stillhaventfound.org

I started learning Spanish in 2001. I attended a beginner’s course in a language school in Singapore. Then in University, I studied a total of 5 semesters of Spanish language in Australia and Canada. I also lived in Bogotá, Colombia for 4 months in 2003 and Spain for about a month in 2004. I wrote here how I came to be interested in the Spanish language.

I can’t say I’m very competent in my Spanish. On the one hand, I definitely haven’t forgotten it totally like many people do when they have few opportunities to practice it. I have a very good friend with whom I have been practicing Spanish with since I started learning it. On the other hand, I’m not where I should be with all my experience in a Spanish speaking country and studies in the language. My speaking is pretty OK - it’s better than my speaking of Mandarin. However, my listening is quite poor (worse than that of Mandarin) and one area I hope to work on.

Since I took up the language, I’ve never ceased in my desire to improve. However, I haven’t always put in the necessary time nor did I go about seeking to improve my Spanish in the right way. I’ve got a lot of resources in Spanish, but I think one has to be smart in the way one goes about improving in a language. For example, a lot of my resources are just too difficult for me and what happened was I started to give up in using them.

Most Spanish materials you buy in Singapore are of the beginner’s level. You don’t find many intermediate to advanced materials around - simply because there isn’t that much of a demand for them. And that’s one of the problems I faced with improving my Spanish. Over the past few years, I ended up buying a lot of materials from overseas but they proved too difficult for me and had a demotivating effect upon me.

Having gone into English Language Teaching (ELT) or Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) in the past year, I’ve also learned a lot about the best way for one to learn a language which I hope to apply to my own learning of Spanish. Anyway, the below are some resources which have excited me recently.

I just ordered and received 7 Spanish graded readers from European Schoolbooks. I think one of the most important ways to improve one’s first or second language is through reading. I improved my English when I started reading English books. For many years, I’ve been trying to find Spanish books to read. I bought the first book of Harry Potter and many Spanish magazines but I ended up giving up. Why? Because there were too many new words I didn’t understand and going to the dictionary always eventually demotivated me. That’s why graded readers are so important. These are books that contain grammatical structures and vocabulary at certain levels. Language learners can buy such books that are at their level and enjoy the book without having to always look up words in the dictionary. I bought these books with the audio CDs so I can also improve my listening.

A website which I recently discovered is SpanishPod. I plan to listen to these free podcasts to improve my Spanish. There are hundreds of free 10 minutes or so podcasts whereby Spanish is explained with English. They’re pretty good! You can pay a bit for the transcripts and some exercises. If not, you can just download the podcasts for free. There’s also a ChinesePod version which I should really start on too! Haha!

Another interesting website which I thought of subscribing to (but I decided it was too expensive) is LoMasTV. I think it’s an awesome way to improve one’s Spanish. It’s basically Spanish videos with both English and Spanish subtitles.

Recently I also decided to start buying DVDs that have Spanish audio and Spanish subtitles. Rather than buying movies, I decided that getting Comedies would be good because each doesn’t last that long. If it’s too long (like movies) and you don’t fully understand what’s going on, you kinda lose motivation because you can’t follow what’s going on. So I’m hoping to watch one episode each day.

I’m also going to try and read more of my Spanish Bible. I have about 10 Spanish Bibles - mostly Spanish-English parallel Bibles. I bring my New Testament Spanish-English parallel Bible everywhere I go although I tend to read only the English side. I have to start to read the Spanish side more often.

There’s also this cool Spanish program I downloaded that I hope to use - WordsGalore. It’ll help me improve my Spanish vocabulary.

I got to know some of the above resources from this good Learning Spanish Blog. Lastly, for Singaporeans who hope to get to know other Singaporeans who are interested in Spanish things, you can go to the Spanish in Singapore Yahoogroups. Lastly, anyone interested to find out more about learning Spanish, please feel free to contact me at idealist@stillhaventfound.org and I’d be glad to give you some advice based on my experience.

I attended a workshop at the GoForth National Missions Conference last week. I wish I could have attended the whole conference but I was working. The last time I attended the conference was in 2005 and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s so wonderful to be around other Christians passionate about missions. It really brings you perspective - this is what a Christian ought to be living for!

The workshop I attended was called “Reaching International Students in Singapore”. This is of course the topic I’ve been into recently. The session was led by the people from the Fellowship of Evangelical Students (FES). These are the people in charge of the Christian Fellowship (CF) groups at the various University and Polytechnic campuses throughout Singapore.

The 2.5 hours session consisted of introductory talks and some activities. I’ll just mention some interesting things that were mentioned. One speaker mentioned that Singapore was previously seen as the Antioch of Asia. That is, we’re a base to send out missionaries to the surrounding countries. And while that’s still true, he pointed out that many people are now flocking to Singapore - foreign workers and students. It’s interesting to see it this way. While there’s still a great need for missions in terms of moving cross-culturally, it’s good to recognize that a lot of students and workers are coming to Singapore and there’s a huge harvest field here in Singapore.

It was also mentioned that the top 6 countries from which foreign students come are, in order, Malaysia, China, Indonesia, India, Vietnam and South Korea. It’s also important to note that Singapore is aiming for 150,000 foreign students in Singapore by 2015. So there’s only going to be more of them coming.

