A vote for President.

About four or five months ago, on a whim, I asked Tiarnan, four, an unexpected question.

“Who is smarter?” I began, catching his attention by the suddenness of my question.

His curious eyes peered up at me, in expectation.

“Daddy, or the President of America?”, I continued.

“Daddy!”, he said without even a millisecond of hesitation, as if nothing else could possibly be true.

It was sweet to hear his certainty, but then his certainty led me to reflect: not only was it most likely to be true of me, but true, too, of millions of people around the world. There are almost certainly enough people smarter than President Obama, to populate a very large country with…yet, he is President, and they are not. Is this right? Is this wise?

The question here is: should the President of America (or any other nation) be among the brightest of the bright? From the point of view of understanding the issues and making wise decisions, I would say that the brighter they are, the better. Obama has, for instance, in my view, made decisions that show a lack of moral intelligence: he just doesn’t grasp the issues deeply enough to see the essential moral problems of the questions he is called upon to answer…so he gives immoral answers (Google my prior posts on Obama and ethics). However, there is one problem: leaders have to lead – and, in practical terms, people don’t tend to follow someone who is too much brighter than they are – because they just don’t understand them.

The rule of thumb is that a leader should not be more than 30 IQ points smarter than the led, to permit effective communication. This certainly holds in the case of Singapore, for Lee Kuan Yew admitted in one interview on TV that his IQ was in the 120s…this would place him above average and still able to communicate to his followers, but does mean that he is most certainly not the brightest of the bright. He is just good enough to guide a majority of people – which is all you need in politics.

So, Obama has a brain. Yes. However, it is not the best of brains. It is an adequate one – one that allows him to bring to him, the greatest proportion of the electorate. Were Obama much brighter, he would probably have not been elected, for his way of thinking would be too opaque and unreachable to his electorate. Thus, America will have to be satisfied with Obama, the above average. Unless the electoral system changes, there will never be an “Obama the genius”, in American democratic politics.

That is why the world is the way it is. The very bright sit at home and wonder at the stupidity of the decisions made by politicians who are only bright enough to do their jobs, moderately well, at best. The very bright rarely get the chance to play a role in such arenas, simply because of the way they communicate with the world. Only if we moved away from the present form of democratic governments, would this ever be likely to change.

Until then, little children the world over, can rightfully declare their Daddies to be cleverer than the President of the United States – and in many cases, it would actually be true.

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page. To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here: http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

The problem of genius in Singapore.

Singapore is notable for proclaiming itself as "No.1" in everything it can. At times, this is amusing, as ever more minor matters are proclaimed to be supreme achievements. Yet, in the realms of true achievements, Singapore is distinctly lacking. Where, for instance, are Singapore's geniuses?

By "genius", I do not mean people adept at examinations (Singapore has plenty of those...the whole educational system is dedicated to "results")...no, I mean people who go on to make a plethora of important creative contributions. By this measure, Singapore has no known ADULT, native-born, geniuses (though, as I have pointed out, there is the odd child prodigy, who might, with support, become one).

Now, the usual excuse trotted out by Singaporean leaders when Singapore is unable to do something is that it is "too small". So, no doubt in the case of the lack of genius, they would proclaim Singapore's lack of numbers. This excuse is no excuse at all, since smaller countries (in terms of population), like Ireland (my own), have no trouble littering their history with a respectable abundance of geniuses. No: size is not the trouble...the nature of the society is. Genius cannot thrive in a society that gives it no freedom to live. Singapore is one such place. It is a place of so many restrictions, constrictions, limitations and barriers, that it is a surprise that anyone manages to thrive at all. The truth, of course, is that they don't thrive, in the ways which are important. Yes, they live prosperous economic lives, but they utterly lack intellectual lives. The average Singaporean never has a thought in their lives, that is their own. They compute by imported, second-hand thought and live, thus, second-hand lives. It is a nation of people who yielded up their rights to an inner life, sometime in early childhood. The result is clear to see: no-one here has the makings of a genius.

