One of the main themes of the 11th Five-Year Plan (2006-10) is indigenous innovation. Many have pointed out that so far, the main reason underlying China's continued rapid growth has been the increased application of factors of production. We invest more capital and use cheap and industrious labour, and therefore we have more output. The end result is that although we break our backs, pollute our environment and use up our precious natural resources, we only earn a penny by being the world's biggest OEM (original equipment manufacturer).

Not only is this unfair, it is also unsustainable. This is not efficient, and we do not enjoy limitless supplies of capital or labour. We have to add more value to our products and services by migrating from OEM to ODM (original design manufacturer) and OBM (original brand manufacturer). Indigenous innovation is the logical way forward.

But it would be illogical to expect the country to achieve this objective in five years. It is easy to boost the number of patents in the space of a few years. But it will take one or two generations to shift from the present situation to a society conducive to creativity and innovation, and then to economic results in terms of dollars and cents. This work will take several five-year plans.

It is vital for us to take a longer view and be patient, because Chinese culture generally curbs creativity and innovation. In our society, official authority is never to be challenged. Starting from kindergarten, children are trained to follow the rules. Our education system is based on rote learning. Even in our postgraduate studies, the teacher is always right. Admittedly we have changed. Yes, quite a lot in many areas. But let's face it, we are still a conformist society.

Look at Japan, which is also a conformist society. It displays great creativity in animation and other art forms, but apart from those, the only other major innovation it can claim is perhaps the Walkman. However, the number of patents it owns is one of the highest, and it has many global brands such as Sony and Toyota. If this is the model we want to emulate, we will arrive there in a relatively short period, and without needing to do much soul-searching. But in that case, we might have to forget about Silicon Valley, information technology and many other major  breakthroughs.

Some suggest that these have to come from a highly individualistic society like the United States. I do not agree. According to Professor Robert Temple, visiting professor of the history and philosophy of science at Tsinghua University, over the past 3,000 years, Chinese inventions were on the average 1,223 years ahead of the West. This can prove once and for all that creativity and innovation have nothing to do with individualism, and that China is capable of inventing things well in advance of others. China does not have to pursue the adversarial and expansionist strategy typical of an individualistic society.

Creativity and innovation only thrive in an atmosphere where a certain degree of social deviation is tolerated. If we look closer at our traditional culture, apart from the Confucian orthodoxy championed by officialdom, there have been many thriving sub-cultures such as Taoism and Buddhism. And, most of the time, there was plenty of room for the somewhat eccentric in traditional Chinese society. Even the merchant class, which had never been accorded much of a social status in the old days, found ample space for their experimentation. China operated a very modern banking system as early as Song Dynasty 1,000 years ago.

This is because our traditional culture was a highly inclusive and tolerant one. Sad to say, we cannot say the same about our current society. We have recently become curious, sniffing around for new things, trying them and discarding those we do not like. But inclusiveness and tolerance is "to let a hundred flowers bloom," and let the course of events decide whether they are "fragrant flowers" or "deadly weeds."

To many people, this sounds much too adventurous and far too risky. Listen to the great Deng Xiaoping's observation: only through practice can we tell what is the truth. Like reform, creativity and innovation are journeys into the unknown. If we are frightened of taking risks, there will be no reform and no innovation. As a consequence, we are artificially limiting the scope of our search, and foreclosing many future alternatives.

Science and technology may appear innocent, but never underestimate its subversive nature. Without the invention of the steam engine, the West may still be in its Dark Age. If not for the improvement of medical science, we would never have our current population problem. At a philosophical level, human development may not necessarily be a good thing either. Just look at the mess we have made of our environment. But once we have adopted the developmental path, and innovation as our means, inclusiveness and tolerance are the bullets we will have to bite. This is quite unsettling for a lot of people, but it is perhaps the only way to go.

Start with our children. Teach them that getting into university is not the only objective of studying, and that rote learning is not the only way to study. Give them the ability to think critically, and let them challenge the authorities. Tolerate those who think and act somewhat differently from most of us, and leave them alone to do their own things. Let our children know that making money is not the be-all and end-all.

And even for the holy cow of development, we will have to allow more liberty for introspection. As we know by now, there are alternative paths to development, and like it or not, China is not in the mainstream. We are eccentric to many outsiders, and we will also have to convince them to take a more inclusive and tolerant attitude.

The author Lau Nai-keung is a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference from Hong Kong.