City Harvest Church scandal is Singaporean greed, not “Western”.

City Harvest Church is a very wealthy Christian church in Singapore. It requires its members to donate 10% of their income to the church. It has 24,000 members, so it takes little calculation to realize that City Harvest Church's income from this largely young professional congregation, is vast. Recently there has been a scandal at City Harvest Church. The Star carried an article by Seah Chiang Nee about it that was most odd in its assertions. In response, I wrote the letter below, to the Star, hoping it would be published. Four days have now passed and it has not. Normally the Star publishes letters before then, so I am assuming that they are not going to publish this one, though I am prepared to be surprised. Given my assumption, I have pasted the text of my letter below. Thank you.

"I object, strongly, to Seah Chiang Nee’s bizarre assertion, in his article “The rise of the mega-churches”, that the alleged crime of Kong Hee and his fellow pastors, in misusing 23 million Sing. Dollars, was somehow the fault of the “West”. It was not. It was the simple and direct product of Singaporean greed.

I have lived in many countries, both Western and Asian. I have visited around 20 countries in my life. Of all those countries, Singapore is by far the most obsessed by money. It does not surprise me in the least, that a Singaporean pastor, of a very wealthy church, should be accused of using tax-free charity funds for inappropriate purposes – in this case, funding his wife, Sun Ho’s, pop music career to win more converts.

Seah Chiang Nee argues that City Harvest Church is just copying the fundraising zeal of TV evangelists, in the US. This is nonsense. Had the Americans not pioneered this kind of prosperity theology, it is certain that the Singaporeans would have stumbled on it, themselves. Singapore is highly inventive in all the ways to make money. They don’t need to be instructed in finding money-making schemes, by the Americans.

Furthermore, it is very self-serving, of Seah Chiang Nee, to explicitly defend a fellow Chinese man, by suggesting that his crime was somehow America’s fault. Kong Hee did not allegedly misuse that money because of America – if he did it, it was because of his implicit own character flaws, around the issue of money. The responsibility for this crime does not lie far away, but very nearby. Singaporeans need not  look for others to blame, in a rather paranoid fashion, but need to own up to their own crimes and their own criminals, should these be so proven to be. Only then will there be the possibility of addressing the underlying problems. As long as Asians blame the West for their own problems, those problems will remain unfixed. Asians should take responsibility for their own flaws – then try to overcome them.

Finally, it must be said, most clearly, that greed is not a "Western norm", as implied by Mr Seah's article...nor is the misuse of monies. It is deeply offensive to all Westerners that he should suggest so. Furthermore, the "West" is not defined by America, or what transpires there - there are many Western countries, each with somewhat different cultures. Mr. Seah should find out more about the West before making such allegations. In particular, he should note that a typical Western country is far less obsessed by money, than is Singapore."

Perhaps my letter to the editor about City Harvest Church was a little too strong to be published. Never mind, please comment below if you have anything to contribute. Thank you.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(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

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, 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 athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's tax plans.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both promised tax cuts, if elected, that sound delicious to the voter’s ears. Barack Obama has said he will cut corporate taxes from 35% to 28%. He has also said he will maintain the Bush era tax cuts for most voters, and raise taxes on those earning 250,000 dollars a year and more. Mitt Romney on the other hand, rather more adventurously, has promised to cut all individual tax rates by 20% - and to cut corporation tax to just 25%. Now, my question is: are these two men sane?

There is a profound problem with the idea that broad ranging tax cuts are possible in America, at this time. America, as the whole world knows, is deeply in debt. Indeed, its debt is so large that it would take many years to conquer it, with wide ranging tax INCREASES, and cuts to all government funded public services. It is simple not possible to cut taxes, as offered by Obama and Romney, and maintain existing services. Should either of these tax plans be implemented then one of two things would happen: the American debt burden would grow rapidly – or all publicly funded services would have to be dramatically cut, to balance the books. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are making seductive promises to the electorate, which simply cannot be kept, without destroying America as a nation. Now, there is the real meaning of these promises: both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would be prepared to destroy America, just to get elected.

America needs to cut public spending, and/or raise taxes, if it is to reduce its debt burden. This is the unavoidable truth. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clearly believe that the American electorate is dumb...and perhaps they are right. They are certainly banking on the dumbness of the American people to get them elected, since what they are promising cannot be delivered without imperilling the United States itself.

I am hoping that the American electorate is bright enough to see the essential problem with promising significant tax cuts in an era of unprecedented national debt. It would be rash in the extreme to do so. Promising to do so, can only mean one thing – that the politician would do anything, absolutely anything, including bankrupt his own nation, just to get elected. What the American people need to do is pause for a while and reflect on whether they really want a politician like that, at the helm of their nation. By making such promises, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, reveal themselves to be dangerously unelectable. Should they be elected, the safety and long term security of the United States would be imperilled (if they keep their promises and are able to make them happen).