I came across a quote by the writer J. B. Priestley (1894 to 1984) that I thought eminently explanatory of Singapore's situation:

"We should like to have some towering geniuses, to reveal us to ourselves in colour and fire, but of course they would have to fit into the pattern of our society and be able to take orders from sound administrative types".

These words, at once, seemed to describe Singapore's situation. It is a place in which the dullest of people are in charge, resulting in dullness seeping through society, top-down. They exert themselves solely to control the lives of those "below" them; to put in place rules and structures, that make for an orderly society. Of course, the result of all this, is that anyone with the potential to be a genius, finds that they live in a society that does not welcome their nature. Singapore seems deliberately designed to be hostile to genius. It would be difficult to conceive of anywhere less likely to foster an independent thinker, than this small, anally-retentive, city-state.

Singapore will remain the natural breeding ground of "sound administrative types" for as long as it focusses on the control of its people. As long as Singapore prioritizes the "moulding" of minds (as so many of its schools disturbingly proclaim on banners, on their perimeters); rather than the freeing of them, Singapore will be a country notable as the No.1 place not to find geniuses. They will be, instead, No.1 in "Sound administrative types". Wow. What an achievement that would be...No.1 in "human dullness"; No.1 in "conformity of thought."; No.1 in "We know better"; No.1 in "That's not allowed."

Singapore is very much like Priestley's quote: they state that they would like to breed creative people...but they insist on an environment which is hostile to them. Basically, they want creative people to grow up in an environment designed to destroy them...so that they can have the benefit of their creativity, whilst not yielding up the control of people's lives, and minds. Oddly, it has never occurred to them, that their two aims, are incompatible. Singapore cannot control the lives and minds of its people, to the level it presently does - AND have geniuses. The former will destroy the latter.

If Singapore truly wishes to be the birthplace of an abundance of geniuses and lesser creative thinkers, it must become free in all ways that it is possible to be free. The first freedom should be the right for anyone to say anything they please, at anytime they please, about anything they please. This single change to the social landscape of Singapore would free tongues that have long been silent, to begin to speak. There is no telling what they might say...but one thing is for sure, it would be a whole lot more interesting and a whole lot more creative, than a nation dominated by "Sound administrative types".

As I have noted, in one post before, Singapore, as it is presently constituted, will one day be completely forgotten. I mean not just this era and these people - but the whole nation. As hard as it may be for Singaporeans to imagine, there will come a time when not one person, on Earth, or beyond, has ever heard of Singapore, or Lee Kuan Yew and the family Lee. No-one will ever have heard of them. The reason for this is that history is long and filled with too much information. As time passes, it becomes longer...until, eventually, the only things that are remembered are the greatest of events: the greatest wars, the greatest conquests...and the greatest people. There is only one way that Singapore will ever be remembered: and that is if it is the nation that gives rise to at least one true genius. So far, no adult Singaporean, in its history, has ever achieved that status (state propaganda notwithstanding). Should no Singaporean ever achieve the level of true historical genius (a Leonardo da Vinci, or an Albert Einstein, or a William Shakespeare), then there will be no reason for Singapore ever to be remembered. A nation of "Sound administrative types" is unworthy of note in the modern world, and utterly without any reason for recall for posterity.

However, the nation where Mr or Miss Genius X, was nurtured, is a cause for remembrance. The world will forever know Vinci, for its genius, Leonardo. Will Singapore have cause to be remembered in a thousand years, or ten thousand? Will it be a land of a genius? Or will it be an unregarded nation of "Sound administrative types". It is for Singapore to decide. If Singapore wishes to be remembered, it would do well to forget the notion of pervasive state control of its people. It would do well not to be overly sensitive to the comments of its citizens and others. It would do well, to let them be free, to be. Only then, will Singapore do anything worthwhile, in the ultimate verdict of posterity.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Lee Kuan Yew and Language Education in Singapore.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, was quoted, recently, in Petir, the People's Action Party magazine, as saying: "Initially, I believed that intelligence was equated to language ability. Later, I found that they are two different attributes - IQ and a facility for languages. My daughter, a neurologist, confirmed this,". Commentary in the articles that relate to this, state that this realization took 30 years. In the meantime, difficult education policies on bilingualism were implemented - ones that ignored the difficulty of acquiring a second language, for many students.

