on the prominence of the NAG to enhance visitor experience in the precinct, strengthen linkages above- and below-ground between institutions in the precinct, enhance the
   vibrancy of public spaces with programming, and complete a Phase II development of mid-sized theatres at the Esplanade. The aim is to make the Civic District one of Asia’s premier cultural destinations – an iconic public commons that captures the imagination of Singaporeans and visitors, while reaping substantial benefits in nation-building and tourism.

   So there’s lots of stuff on infrastructure and financial capital, but what about human capital? Where are the artists going to come from? Even in places lacking government-supplied financial capital and infrastructure, art of the “ghetto” variety may flourish when human capital exists. But without human capital, you have nothing. And it is no secret that there are strong social and cultural factors militating against Singaporeans choosing art as a career, and that many artists do not find Singapore a congenial place to work in because of authoritarian mindsets and policies. These are some of the biggest factors restricting the availability of human capital in Singapore’s cultural scene, but there is no mention of how to deal with them.

3. Related to what the excerpt above from the main report, point 13-14 in “Making Singapore a Leading Global City” address the “need to develop an innovative workforce”, but the suggestions presented only relate to producing an innovative segment of the workforce. There are no suggestions for revamping the education system on a broad scale; instead the only suggestion relating to education is to
   

   Develop design capabilities in our workforce by accelerating the introduction of design thinking programmes and modules (from pre-tertiary to post-graduate level), at local educational institutions and in partnership with leading foreign design institutions, as well as targeted industrial attachments. The design capabilities of professionals in different sectors could also be enhanced through broad-based design literacy training.

   Note the difference between developing design capabilities in a workforce and developing an innovative workforce. Is there anything to be done for the rest of the workforce (the majority of it, in fact) not working in design?

4. At the conclusion of “Making Singapore a Leading Global City”, we have: “We also need to instil pride in our city among our citizens, who are Singapore’s everyday ambassadors.”

   A key aspect of the city, in fact probably the most important aspect, is the people who make up the city. Are Singaporeans proud of their fellow Singaporeans? Well, we are told regularly that Singaporeans are not talented enough, that’s why we need foreign talent, that Singaporeans are not “hungry” enough and thus immigrants from less developed countries who are “hungrier” are preferred, that Singaporeans are “champion grumblers”, that Singaporeans will always be too infantile to discuss racial and religious issues in public, so on and so forth (someone should make a wiki list of these denigrations). Are these things to be proud of? If the people who control the media and set the tone of public discourse keep insisting that Singaporeans are not good enough in many areas, why should we be proud of our city? You want me to be an “ambassador” for “champion grumblers”?