When I first got interested in the teaching of thinking, I turned to Edward de Bono. Edward de Bono is of course perhaps almost always associated with the concept of “lateral thinking”. I did what I usually do when I am interested in something, that is, I went out to buy his books. I am one of those who don’t like to borrow books from the library because I prefer to have a copy in my own personal library.

De Bono’s approach was at one time fashionable in schools in Singapore. His CoRT program was used by the Ministry of Education (MOE) in Singapore. De Bono’s methods (and there are quite a few) is now hardly heard of in MOE since the ministry shifted its attention to integrating thinking skills into the subjects taught in schools instead of an adjunct to the main teaching program. Still, I find that de Bono’s does provide with interesting tools for the would-be thinker.

His tools from the CoRT program brought into view a new set of alphabet soup. PMI, CAF, C&S, FIP, OPV, APC among others. Later I learn about “po”, some colorful hats and shoes in his Six Thinking Hats and Six Action Shoes. Among his books I found his book, Masterthinker’s Handbook: a Guide to Innovative Thinking most useful.

Although I have moved on as an educator to be aware of Robert Marzano‘s and other thinking skills guru’s approaches to teaching thinking, I still find de Bono’s approaches to be very interesting and useful. They become part of my personal repertoire of thinking tools and strategies. In my view, de Bono’s works on learning how to think are still invaluable resources.

Recently there was a suggestion from the political leaders to introduce political education to Singapore schools. Law Minister K. Shanmugam proposed that schools teach comparative political systems in the hope improving the Government’s effectiveness in reaching out to younger Singaporeans. The goal is that Singaporeans be better informed about their political choices.

I will not discuss what others have already pointed out or alluded to by others like the issue of “objectiveness” in such an undertaking (see for example here and here). Nor will I discuss whether it is a new thing to introduce political education in schools in Singapore. It has been done for years. I will instead suggest an alternative to political education in schools.

What is most needed for citizens of Singapore to be “better informed about their political choices” is to teach them to think. Yes, I know we have the grand “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” (TSLN) slogan dished out by the Ministry of Education (MOE) of Singapore which runs most of the schools in Singapore. Yes, I know the MOE has also rolled out thinking skills programs in the past and invited thinking skills gurus from all over. But ask any parent or student or teacher in Singapore, and they will tell you teaching thinking skills is not at the forefront of education in Singapore despite all all the hype and international conferences on thinking organized by MOE. It is still Trivial Pursuit-style written examinations that is central to the education system currently.

I am calling for a renewed effort to teach thinking seriously in schools. I am calling for the thinking agenda to be at the forefront of all educational endeavor in Singapore schools. I am calling for the teaching of thinking to be done not just because there are “thinking skills questions” in the high-stakes examination papers. I am calling for a change in the assessment of learning in Singapore schools to reflect this emphasis on thinking.

You can only get people who can make informed choices only when you have produced students who can think and reason. It is only when students are seriously taught to be inculcated with good habits of mind that they will become good decision makers. It is when they can display curiosity, and an investigative mind.  It is when they can do systems analysis. It is when students can check assumptions, do deductive and inductive reasoning, classify, compare, analyze for errors and analyze for multiple perspectives that they can be making good decisions about their lives, including decisions about politics.

This are the skills that Singapore students need to be able to do well. These are the skills that will help them not only make better informed political decisions but also in other spheres of their lives. Teaching political education is a only a half-baked solution and invites cynicism about its very existence.

I just got home from a polyclinic in the northeastern part of Singapore. I had sent my mother for her regular medical check-up. Her appointment card stated clearly she had an appointment today. When I arrived there we dutifully went to the an automatic registration machine to register our presence for the appointment. The machine announced that we didn’t have an appointment. The duty officer also said we had no appointment and we had to wait in the queue for one hour to get “an appointment”. When I asked why I had to do that, her answer was a flippant, “Oh the system has changed!”

Later at the registration counter a staff member asked me if my mother had an appointment to be at the clinic. I asked her, “When is an appointment and appointment since the machine said we didn’t while my mother’s card said we did?“

A similar thing can be seen in the Forum Page of today’s Straits Times. The Assistant Director (Media Relations, the Singapore Police Force), was replying to a query from a reader who had asked why his diploma which was not from a local polytechnic, was not accepted for his application to a position in the force while that of the five local polytechnics was accepted.

The reply from the Assistant Director was:

“The entry requirement for diploma positions in the Singapore Police Force, like the rest of the Singapore Civil Service, is a polytechnic diploma.

For the purpose of recruitment, the diploma qualifications from our local polytechnics are used as a benchmark for assessing the standard and rigour of other diploma programmes.”

The Assistant Director is clearly only engaged in bureaucratic babble. First he passes the buck and says it is standard practice in the Civil Service. Then he says that the diplomas from the local polytechnics is the benchmark to compare other diploma programmes. Has he answered the initial query?

At first glance, it is as if he has, but surely anyone can see that the initial query is about why the Singapore Police Force only used the local polytechnic diplomas as the standard? To put it in another way, the job applicant was asking why his diploma was not good enough. To answer that it is not good enough because it doesn’t meet the benchmark is certainly an example of circular reasoning.

Furthermore, to say that the five polytechnics are used as benchmarks does not explain whether that particular job applicant’s diploma has met the benchmark or otherwise. The Singapore Police Force wants us to infer from this statement that the other diplomas (and therefore the issuing institutions) are of inferior quality. They won’t say it for legal reasons perhaps. It is left to the readers to infer. So when is an answer an answer?