Now, it seems to me, that the implications of this realization have not been entirely examined. PSLE, for instance, requires, if I am not mistaken, examination in English and "Mother Tongue"...that is, a second language, determined by the race of the examinee. It has always seemed suspect to me, to state that because someone is of a particular race, that they must also be of a particular language. My children, for instance are, yes, half-Malay...but they have far less than half the normal opportunity to learn Malay. You see, I don't speak Malay, so most of the conversation in our household is, necessarily in English. Thus, it is a nonsense to have a policy which requires my children to be Malay speakers (because they have a Malay mother), when they don't really come from a Malay speaking household. There are many families like this, families which have a particular racial background but do NOT have the corresponding language background. Yet, at PSLE, all families must submit to the demand for examination in English and Mother Tongue. As we can see from MM Lee's own admission, this makes no sense at all, with regards to the intended aim of selecting the most able students. Ability in languages is not a catch-all for general mental ability: it is a specific capability. Leonardo da Vinci, the famously polymathic genius, was not so strong in languages: perhaps in Singapore he would have been relegated to poorer schools because of it. How ridiculous is that?

So, let us heed MM Lee's recent acquisition of wisdom regarding languages and IQ. Let us have a PSLE system which does NOT require multiple languages for examination. Perhaps the student can nominate which language exam they wish to take - and take only one. Either that, or they could take both - and ONLY the highest one should count towards the determination of their standing in the PSLE.

The real question we have to answer regarding the PSLE is: what is it for? Is it to determine the relative capability of students, in terms of actual intelligence? If so, drop the multiple language requirement because different students have different opportunities to learn languages, so what is being compared is not their intellects, but their environments. If, however, Singapore just wants a system to determine who is the best fit to a multilingual environment, then carry on the present system unchanged. It doesn't find the smartest students...it just finds those best fitted to a multilingual environment. They are not necessarily the same thing. Just ask Leonardo da Vinci, the famous non-linguist. (By the way, I think Leonardo would have been horrified by Singapore's education system...)

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to:http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.

IMDB is the Internet Movie Database for film and tv professionals. If you would like to look at my IMDb listing for which another fifteen credits are to be uploaded, (which will probably take several months before they are accepted) please go to: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3438598/ As I write, the listing is new and brief - however, by the time you read this it might have a dozen or a score of credits...so please do take a look. My son, Ainan Celeste Cawley, also has an IMDb listing. His is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3305973/ My wife, Syahidah Osman Cawley, has a listing as well. Hers is found at: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication prohibited. Use Only with Permission. Thank you.)

Lee Kuan Yew on Assortative Mating.

Lee Kuan Yew is fond of graduates. For him, a graduate is a superior being to be courted. Recently, he expressed his views on the assortative mating of graduates, in a televised interview.

Lee Kuan Yew said that graduates should only marry graduates and that one should not form a graduate, non-graduate partnership. For him, such a partnership would jeopardize the chances of giving rise to "graduate children".

It seems clear that Lee Kuan Yew thinks that the state of being a graduate is somehow inherited. I feel that this comes from a misunderstanding of what, exactly, is inherited. Being a graduate is an ACQUIRED characteristic. One is not born a graduate. To become a graduate one must interact with the educational bureaucracy for a certain number of years, suppress one's individuality to a greater or lesser extent (depending on the system), conform to the rules and generally do what is expected of one, for a set number of years. At the end of this period, if you have been a good (conformist) boy or girl, you will be awarded a piece of paper that has social meaning: that is you are a "graduate" - and non-graduates can thereafter look up to you in awe of your greatness.

Now, that is all very well, but the fact that being a graduate is an acquired characteristic, based on many factors - money for educational fees, not being dyslexic (it is more difficult to be a graduate if you are one), being motivated by examinations, finding the courses interesting enough to study, hard work for some, talent for others etc. etc. - means that being a graduate is not a very good marker for intelligence, which is, I assume, Lee Kuan Yew's real concern.

