The David Beckham of Singapore

Why doesn't Singapore have a David Beckham? Why are there no internationally illustrious sports stars? Well, recently I heard a story that provides a perfect explanation.

If you are a regular of my blog, you will recall a story I told you about a lecturer, who was an "expert in raising children", who spoke of toughening up the children of Singapore. He also spoke of something else.

He told a tale of a young Singaporean who loved to play football. Every day he would be out with his friends practising, or honing his skills, by himself. It was, for him, non-stop football. It was his consuming passion. Yet, his parents were not happy. He was not doing well at school. He neglected his books. They wanted him to study. So, they began to badger him. They involved professionals, too, to coax him back to the books. Their nagging and persuasions began to tell on him. Finally, one day, he stopped playing football and started to study. The football remained unused at home. No longer did he kick it daily. Instead, he began to apply himself to his books.

His parents were elated. They had won. No longer was their son "wasting his time" on football, now, he was deploying himself usefully at his studies. The lecturer seemed most pleased to be able to recount this tale of victory of the education system, over the frivolity of football. Yet, I saw something else entirely in that tale. They had persuaded an indifferent student, with no great interest in academia, to try harder at his studies - but at the expense of his lifelong passion. I doubt, very much, that he was happy studying, instead of playing football. I doubt he got that much out of it, too. Yet, because he had conformed, his teachers and his parents were happy. He was now doing what they wanted.

As anyone of imagination can see, however, there is a price to all this. Let us look at his future. Is it a better future to be an indifferent academic, with so-so grades, reluctantly acquired, than to be a passionate, experienced footballer, who lives for his sport? Which is the better life for him? Could he not have become a professional footballer? After all, even Singapore has professional football teams. Would he not have been happier as a footballer, than as anything else? Would he not, perhaps, have been more successful as a footballer than as anything else?

No-one should deny their passion, in life - nor allow others to persuade them not to pursue it. You see, I believe there is a reason for that passion. If you have such high motivation for something and love doing it - it is usually because you have a gift for it. You are expressing yourself more truly through doing what you love, than through doing what others wish you to. That boy is a born footballer. He should be a professional sportsman. If he had been a born academic, that would have been his passion - but it is not.

I think a great mistake has been made and a boy will not now, grow up to live his dream. Once again, in Singapore, we see the narrowness of its values, the limited range of what is permissible. A boy cannot be a footballer, here. He must be an academic. Well, tell that to David Beckham - and his parents. Beckham was a child whose early life was very similar to this Singaporean boy's: he lived for football, practised all the time, was forever out on a field with his "mates". What was the result? He became one of the most famous sportsmen in the world and is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars (considering that his latest pay package is in the region of a quarter of a billion dollars for the contract period of a few years). Which is better then: to be a multi-millionaire sportsman - or to be a reluctant academic, with an average career thereafter?

Most Singaporean parents would never see the possibility of the former and will always push for the latter. Everyone plays safe. That is why Singapore doesn't have a David Beckham - and it never will, for as long as local values remain so narrow in their focus.

I only hope the boy starts to play football again - and auditions for a professional team. He would be a lot happier and fulfilled, that's for sure.

(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.)

Of bondage and educational servitude

Sometimes, when living in a country different to the one of one's birth, it can be surprising to read the newspapers. So it was, today, for me.

I stumbled upon a story of a new initiative between Duke University and National University Hospital (NUH), to found a graduate school in medicine. The Duke-NUH Graduate Medical School is to provide medical training for would-be Doctors, with a four year degree in Clinical Research (as far as I could gather, from a quick lunch time glance).

Now that is all well and good: a new course to allow new people to become Doctors. Fine. What was surprising - even to one who had seen other examples of this phenonomen in Singapore - is the financial handcuffs, locally called a "bond", involved in this course. The would-be Doctor would have to sign a contract with NUH agreeing to serve a certain number of years work in Singaporean Government Hospitals, if they took the course. If they broke the bond - and did not complete the course - or did not serve the requisite (unstated) number of years working in Singapore's hospitals, they would have to pay a penalty of $800,000.

