This is part one of a 3-part essay on entrepreneurship by leounheort.

Singapore needs creativity. That much is clear: we as a nation must ride along the wave of globalisation out of necessity, for we are too small, geographically and demographically, to ever specialise in a particular good or labour-intensive skill. In this globalised world, he who can see a potentially successful venture, ride it to its peak, then develop another idea with potential for success, is king.

This means that there’s an ever-increasing need for entrepreneurs: brave, bold, determined, multitalented, creative risk-taking people who are unafraid of failure, and unafraid to go forth into the darkness of uncharted waters, knowing full well that they may not come back, or at least do so intact. If we were to survive, we would need the creation of niche areas, and the expansion of existing fields of expertise. All this, at its heart, needs creativity; the willingness to seek out and embrace risky, yet possibly successful, ventures; the knowledge to successfully perform these actions; and the will to fight for what one believes in.

Obstacles to entrepreneurial spirit

Preventing the combination and exercise of the above, however, is what I would term rigidity in this essay. This comes in many forms: societal disapproval, familial disapproval, peer pressure, pressure from the State, etc. Order is what I would call the status quo with regards to any field, academic or otherwise. It means the current state of known knowledge within that field, at any point in time.

By risk I mean the ratio of success to failure, as well as the reward generated by success. Usually, failure and reward are proportionate: the higher the chances of failure, the higher the reward. Unless, of course, one attempts a highly dangerous course of action with little or no benefit at all, in which case the chances of success are linked directly to the reward generated. Risk is the driving force behind creativity; it is the propellant that magnifies the benefits of creativity, depending on the situation and the course of action taken.

Ideally, one would minimise the chances of failure, maximise the chances of success, and maximise the rewards, but this is not always the case. Like using explosives to fire a projectile, there is always a chance of backfiring, with the efforts initiated by creativity exploded by failure in a risky venture.

All the above has but one ultimate source: man.


From man, too, comes creativity. Creativity is the creation of something, usually so unique as to be one-of-a-kind. Normally, we see this in works of art and music. However, in this essay, I shall use it to signify innovation of any sort: new discoveries and knowledge in any field. So, by this definition, a mathematician who has discovered a new theorem is as creative as an artist who has produced a work of art, all factors being equal.

The measure of creativity, of course, is more complicated than this, but that is not the purpose of this essay. This creative force, through its exercise, would create new knowledge, even if its only knowledge of itself.

In the real world, of course, it has more practical applications: a new physics theory could, for example, lead to groundbreaking applications in the use of lasers in the medical and industrial field by allowing greater control over them. Therefore, it can be said that creativity, in this sense, is the source of new knowledge.

Risk and creativity are inevitably intertwined: the former is the element that amplifies the latter (albeit with differing chances of success). Take the budding writer, who uses an avant-garde writing style and has written a novel unlike that which has ever been published before. This is creativity. He has no idea how his publisher or his audience will accept it. But, he pushes on ahead, anyway, contacting publishers to publish his story. This is risk. The publisher may choose to publish the story, not knowing exactly how the public would react to it.

This is also risk: not enough people and/or bookstores may buy enough books to meet overheads, much less turn a profit. If this happens, then the publisher would be saddled with plenty of surplus books, which nobody wants to buy, and might have to be sold off at a ridiculously low price. Should the writer decide to self-publish, he’s running an even bigger risk: he gets to keep all the profit, but if he fails, he has a dump of books that nobody wants to buy, and has lost money in printing them.

Conservative nature of singaporeans

Where Singapore is concerned, risk is particularly high: the conservative nature of most Singaporeans mean that they would approach anything ‘new’ with a high degree of scepticism, which means that they might not buy enough books to allow the writer and/or publisher to meet publication costs, much less turn a profit. If successful, however, the writer would become recognised and famous, for having set in motion a new literary technique that only he knows the sublime essence of, and probably earn a neat profit just by writing books alone. This is the relationship of risk and creativity in today’s economically focused society.

But this materialist mindset must change. Singaporeans by and large are highly materialistic: for a vast majority of people, their ultimate goal is inevitably the pursuit of money, and anything that flows to and from it. However, as the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer has said, ‘every writer writes badly as soon as he starts writing for gain’, truly creative people do not exercise their creative powers for personal gain.

They do something simply for its sake.

That is the driving force behind creativity, for people who do these things do it because they are interested in it, and tend to devote more of their energies and efforts to seeing their projects through, consciously or not. This passion can be found in experts in any field, be it artistic or scientific.