Lee Kuan Yew wishes graduates to marry only graduates to create a super class of smart people. However, there is a problem with this. University degrees are not directly inheritable - that is Lamarckian inheritance (that of inheriting acquired characteristics) does not apply. Just because your mum and dad are graduates of Cambridge University, that does not mean that you, too, will be a graduate of Cambridge University. It is not something that can be inherited. If LKY believes that it is inheritable directly, then he is making a Lamarckian error (belief in the inheritance of acquired characteristics). What can be inherited, however, to a great degree is intelligence and various aspects of character. These inheritances can predispose one to become a degree holder one day - but there is no guarantee that this will be so - since it depends on many factors that have nothing to do with intelligence. There are some very smart non-graduates (I know plenty) and there are some VERY stupid graduates (I know plenty). Being a graduate doesn't mean you are smart, it means that someone else is stupid enough to give you a degree.

At the heart of LKY's contention is that people should marry their own kind. This is, actually, an age-old trend in humans. People naturally tend to seek out others with whom they have many things in common. So, in urging this, LKY is just stating what people tend to do anyway.

I think, however, that he is making a fundamental error in categorizing graduates as superior to non-graduates. That is simply not so. A graduate is just someone who has conformed to an education system long enough to actually be given a piece of paper by it. It does not mean that they are more special than someone who decided NOT to conform to the education system long enough to receive a piece of paper. In fact, the NON-conformist could be SUPERIOR to the conformist graduate. Education in Singapore is a case in point. I have worked within the system and it is strongly conformist. I think that it is likely, in such a system, that many who conform to it are inferior to those who escape from it. Truly smart people do not conform readily in their thinking - they escape to make their own territory.

People are better judges of whom they should marry than LKY is. Lee Kuan Yew is using the short-hand of "graduate" to decide that people are of sufficient merit to marry. Well, many graduates are dull people. A man or woman seeking a partner can see that. They can decide for themselves that "dull graduate A" is not as marriage worthy as "interesting non-graduate B" - and they can select B. What they may actually be selecting FOR is the quality of genuine intelligence that LKY seeks anyway. A person who looks at another carefully will see more about them, in terms of intelligence and character, than any piece of paper could tell them. Sometimes, the non-graduate will be smarter and more interesting - and better in many ways - than all available graduates. In such circumstances, it would make sense to REJECT the graduates and marry the non-graduate.

I find it funny, in a way, that LKY should be so concerned to create brighter people in Singapore. You see, from our own experience, we have learnt that Singapore doesn't do all that is necessary to look after the bright citizens it DOES have. We had to struggle very hard to get the right educational provisions for our son, Ainan. It took a year and a half of wasted time to get him a Chemistry lab, for instance. There is NO POINT AT ALL in bringing more bright children into the world of Singapore, if the ones it already has, have to struggle to get the resources they need to optimize their talents. I think Lee Kuan Yew is not fully aware of how his nation actually behaves towards its brightest children. We had to talk to many, many, institutions before we got any positive response. Generally speaking, institutions here will do nothing out of the ordinary, for an extraordinary child. No-one wants to make any exception. Furthermore the Gifted Education Programme is mis-named, for they do very little to help the gifted child in any real way (they talk a lot, study the child like a lab animal - then do little).

So, I would advise LKY: first ensure that your country actually welcomes bright children, before you worry about how many of them you have.

Note: I graduated from Cambridge University in Natural Sciences. I don't consider it a fruitful time. Nor did I meet anyone at Cambridge that I considered marriage material: they weren't up to my standard, at all. (They were too conformist). So much for the "marry a graduate" theory.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Where are all the world class writers?

This post is an addendum to the one before. It asks a simple question: if, as has been claimed by MM Lee Kuan Yew, Singaporeans have been educated in English to the highest of world class standards, where are all the great Singaporean writers? With a command of English, at the highest level, often comes a propensity, need and ability to write. This frequently manifests in novels, plays, poems, or other creative forms. The question is: given the highest world class education in English, where are all the Singaporean writers of global standing?

