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.)

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.)