The working world

Contrast this with the average working person: he knows that he would be paid the same amount of money regardless of the quality of his work, so he might as well produce the lowest possible quality of work to receive the same pay, in order to save both time and energy. This is because he knows, if only in part or mistakenly, what his boss is thinking: in order to minimise costs, he should pay his employees as little as he can get away with. Some would capitalise on hard-working employees, by paying them the same amount even if he clearly outshines his colleagues.

Others are fairer, offering promotions and pay rises to the deserving. Even so, it is hard to find creative force in an environment where things are done for money, instead for its own sake, for the lowest quality work and research possible would most likely be done, and most probably would not break new ground, or even scratch any kind of surface. This materialist mindset is therefore the most apparent internal rigidity that opposes creative force, so large as to form an Order all by itself.

Other aspects, too, increase the amount of opposition. There are other kinds of rigidity: Government intervention, societal disapproval of certain acts, familial disapproval of something, and so on. This is powered by a conservative mindset, another overarching Order, that mutually reinforces the materialistic one, and is backed by other forms of rigidity.

To be continued in part 2


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Stern warning issued to resident who verbally abused security guard in viral video last year; four others warned for threatening the resident

A stern warning has been issued by the police to the man…

余振忠:一根手指指责别人 三指指向自己

“新加坡政治分析员暨香港教育大学助理教授胡君杰认为,上周二的国会动议表明,大部分议员和他们所代表的公民,都表达对阿裕尼-后港市镇会当前安排的不满。” 英语媒体《今日报》在本月7日发表一篇专题报导,采访学者分析上周二副总理王瑞杰,在国会对工人党议员提出“诚信动议”的影响。 不过前非选区议员余振忠不认同胡君杰的观点,后者的说法似乎意指,赞同动议的行动党议员,就反映了大部分国人的观点。 对此余振忠反问,议员受委托管理选区,难道就一定能代表居民的意见?他直言,本地的选举仍首先考量政党(品牌、宣言、过往政绩乃至他们他们如何运用恐惧和媒体),之后才是候选人对选区的承诺。 “无论如何,阿裕尼和后港的居民在来届大选才有最终的话事权。” 余振忠在上周五在脸书发表长文,点评对国会诚信动议的看法。他直言当副总理和其他行动党部长、议员在国会上演的“大龙凤”,不要忘了:当你一只食指指责别人,有三根手指头正好指向自己。 他列举了行动党政府的一些财务事务: 总审计署对人协财务提”否定意见“ 其一,向总理公署报告的人民协会,每年处理约10亿元的预算,当他们被总审计署提出”否定意见“(adverse opinion)时,理应能立即改善。 但在2015年,在91个民众俱乐部管理委员会(CCMC)中,有35个被发现未经相关单位的批准下,签下了53份总值1778万元的租赁合同。 林瑞生:出于好意…

SDP: Why did Minister of National Development keep quiet about ban of lift manufacturer?

John Tan, the Vice-Chairman of Singapore Democratic Party, wrote an open letter…

英兰妮:调高消费税 为年轻家庭老年人提供更多援助

总理公署部长兼财政部及教育部第二部长英兰妮周二表示,由于经济状况的不稳定,协助企业创新、开展与建设是目前的首要任务,也连带帮助员工提高技能和掌握新技能。 英兰妮针对2020财政预算案,首次提出三大策略:转型、支持与维持。《联合早报》报道,其三大策略包括推动企业和员工转型、为年轻家庭与老年人提供援助、以及确保财政与环境的可续行,以应对全球经济前景不明朗的挑战。 她表示,该策略源于日益严峻的环境,尤其在面临中美贸易关系的紧张,同时世界也出现深沉而结构性的改变,导致收入不平等状况加剧,引发了世界另一端的动荡与起义。 而新加坡在全球面临严峻挑战的时刻,必须作好完全准备。因此预算案成为了因应挑战中最有利的工具。 英兰妮表示,“我们必须将国家预算视为一项策略性计划,为未来寻找定位。” 她指出,为了确保财政的可续行,需要在2021年至2025年逐步提高消费税(GST),以此为年轻家庭与老年员工持续提供支援,应变放缓现象。 此外,国家安全指出预计也会增加,尽管营业收入以有所成长,但消费需求仍不断超支。英兰妮表示,之所以能够增加社会支出,其主要原因为净投资回报贡献(Net Investment Returns Contribution ,简称NIRC)。 净投资回报贡献自2009年的70亿元,一直增长到2019年的170亿元,其中最大的原因是因为淡马锡控股2015年纳入到净投资回报贡献中。…