The fact is, there are no Singaporean writers of global reputation: not even one. Catherine Lim is the writer who comes closest to having an international reputation - but even she really just has a local reputation with a smidgeon of regional awareness thrown in. She is not truly international.

If Singaporeans really were being equipped with the highest level of English, Singapore would have many famed writers. It doesn't. The only conclusion is that these "highest world class English speakers" don't really exist.

Often it is said to excuse this situation that Singapore is "too small" to have any such writers. Well, let us look at the issue of size. Singapore has a population of around 4.6 to 4.7 million people according to recent newspaper articles. Ireland has a population of 4.1 million - so it is a comparable but smaller country, in terms of population. Does Ireland suffer from the same problem of not producing any writers of international standing?

No. In fact, Ireland has the opposite problem. It produces so many writers of international standing that you would be hard-pressed to read their output in a lifetime. Let us list a few of them to give you an idea: Samuel Beckett (Nobel Prize Winner and Dramatist); Brendan Behan (playwright and novelist); Eoin Colfer (writer of a popular children's book series); Roddy Doyle (novelist); Brian Friel (playwright); F. Scott Fitzgerald (Irish American and writer of the Great Gatsby); Oliver Goldsmith (novelist and playwright); Lady Augusta Gregory (playwright and founder of the Abbey Theatre), Seamus Heaney (Nobel Prize Winner); Neil Jordan (author, film director); James Joyce (novelist); Frank McCourt (writer and teacher); Edna O'Brien (novelist); George Bernard Shaw (playwright and novelist); Richard Brinsley Sheridan (playwright); Laurence Sterne (novelist, author of Tristram Shandy); Bram Stoker (author of Dracula); John Millington Synge (dramatist); Dylan Thomas (poet); William Trevor (novelist); Oscar Wilde (novelist, poet, satirist); William Butler Yeats (poet and Nobel Prize Winner).

Now that list is not exhaustive: it is barely a beginning of the great writers that have come out of little Ireland. Note that there are three Nobel Prize Winners amongst these ones, alone. Singapore has never had a Nobel Prize Winner in any category. Thus, it is clear that whatever class of English is truly being taught in Singapore, it is not world class - for, if it was, one would expect a similar number of authors of renown from Singapore, as Ireland (a SMALLER country in terms of population) actually produces. Yet, Singapore doesn't have even one of similar standing.

Singapore has the people. It has the financial resources. It lacks however the self-knowledge to see that certain areas need improving. Should it begin to see itself as it actually is - and not as it pretends to itself to actually be - then steps could be taken to nurture any glimmers of creative ability in the population, in the hope of seeding writers of the future.

The same argument as above could be applied to any area of creative endeavour: Singapore is not really pulling its weight when compared to other developed countries of a similar population size. Where are the musicians? Where are the artists? Where are the research scientists (creative ones)? All are lacking. All could be there, if the right steps to nurture them were taken.

Singapore has done many things well in the past few decades - but it has done other things very poorly: nurturing creative people is one of those things that have been done poorly (and continue to be so).

Singapore will have truly come into to its own as a fully-fledged creative nation when it too can produce a long list of creative people of renown, in any field.

I look forward to it - but it won't happen without change of the education system, here.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Lee Kuan Yew's view on Singaporean Education.

Recently, the front page of the Today newspaper carried a story about Lee Kuan Yew's latest public utterances. They quoted him as saying words to the effect (since I don't have the article anymore to hand): "We have educated Singaporeans in English to the highest of world class standards."

My first thought on reading this was that the Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew hasn't actually worked, as a teacher, in the Singaporean system and so doesn't have first hand knowledge of that which he speaks. I have taught in Singaporean schools and seen them from the inside over many years. What I have seen differs from how Lee Kuan Yew views matters.

There are two possible meanings to the statement he made: one is that the English of Singaporeans is "of the highest world class standard". The other is that the medium of instruction is English but that the content of instruction is of the "highest world class standard". From wide experience, I don't believe that either of these views is true. Singaporean education is not at the pinnacle of global education, as Minster Mentor Lee Kuan Yew seems to be stating - neither in the English imparted, nor in the content taught.