If any candidate wishes to promise significant tax cuts, they should also identify which public services they are going to cut, and by how much. The full truth needs to be declared. It is meaningless for a candidate to promise massive tax cuts, without also explaining how the budget will be balanced. It would also be very revealing if they do not intend to balance the budget, for that would be a plan to increase America’s debt burden...and that, now, at over 15 trillion dollars, is beyond the point at which it would be safe to increase it further.

So, remember this: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, by declaring such fantastic, even delusional tax cutting plans, are declaring that they would bankrupt America, if it meant they could get elected again. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want either of them in charge of my country. Would you?

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(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

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, 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 athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Top 10 countries for child prodigy.

Google Trends provides a list of the top 10 countries for interest in child prodigy. This is a listing of the relative density of searches from various places, for child prodigy. It is, therefore, a measure of what the populace of those countries are interested in.

I would like you to take a moment to write down what you think this list of the top 10 places interested in child prodigies would be. Please do so. (By the way the search summary is from 2004 until the present, so it is a very significant snapshot of interest in the phenomenon of prodigiousness).

Right. Now which did you think was the number one country in the world for interest in child prodigy?

The answer is, tellingly, Singapore.

I said, "tellingly" because Singapore is one of the world's most competitive societies, educationally: every parent wants a super bright, super successful child. Most parents push their children there (we don't) in ways that are most disagreeable. The child is forced to study endless hours, to practice deep into the night and to endure many hours per week of extra tuition. It is a system designed to turn every child into a drudge for academic work. So, in that society, it is no surprise that there should be so much interest in child prodigies. Unconsciously, or otherwise, the child prodigy is somewhat of an ideal for Singaporean parents.

The other societies in the list were:
2) Malaysia
3) Philippines
4) United States
5) New Zealand
6) India
7) Canada
8) Australia
9) Ireland
10) United Kingdom

Note that the search density in Singapore was twice that of Malaysia and the search density in the UK was a small fraction of that of Singapore. So, Singapore is, by far, the winner in this "competition".

(This trend is even more interesting when the listing for interest, city by city, is looked at. On that listing, Singapore is still no.1 in the world in interest in child prodigies - but Austin Texas is no. 2 and ALL the other 8 places in the top 10 are American cities. This shows great interest, in parts of the United States, for prodigies, exceeded only by that of Singapore. It is, perhaps, no coincidence that both countries are very competitive.)

What is most interesting about this result is that, although the people of Singapore, as a nation, are very interested in child prodigy, the government of Singapore, as embodied by the education system, is not. We found great opposition to the provisions we needed from the education system, in Singapore. It was very difficult to work with the Gifted Branch of the Ministry of Education. In the end, we decided that it would be easier to get Ainan what he needed, elsewhere - and so it has proved.

So, this is another example in which the government of Singapore is out of sync with its people. Singaporeans are enamoured of child prodigies...but the PAP is not. The state of Singapore does little to support prodigies and quite a lot to oppose them. How interesting it is, therefore, to see the contrast between the government's position and the irrefutable tale of Google Trends.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 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.

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.)

Racism at Nebraska Office of the CIO

I was rather surprised at the comment written by a searcher from the Office of the CIO, at the State of Nebraska, two days ago. I didn't print the comment because of its racism.

It began: "Hey hoe hey hoe wats up my black friend..."

I thought this rather telling of the attention with which the person concerned gave the facts and the blog he was visiting. As any reader would know who actually READ a page or two of my blog would know, I am of Irish origin and therefore Caucasian. This State employee presumably thought me "black" because of my name.

He then went onto laugh maniacally for over a line of "hahahahaha..." and so on, before accusing me, in CAPS, of having no information on my blog. It is instructive that the searcher in question looked at precisely one post.

I found the tone of the comment quite disturbing. His IP address began: 205.202.36, in case the State of Nebraska wishes to follow up on it.

The United States is a diverse and multicultural society. Personally, I don't think it is appropriate that an employee of the Office of the Chief Information Officer should be nursing any racism at all - and certainly not posting racially offensive comments across the internet, from the vantage of his (or her) desk at their office.

Even though the poster was wrong about my race, I was offended that he or she should attempt to express racism in my blog comments. Perhaps the State of Nebraska would like to have a word with him or her.

(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.)

Freedom of Speech and the United States

Is there true freedom of speech in the United States? Is there freedom of speech on the internet? Does it endanger international relations and stray into politics, to speak freely on the internet?

