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.)

The price of silence.

Singapore is quieter than it should be, at this time. There is a silence where there should be voices, singing.

I should explain. The Complaints Choir, which formed in Finland in 2005, is what you might term a performance art group. They gather together common complaints local to each country, from the natives of that country, select those that sound most interesting, join them together, set them to music - and sing them. Hence, their name: The Complaints Choir.

They recruit local singers in each country that they go to and work with them to create a performance that should resonate with the people of the country in question, because it gives a sung voice to their deepest concerns.

They have performed in several cities around the world, including Helsinki, Birmingham (in the UK), Hamburg (in Germany) and St. Petersburg in Russia.

They were set to perform in Singapore, in the first Asian performance of the Complaints Choir, but a Singaporean Government body stepped in at the last minute (after another government body, the MDA (Media Development Authority) had given permission), and made an unreasonable demand. The government stated that the performances could go ahead with one condition: that no foreigners could perform, for no foreigner was allowed to comment on Singaporean affairs. This was an unacceptable condition for this Finnish choir, for several obvious reasons: the conductor is Malaysian (so they can't have a conductor!), and a few singers are professional Finnish singers, whose voices would, of course, be sorely missed. The Complaints Choir cancelled all public performances, being unable to meet the demands.

The performances were to take place in very public places with a lot of passersby: Vivo City (a large shopping mall), The Esplanade (the leading theatrical centre), a Housing Development Board public housing estate in Eunos, the City Plaza complex and Speaker's Corner. Interestingly, no foreigner is ever allowed to speak at Speaker's Corner (and all locals have to register their names and intentions before doing so).

Two private performances were arranged instead, at which all who came had to register: one at the Arts House, the other at the Old Parliament House debating chamber.

Now, I have introduced this situation in detail, for a reason. I want you to understand the background to what I am going to say next. Singapore is a nation without a culture. That is a bold statement, but it is essentially true. Little that is artistic originates here and most that does is highly imitative. There is no creative, original, expressive spark. Knowing this, the Singaporean government says that it wishes to ignite such a spark. It builds cultural infrastructure: such as The Esplanade, with its theatres and concert halls and speaks of encouraging creative people to create. Yet, they do not. Little is created. Few are artistic. The culture does not grow and flourish. Why is this so? Well, because to be able to grow, the artistic community must feel free to speak out. They must not fear reprisal. They must not worry about their futures if they freely say what they wish to in their work, through their creative efforts. If an artist feels that they are being monitored, that their work is being scrutinized and that any untoward content will be in some way punished, censured or censored, they will not create. Thoughts will die unrecorded, works will go unwritten, art undrawn. There is nothing surer to kill the artistic spirit than the feeling that ones works will be greeted with any kind of punishment.

Look at what has happened here with The Complaints Choir. A group of Singaporeans, and permanently resident foreigners (PRs), answered the call from the Finnish group to convene to form a choir. They then sat down together and began to write their thoughts about life in Singapore. They worked together to express what it was that is bothersome about life here. They then selected and honed the complaints to form the lyrics to a song. They set it to music together. They rehearsed the singing of it until all sounded well. They applied for the relevant performance licenses. All was set to go ahead. Then, at the last minute, they were told that no-one who had not been born in Singapore could perform. That included all the Permanent Residents, who had taken residency here and made Singapore their homes. All their hard work in creating this piece of performance art was for nothing: they would not be allowed to perform in public.

So, what do we have here? We have a group of Singaporeans and fellow human beings from elsewhere in the world, but resident here, who, together had created a piece of performance art. They had done what the government stated it wanted people to do: be creative, express yourself. Yet, when they had done so, they were told that they could not do so. This particular art could only be performed by locals.

Let us extend their argument a little. If this song can only be sung by locals, then surely we must ban all American and European films on the television and in the cinemas - for is that not performed by non-locals? All books that have not been penned by Singaporean authors (a very small group of people) must be taken from the libraries, because they were written by non-locals. All music on the radio must be stopped at once, for apart from the tracks of Hady Mirza and the like, none of it is local. The radio stations will have to be silent. I could go on - but you get the idea. If their argument is taken into analogous realms then Singapore would have no exposure to culture or art at all. It would be a completely isolated, ignorant nation.

You may question my extension of the situation into other artistic realms by pointing out that the stated reason that foreigners could not perform was that no foreigner was allowed to comment on Singaporean affairs. Yet, all art, of any kind, is a comment on the societies to which the artist has been exposed. So, anything written or painted, or sung, or otherwise created by anyone who had ever become acquainted with Singapore would, in some way or small degree, be a comment on Singapore: knowledge of it would be part of the background of the artist. Is all creative product from people who know Singapore to be banned too?

This could be extended into other areas too. Surely it would mean that no foreign diplomat or journalist, or financial analyst would be allowed to comment on their work here, to anyone else? For would that not be commenting on Singaporean affairs?

You should be able to see by now, that the underlying premise is really rather silly. When extrapolated into adjoining areas it creates truly absurd circumstances. This is, I think, a policy enacted without a great deal of thought as to the implications. It is a "knee-jerk" reaction, that has seemingly been taken without deep consideration.