I will state that number in words lest you think it is a mistake: EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is the penalty for withdrawing from the arrangement. Now, that sum shocked me. It is an awful lot of money. I am a father of three and I look at that number and think: "That would go a long way to raising my children." It is a far from insignificant sum. It is, as it is intended to be, a PENAL sum.

Why is the bond there at all? Well, it is intended to ensure that Singapore does not lose out, in any way from the arrangement. Should a Doctor be trained in Singapore they will either have to work there for a certain number of years (I don't know the number, but all examples I have seen before have been measured in years) - or they will have to compensate Singapore for their early departure to the tune of $800,000. As far as I am aware, this bond is not graduated. By that, I mean that technically, if you leave one day short of the period of servitude - that you will be liable for the WHOLE amount. I used the word the servitude deliberately for this style of contract is a hang-over from the early days of bonded servitude in times past. It is still very common practice here in Singapore.

When I first came to Singapore, discovering the "bond" was my biggest culture shock. Early job interviews I went to, often ended abruptly, from my point of view, when I learnt that the employer wanted me to sign a contract that meant that I WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM A LARGE PENALTY EQUAL TO SAY SIX MONTHS SALARY, if I left before two years. In all such cases, I never agreed to sign - because I have no idea what working for such a man would be like. It could be two years of hell: after all - what incentive has he to be a reasonable employer, if unreasonable behaviour, which forced me to leave, would be rewarded by a lump sum for him?

Here is the essential problem of bondage: a bond rewards bad behaviour on the part of employers (or, educationalists, for that matter) - with a large lump sum. In such circumstances, one can expect a less than ideal environment. The employer - or the educational institution - has no incentive to provide a good environment for their staff - because THE STAFF CANNOT LEAVE VOLUNTARILY. This can only lead to a situation of neglect at best - and active abuse at worst. It is very, very telling that in many organizations I am aware of that use bonding - ALMOST ALL THE STAFF LEAVE WHEN THE BOND IS UP. If they had been happy there, they would not leave the moment they are free of their bond. If a staff member is bonded and leaves the moment the bond is over, it proves that there is something wrong with that organization.

So, I have a principle which I have abided by since I came to Singapore: if there is a bond, don't sign it and don't work for them. A good workplace would have no need for a bond, because a good employer would naturally retain its staff. It is the mark of a bad employer, that they should have a bond.

Back to the Duke-NUH GMS (Graduate Medical School). Should a student be unhappy there, there is nothing they can do. If they leave, they will be burdened with an almost million dollar debt. There are many reasons why someone might be unhappy in an institution - and I think it is unfair and unkind - to punish the unhappy person further by impoverishing them, too.

Before starting the program and before coming to Singapore, there is no way that a foreign student can know what it would be like to study in NUH or subsequently work there. Yet, if all does not work out, there will be a huge price to pay. A Singaporean might have a better idea of the environment - but even they will not truly know until they do it. What both locals and foreigners would have in common, is the bond. Should anyone of any nationality break the bond, they have to pay the penalty. Note that this bond is in addition to any fees that are paid. Education is not free here. The student will pay six-figure fees - and then, should they leave before the contract period is up - pay an almost seven figure fee for the privilege.

What effect will this have on recruitment? Well, it may scare off many good candidates. Many forethinking prospective students will think: if I study in any other country in the world, I will not have to sign a bond - so why shouldn't I study elsewhere? Many will make that decision. Many will decide not to study in Singapore. So, by having this policy Singapore loses out on many potentially good Doctors.

It is also very bad PR for Singapore. What do you think will happen if someone is really unhappy at Duke-NUH and really does have to leave? They will be saddled with a massive debt. That person will spend the rest of their lives badmouthing Singapore for what happened. They may go to the press with their story. Overseas newspapers are very likely to cover such a story because, from an international perspective it really, really does look like bad practice. There would be no end to the negative PR effect of such an incident. Yet, there could be many such incidents - and much such negative PR.

Why do Singaporean educational institutions have such policies? Well, it is because they say that they subsidize the costs of education - and that they cannot risk not getting a return on that subsidy. Thus, anyone who accepts a place at a subsidized institution must repay the subsidy by serving some time in a Government institution, in return. That is the logic. One can see their point. Yet, is it reasonable? Other countries achieve the same ends not by coercive, penal contracts/bonds - but by being good employers that everyone wants to work for. In such situations, enough people voluntarily decide to work in the country of their education, to make it worthwhile.