Singaporean education is typified by a regimented, rigid, inflexible, unaccommodating approach to students, in which they are, largely speaking, encouraged to be passive recipients in the educative process. Actual thinking is strongly discouraged by this approach. Interestingly, I have taught in Singaporean schools in which the students - local, native-born Singaporeans - show little evidence of the ability to think independently or to originate material. Apparently, this means that they have received a "highest world class standard" education.

As for the quality of English in Singapore - an honest Singaporean, who has had exposure to the English of native Englishmen, Americans, Australians or Canadians, would question Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's view that the English education they have received is of the highest standard. In some cases, the English education received is of an abysmal standard. For instance, when my son Ainan was in his first year in school, I noted that his correct standard English use of tenses was being "corrected" TO SINGLISH, by his teacher. A teacher whose first language is Singlish cannot ever impart "highest world class standard" English to her students - she can only perpetuate her own level of ignorance as to what standard English is supposed to be.

My experience of young Singaporeans is that few have a high level command of English. The average Singaporean today, studying in local government schools, has, by international standards, a very poor grasp of English - probably just as poor as the teachers who teach them.

With effort, throughout the education system - and the employment of English teachers whose English is actually good, rather than terrible - Singaporeans could, in a generation's time, have "highest world class standard" English. However, they do not have this at present. In only the most fevered of imaginations, could the typical English standard of a typical Singaporean be termed "highest world class standard".

The first step towards solving a problem is recognizing that it exists. A few years ago, there seemed to be the recognition of the problem - with an anti-Singlish programme, nationwide. That initiative appears to have been halted. Now we have a "we are great, wonderful, excellent, the most brilliant in the world" programme that calls for no change at all. I rather think that the first initiative should have been continued until it succeeded - it would have done a lot of good for the ability of Singaporeans to do business on the international stage. As I have remarked in other posts, I have sometimes been completely unable to understand the English of Singaporean business people's "highest world class standard" English. By this I mean, there was NO shared understanding at all. I utterly failed to comprehend them. Yet, they were, supposedly, speaking English.

Singapore has come far, in many areas - but there is one area in which it has declined, terribly, since the British left: the standard of English now spoken is insufficient to optimize Singapore's chances on the global stage. That is the truth of the matter. Saying something is of the "highest world class standard" doesn't make it so. Taking initiatives to instil higher standards of spoken and written English across the nation, would, however, do so. Yet, that would mean admitting that the nation was not already "No.1"...there would be the pain of effort and change involved. In the end, however, the prize would be worthwhile, for the ease of international communication would have been enhanced greatly, to the benefit of the Singaporean people.

As for the other possible interpretation of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's statement that Singaporeans have been educated in English to the highest of world class standards - that the educational content is of the highest standard, that, too is easily disproven. It is a simple matter: if the local education was, in fact, the "highest world class standard", it would be the best in the world. If it was the best in the world, why do the brightest students, every year, go overseas to the USA or Europe to study? Clearly, these students are going far and wide to receive an education of a lesser standard, if the statement made was actually true.

The true standard of education is shown by how the people respond to it. Those who are able, respond to it by sending their children overseas to study. They wouldn't do this, at all, EVER, if the local standard was of the "highest world class standard".

I would like to see a Singapore in which both interpretations of Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's statement were, in fact, true. I would like Singaporeans to have the "highest world class standard" of written and spoken English - for then they would be best prepared for the international stage. I would also like them to have received the "highest world class standard", education, in terms of content and skills obtained, for then they would be best able to operate in their various fields in that world. I look forward to such a future - however, that future is not yet here and will not be unless the deficiencies of the present system are recognized and put right either by the present generation of leaders, or those who shall come after them.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, five years exactly, and Tiarnan, twenty-eight months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, wunderkind, wonderkind, genio, гений ребенок prodigy, genie, μεγαλοφυία θαύμα παιδιών, bambino, kind.