I ask these questions for a reason. You see, I keep an eye on the locations of those who visit my website and on who comments on my pages. It is helpful to keep track of such things, since then I know something of the perspective of those who comment. I have, therefore, noticed something with regards to one of my posts. I wrote of George Bush's difficulty with the English language, picking up on a Reuters report that had made his mangling of English centre stage. It seems that simply speaking of such things is not permissible, at least in the eyes of at least one American. You see, there used to be regular visitor to my blog from Bothell, Washington - or Washington, Bothell. Every day, they would visit my blog. Until, one day, I wrote about George Bush's linguistic limitations, not in censure, but with a sense of worry about the wherewithal of a nation's Commander-in-Chief. Apparently, one is not really free to speak of anything one wishes in America - at least, Americans on the ground don't really respect freedom of speech, with their hearts and minds. You see, if you speak freely, without wish to offend, they can get offended and take umbrage: so where does that leave freedom of speech? It is, in effect, only a theoretical entity, in America. That visitor from Bothell, Washington had been a steadfast regular on my blog - but after I alluded to the Reuters report on George Bush, she or he, wrote a somewhat miffed remark on the post, and then never visited my blog again.

To me, his or her action is very significant. It means that, in practice, there may not actually be true freedom of speech in the United States (or perhaps anywhere else - but most other places don't actually boast of having it in the first place). True freedom of speech, in my eyes, implies that no-one will take any kind of action against you, for voicing an opinion. Not visiting a blog, again, comes under the category of a retributive action. It indicates, therefore, that the high principle of freedom of speech is not actually respected by that individual. That action led me to wonder how many, or how few, other Americans really understand what a world where speech was truly free should be like. In such a world, no opinion would ever attract censure and all would be listened to with equal open-ness. That is the ideal that America speaks of, when it boasts of its freedom of speech. Yet, in truth, the reality falls short of that, at least if this example is anything to go by.

It is perilous, it seems, to speak of anyone in politics. People are polarized and any opinion, about anyone political, whether it be local or international, is likely to differ from the opinions of many of one's readers. In a free world, where speech was truly free, it would not matter. One's opinion would not lead to problems. I have learnt, however, from observing that event, that although one may write as one wishes, on the internet, that certain opinions - perhaps any opinion, in fact - will lead to some people taking exception to it.

We have, therefore, the freedom to write as we wish - but not the freedom to be welcomed universally.

Freedom of speech is an admirable ideal - and it is heartening that the United States says it upholds such a thing. Indeed, as I understand it, it is a First Amendment right, in the Constitution. Yet, its citizens - at least some of them - have not yet fully internalized what freedom of speech really means. I look forward to a day when all the world is free, in every way - being free in speech, is probably the easiest freedom of all - if only people would be tolerant of each other, in all our infinite variety.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and ten months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and three months, and Tiarnan, twenty 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, 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.)

Singapore's IQ distribution and giftedness

I have just re-read my post on Ainan going to Raffles Institution, yesterday and, on doing so, I realized that I had made an error in my analysis. I have underestimated the number of gifted students who would be at Raffles.

How have I done this? Well, I realize, now, that I had made the assumption, in my statement that 1 in 44 people will be moderately gifted (IQ 130 or more), that the distribution was a normal one about an IQ of 100: as is the standard model of IQ. So, this is right, right? Wrong.

You see, the mean IQ in Singapore is, according to IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), 104, NOT 100. This means that the distribution of IQs in Singapore is significantly skewed towards the gifted range. Quite simply, there will be more gifted students in the Singaporean population, for its size, than there would be in many other populations of the same size. That is the number of gifted students, per head of population should be higher in Singapore, than many other countries. For instance, the mean IQ of the United Kingdom is 100; that of the United States is 98. Singapore will have notably more gifted students per head of population than these two nations - because a few IQ points shift - amounting to almost half a standard deviation, in relation to the US, will push many more students into the gifted range. This analysis assumes that the shape of the distribution is the same - a normal curve (though in fact it should be trimodal - but normal is the usual model) - about an IQ mean of 104.

(Of course, although Singapore will have more gifted students per head of population than many other nations - including the US and the UK - these nations will have many more gifted students in terms of actual numbers - because they are much larger populations.)

Applying this to Raffles Institution, without detailed analysis, gives me the sense that it is probable that ALL their students are gifted - for they are the top 3% of a population with mean IQ 104, not the top 3% of a population of mean IQ 100, as I had inadvertently assumed.

Not all nations have lower IQs than Singapore. Hong Kong, for instance, has a mean IQ of 107 - indicating that China may become real competition for the West in the future - but that is another story.