The Singaporean Government says that it wants a flourishing arts scene. It reasons that having one would make it a more attractive place for foreign talent (true) and residents alike (it would be true if they had learnt to appreciate the arts on growing up: schools here, however, don't teach them anything about them - so they can't appreciate the arts at all). The Singaporean Government has come to understand that part of the secret of London, New York and Paris, is their thriving culture: it is what makes such cities live and it is what draws people from all over the world to live and work in them, lending them their great vigour.

However, there is a problem. The Singaporean Government wants the Arts, but it also wants control. It wants to monitor, and contain what is expressed and created, within ill-defined limits. It wants to license only certain forms of expression. True freedom of expression is not allowed, for then artists might create works it does not appreciate.

This is their dilemma, then: they want the benefits to the nation of a thriving arts scene, but they cannot, philosophically and temperamentally, allow true freedom of artistic expression. What they fail to understand, however, is that without true artistic freedom, art just cannot be. Artists cannot speak when you are holding their tongues. Writers cannot write when you won't give them a pen. Without artistic freedom, the only culture Singapore will ever have - and I mean EVER have - is that which it imports. Local artists will never begin to create, if they don't feel free to do so.

The Complaints Choir is silent. Few will hear their song, written and created by Singaporeans though it was. The Singaporean Government has got its wish - as always: their unwelcome words will not be heard. Yet, there is a price to this silence. The price will be in future artistic works lost, never written, never painted, never sung. The message has gone out, from the Government, with the utmost clarity, to the nascent artistic community of Singapore: you still can't say what you wish, despite what we have declared publicly.

This is not, therefore, just the silencing of one piece of performance art - it is the silencing of a culture.

If the Singaporean Government really, truly wants to have an arts scene, that would benefit the nation and make it truly a first class city, then they have to do one thing: let go. They have to give up trying to control what people say. They must just let people be.

What will happen if they let go? Well, more art would be made. Writers would begin to write. Thinkers would begin to think. Artists would begin to paint. There would be the feeling that it was truly permitted to do so - encouraged even. An arts scene would begin to thrive - and a culture would finally be born.

It is up to the Government. They cannot have a cultured city, without letting the culture live.

I hope to see it happen one day. I would like to see this become a cultured city. If it is ever to happen, the artists must first be free to say whatever they wish. Without that freedom, nothing good will ever come to be. Singapore will remain a city without a culture.

(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.)

Is Singapore an uncaring society?

A society reveals itself by the way it communicates to its people. So, it is with Singapore.

Yesterday, I stepped into a lift and I saw a notice on the wall. It was from the Housing Development Board and it had been widely distributed to communicate a safety message. The message was a simple one and explained in detail: windows, on high rise flats, have inherent dangers and must be protected against. A set of detailed precautions were given, advising on the maintenance and upkeep of windows to prevent a mishap.

This was "all well and good". However, there was something else which I noticed about the poster, which really perturbed me. You see, at the bottom of the notice, in large letters there was the slogan: "Your loved ones could be hurt". It was the only message on the poster that said, directly, that windows could hurt people. Think about it for a minute. What does it imply about the society to which it is addressed? For me it says something really, really, dark about Singapore. It says that, in the Government's opinion - for it is a notice from a branch of Government - that the people of Singapore will ONLY care about personal injury to their immediate relatives and loved ones. Stated, most clearly, by that slogan was the fact that an appeal to a Singaporean's general concern for their fellow man, would be ineffective. They had to make the poster personal. By saying: "Your loved ones could be hurt", they were saying that you, personally, could be affected by failing to maintain your windows. Clearly, it was thought that something more general like: "Someone could be killed", would have no effect on people's behaviour. Seeing those words, therefore, appalled me - for it told me most clearly, what the Government must know and think about its own people. It says that they JUST DON'T CARE.

Is there any evidence of this lack of care in daily life, here? Well, there is: plenty of it. Most relevantly, is that one not infrequently hears of things falling from windows, and sometimes people are hurt. Occasionally, such things are even reported - so it is not something which does not happen - it is a danger of life in a high-rise city. Yet, should such things happen? It should be a simple matter to ensure that there is nothing able to fall from a window - just don't put anything there. It is also a simple matter to ensure that the windows are safe: get them repaired if they start to look precarious. Yet, the Government here, knows that people don't take such precautions - that people don't think of the strangers down below who might be hurt or killed, by their negligence regarding windows. Hence, the notice that brings the danger closer to home - it is not strangers that might be hurt, but your own family.

It is true of course. One's own family could be hurt by ill-fitting, badly secured windows. Yet, in most countries, I feel it would have been sufficient to say: "Someone could be killed - take care of your windows." Something like that would work in any society in which people value all life, in which people care whether or not others come to harm by their actions or inactions. Clearly, Singapore is not such a place. If it was, the communication would have been different. It would have felt no need to bring it down to the level of the individual's loved ones.

In all, I found the poster rather chilling therefore. Do people really care so little for their fellow human beings, here?

(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 six months, and Tiarnan, twenty-three 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, gifted adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)