So, there are two ways to achieve the desired end for NUH. They can have a penal bond, that is truly of fearsome magnitude - or they could be such a great place to work at, that no-one would ever think of upping and leaving after their course is over.

I know which approach everyone, the world over, would prefer. I also know which one NUH will always prefer: the one that takes no financial risk for them.

I have a suggestion which might help both camps: why not have an unsubsidized option, so that some students could choose NOT to be subsidized - and also not to have a bond. Then they could be educated in Singapore, without the risk to them, that all would not work out - and, to be fair, who knows what will happen? - and they would then have to pay a huge penalty. It might prove to be a very popular option.

(If you would like to read of Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and eight months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and one month, or Tiarnan, eighteen 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, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children, and gifted adults in general. Thanks.)

How to educate a child: prodigies and the gifted

My earlier post on whether child prodigies should be given the chance to develop their skills has attracted an interesting comment. Should a child develop his or her strengths - or bring up their weaknesses? Is balance important in the modern world?

The answer depends very much on what the child is going to do with their life. If the child shows great passion for something, allied to great ability and this passion remains steady over a long period, it is likely that that passion will turn into their adult work. In this case, building their strength can only be good: it will make them more effective in their chosen discipline or disciplines.

Ainan shows a passion for science, in particular Chemistry (but he has a general interest in Science, too). I would be very surprised if he did not at least spend part of his adult life as a scientific researcher. He already has much of the knowledge and he certainly has the aptitude for investigation. He is already a scientist in every important respect. All he needs now are to further strengthen his knowledge - and get those "no-one will believe in you if you don't have them" credentials. I don't know how many years it will take - but theoretically, it might not have to be that many. He could be a working scientist at rather a young age.

What, however, about developing other areas?

This is already a problem for me - and for him. I see that he has aptitude in other things - but he has less interest and motivation in other things. Ainan is good at music. He became a pianist at six - but has since lost interest. He was even composing music. Yet, that has been shelved for his scientific interests. He is very good at Art - and was able to draw 3 D perspective drawings at 3 or 4 years old. Very mature. Perhaps that will be his second fiddle: just like Einstein had his violin, maybe Ainan will have his Art.

Now, at this time of his life, his drive is to grow scientifically. It would be foolish to try to suffocate that wish in the interests of imposing "balance".

In modern life, balance is not as important, in terms of education, as it used to be in earlier days, before society became specialized. Now, we hire people on the basis of single strengths and a genius may only have one towering strength (though as intellects they are often good at several or many things, they will naturally focus on one, in most cases, as it aligns with their passions).

I have great balance in my own gifts and experiences - but as I have posted before, many gifts are not necessarily better than one. The division of attention between them, weakens the overall effect. There are many things I can do well - but my son Ainan knows more Chemistry than I do - and he is only seven. That is despite the fact that I took Chemistry up to my first year at Cambridge.

Perhaps there are roles in life in which great balance of gifts is appreciated and of use. But most roles in modern life are increasingly specialized. Here, a "balance of gifts" is largely wasted effort, since they will never find their proper outlet. It is the individuals with great individual strengths that find their proper match and welcome in an increasingly specialized society.

So, for those parents worried about their children focussing on their strengths and ignoring their weaknesses I would say this. If your child learns faster in their strengths - and learns with difficulty in their weaknesses, it is logic alone that they will go further, in terms of reaching greater heights if they are left to grow their strengths, than if they are forced to bolster their weaknesses.

There is one caveat. There should not be any imbalances that lead to ineffectiveness. Everyone should be able to write halfway decently. Everyone should be able to handle reasonable maths etc. There should be no absence of basic skills.

Therefore there are two possible models: the "balanced" individual with many well developed skills. This person will have many choices and probably a varied career. Then there is the specialized individual with a few, perhaps one, great strength. This person will have a focussed career but may, in the modern world, find that success comes readily. They may, after all, be the best person for the job.