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.)

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.)

Let the children play

About a month ago, when Fintan was still three, I saw something which made me wonder what some parents think parenting is all about.

Fintan was in the pool - it was the shallow children's pool and there was only one other child in the pool - a boy of about two or three years old (generally Chinese children are relatively small so it makes guessing their age difficult - but he was certainly at least two years old). This child was accompanied by two adults, one of whom appeared to be his mother, the other a friend.

What I noted fairly quickly was that neither adult seemed to be able to play with the child, very well. Their main concern seemed to be stopping him from doing things. They would always intervene when he tried to do something, interrupting whatever it was that he was trying to do. They seemed to be worried that he would hurt himself somehow. After some time, he appeared to basically give up trying to do anything, and stood largely immobile. Here was a child who wasn't being allowed to be a child.

Fintan is a friendly boy. He saw the other little boy and decided to play a game. He approached the boy, swimming like a shark and diving into the water just before the boy, teasing him with the possibility of being eaten. He would then back up quickly, running through the water, while looking back to see if he was being followed. Very clearly, Fintan, three, was trying to initiate some sort of improvised chase game. The other boy never reacted. Never once did he try to chase Fintan in return. He just looked at him, in incomprehension, it seemed.

After a few attempts to make the other boy engage, one would have thought Fintan would give up - but he didn't get the opportunity to. Suddenly, the mother snapped at Fintan: "Will you stop bullying my baby!?" she cried, "Will you stop?"

Fintan and I were both surprised at this since it was clear that she had completely misunderstood the situation. He looked at her in silence - and then backed away, his face somewhat hurt by this unfair accusation. After a minute or two he started to play alone - and ignored the other child completely in the remaining half an hour he spent in the pool. The boy's minders, meanwhile, got on with preventing him from playing.

I felt like remonstrating with the mother, but thought better of it. A woman who misunderstood children to that extent was probably too stupid to reason with. I watched her with her child for a while and never saw any playfulness creep into her interactions with her child: it was all about control. It was one of the saddest pieces of "misparenting" I have ever seen.

This woman - and her friend - had intervened so as to prevent their child from playing. They had thwarted another child's attempt to befriend their child. They had misunderstood Fintan's friendliness as hostility - and isolated their child. In all the time that the other boy was in the pool, he was never allowed to make his own decisions, never allowed to be free to play. Most pointedly, he was never allowed to interact with another child.

I did note, too, her reference to her child as a "baby". That, perhaps, said it all. In her mind, her child was forever a baby, forever needing protection, forever needing to be watched over. From his size and motor development, he was at least two years old, however - and far from being a baby. He was almost Fintan's contemporary.

Fintan and I left the pool, sometime later - and he never spoke of what he felt about what she had done - but we both went home quieter than before, having been subdued by this silly woman's behaviour.

She did teach me one thing, though: how not to be a parent. Perhaps we can all learn from her poor example - and do what obviously she could never do: let the children play.

(If you would like to learn more of Fintan, four years and no months, and his gifted brothers, Ainan Celeste Cawley, seven years and seven months, and Tiarnan, seventeen 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 adults and gifted children in general. Thanks.)

The gifted and the future of society

The future of a community and a society may be measured easily: simply ask how do they treat their most gifted?

It is an undeniable fact that almost all human advance depends on a few creative individuals. Without the input of these individuals, little new would actually occur. One need only look at the productivity of the most creative compared to those who are bright but less outstanding...the total productivity difference can be orders of magnitude. Think of Leonardo da Vinci - his productivity was equivalent to that of many creative people, the output of dozens of lifetimes.

Thus, how a society nurtures such people really has an impact on the future health, prosperity and soundness of that society. If the gifted are nurtured and nourished, encouraged and supported, then that society will flourish. However, if the gifted are opposed, discouraged, vilified and left unsupported, it is almost certain that that society will fail, in the long-term - it will slowly dwindle away due to lack of innovation; lack of creativity, lack of leadership.

I write this because of attitudes I have picked up around the world.

In America, if the gifted boards are anything to go by, support for the gifted is not what it should be: there is a lot of envy and intolerance of anyone more gifted than themselves (from "gifted" people themselves). I don't think this bodes well for the future of the USA. In the city-state of Singapore, however, we have so far, been greeted very well...it is uncanny really. For Singapore has a reputation for oppressiveness - on which I cannot comment - and America has a reputation for freedom. Yet, the country that is free has citizens that have attacked us, verbally - and the country that is reputedly not free has citizens who have been kind to us. It really is telling.

So which country has a future? The country that is "free" - but giftist...or the country that is not free - but is meritocratic?

It will be interesting to find out.