We are the founders of Genghis Can, a copywriting, editing and proofreading agency, that handles all kinds of work, including technical and scientific material. If you need such services, or know someone who does, please go to: http://www.genghiscan.com/ Thanks.)

Lee Kuan Yew reconsiders population

Living, as I do, in Singapore, I was rather relieved to learn that Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore's Minister Mentor (an advisory leader), has stated that he now believes that Singapore should not have a population of 6.5 million, but that one of 5 to 5.5 million would be optimum.

He is quoted in the papers as saying: "I have not quite been sold on the idea that we should have 6.5 million. I think there's an optimum size for the land that we have to preserve the open spaces and the sense of comfort".

He went onto say that he wouldn't like to see Singapore turn into another Hong Kong, with its towers, one after the other, each blocking out the other's light. He indicated that he thought Hong Kong's 7 million population was an undesirable number.

I don't know if Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is aware of it, but Singapore's population density is already rather high, even compared to Hong Kong's.

A quick search of Wikipedia, brings up the following figures from the United Nations World Populations Prospects Report (2004 revision), with estimates calculated for July 2005. In that data set, Hong Kong is listed as the 3rd most dense place on Earth at a population density of 6,407 people per sq. km. "Wow...that's high!", you might think. But where is Singapore on this United Nation list? Fourth place. Singapore comes in at 6,369 people per sq. km for these figures. So, you might think that Singapore's population density is high - indeed very similar to Hong Kong's - but not quite there yet. However, Singapore's population has risen since these figures were gathered - and guess what? Hong Kong's population has declined, a little.

Recalculating for the new population of Singapore which Lee Kuan Yew said was 4.8 million a couple of days ago, gives a population density for Singapore, as of now, of 6,823 people per sq. km. This is 6.5 % MORE dense than Hong Kong at its population peak. How about now, though?

Well, Hong Kong's population has declined from 7.04 million in 2004, to 6.98 million for the latest figures in July 2007. That means Hong Kong's population density is now 6,351 people per sq. km. That means that Singapore's population density is presently 7.43% greater than Hong Kong's. No wonder it was beginning to feel crowded.

What this means is that Singapore is now the 3rd most densely populated nation on Earth. Hong Kong has slid to fourth position.

Let us look forward. The projected population (now) by Lee Kuan Yew, of 5.5 million would represent a density of 7,812.5 people per sq km. That is a full 23 % more dense than Hong Kong is presently.

What about the fabled 6.5 million population projection tabled last year? Well, that would give a population density of 9,233 people per sq. km. That is a population density of 45.4 % more dense than Hong Kong - basically half as dense again.

These figures are sobering to read. Anyone of imagination can understand what they mean for the quality of life for Singaporeans. Yet, it is good to hear that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is re-evaluating the situation himself. He is, perhaps, listening to how people feel about it. Perhaps he is imagining the situation himself. Yes, by all means have a growing economy - but one must also consider the quality of life for every Singaporean and foreigner who lives and works here. If that quality of life becomes too low - they will simply leave, Singaporean and foreigner alike.

Personally, I have never visited Hong Kong. However, I have seen many pictures of its crowds - and my family have visited - so I hear that its crowdedness is hardly enviable. How much less enviable would Singapore be at 23 % more dense, or even 45.4 %? It would be a very different city - and probably an utterly unlivable one. It would be difficult to put that many people on these 704 sq kms of a city state and still afford them all a decent life.

I am relieved that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew himself is re-addressing these issues. There is hope, from what he is saying, that moderation in population growth might be a new aim.

It should be - for Singapore is already too crowded - and getting more so every day. Let us, indeed, as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew says himself, not be as over-populated as Hong Kong. If that is to be so, however, we would, in fact, have to reduce the population hence forth. For Hong Kong is already taking the lead in becoming a less dense, more livable city, than Singapore. Let's follow her down (in population) shall we?

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged eight years and one month, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and seven months, and Tiarnan, two years exactly, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, College, University, Chemistry, Science, genetics, left-handedness, precocity, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)