While I thought the session was pretty OK, I felt it didn’t give a very good big picture of what’s involved in reaching out to international students here. The reason is because the speakers were only from one organization. FES does a lot of good work in the Universities and Polytechnics but it has to be noted that most international students do NOT study in these campuses. Most international students do not enter the Government/Public school systems. It was pointed out that only 35% of international students study in this sector. Meanwhile, the majority (65%) study in the private school system. That is, they study in private schools like United World College (UWC) or Singapore American School, but they also study in tertiary-level commercial schools that are sprouting out all over Singapore. These are the schools that offer external diplomas and degrees. For example, a famous tertiary-level private educational organization is Management Development Institute of Singapore (MDIS). This is one of the biggest around. There are other big ones like Asia Pacific Management Institute (APMI) or PSB Academy. However, there are tons and tons of smaller organizations too that most of us have never heard of.

For me, I’m interested in the international students in these organizations as opposed to those in the campuses that FES has a base in or those in government Primary or Secondary schools or those in International schools like UWC. Why? Because the international students in schools like MDIS or APMI and also in the smaller commercial schools are the most neglected and isolated of all international students. Ok, maybe not so much the bigger commercial schools like MDIS as you have a lot of Singaporean students studying in MDIS. But for the smaller commercial schools, a lot of them consist mostly of international students and hardly any Singaporean students. That means you’ll have fewer Singaporeans to reach out to such students. An international student in UWC or NUS or in local Primary or Secondary schools will have a lot of connections to Singaporean Christian students or churches. Not so for the international students in the smaller tertiary-level private schools. Not only is it more unlikely for such students to hear the gospel due to a lack of Singaporean Christian friends in these schools, but such students are also so much more open to friendships because most of their friends are fellow international students and so they long to get to know Singaporean friends to practice their English and also integrate to Singaporean society.

Therefore, I think it’s these students that are the most interesting lot. They are extremely open and they are longing to get to know other Singaporeans. Another interesting group of international students is the group that comes to Singapore solely to learn English in language schools. They may stay for 3 months or 6 months or a year. Their purpose is only to learn English and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends and so are also extremely open to friendship.

I’ve taught in both kinds of schools before. Right now, I’m teaching in a language school, but before I taught in private school that offers external diplomas/degrees and where about 90% of the students are from China and most of them do not have any Singaporean friends. These people are so open to friendship with Singaporeans and also pretty open to the gospel.

So how do we reach out to these two neglected groups? I believe the best way is to offer free English classes to them…

I haven’t been posting because I’ve been pretty busy the past few weeks. I was looking for a job more intensively. And I’ve also been busy completing an essay for one of my Master of Education (TESOL) modules.

I left my previous English teaching job in April after fulfilling my commitments there. Then I started my Masters and worked part-time at one of my previous jobs. This was also an English teaching job but to 1-3 students at a time. Also, the students were already quite good at English. Though English was their Second Language (they were mainly Koreans who have come to study in Singapore schools), they were very young and thus caught up very fast - a case for the Critical Period Hypothesis that states that if people below a certain age learn another language, they’d do so much more easily than if the person started their learning past that critical period. Teaching to these students was thus quite boring for me and not very challenging. Firstly, it was not the kind of students I wanted to teach. I want to teach young adults who truly have difficulty learning English. And I want to teach in a classroom setting. The dynamics are very different when teaching in a classroom. It’s much more challenging and different skills are involved. This is what I want to do in future and thus while working part-time there, I was also searching for another job.

I wrote about the reasons why I left my previous English teaching job here. The major reason was because it didn’t really care about the students, but only about making money. More specifically, three things really made me leave. Firstly, I was made to use their coursebooks which they created by themselves. To say the least, it was pathetic and not fit to be used as a text. Secondly, they didn’t grade their students properly. Their students only had two levels to go to! Most language schools would have about 6 levels - Beginner, Elementary, Lower-Intermediate, Intermediate, Upper-Intermediate and Advanced. The implication of having two levels only was that in my class, there were students of varying levels. Of course, that always happens in a language classroom because no two students would have the exact level of language competence. But having only two levels meant that the difference in language ability within each class is even greater than it should be. And you can’t teach well like that. Thirdly, they had an absolutely ridiculous number of students in each class. For example, there were classes with over 40 (nearly 50) students in the register. So I brought up these points to my boss many times but she didn’t understand.

I feel strongly about all this because I know no language school in Australia (and I would probably say also America, Canada, UK and New Zealand, except for the fact that I don’t have any experience there) who would allow what I experienced to occur in their school. They are just too professional to allow all that. It’s about being professional in one’s job. It’s about going along with best practices and measuring up to international benchmarks. Singapore is a country which has always been pretty advanced and modern (except in their human rights and politics) in what they do. But in this area, it’s so far behind that it’s laughable. I do believe we are one of the best in our mainstream education system. I don’t agree with a lot of things, but if you’re talking about the system and the orthodoxy of the system, you can’t complain. It’s up there with the best. But when it comes to their English as a Second Language (ESL) teaching, we are just so far behind.

I say the above not just based on my experience of my previous school. But I’ve also been to many job interviews over the past few weeks. I know there are language schools that are trying to do the best that they can with what they have. These are schools with ESL departments led by experienced professionals and they know what they’re doing. But I’ve also come across many schools where it’s only about the money they make.

A lot of schools have no clue what ESL teaching is. People don’t know that the ESL/EFL industry is huge and there’s been decades and decades of research and practical experience to draw from. In Australia (and other English-speaking countries too I’m sure), eventhough you’re a teacher who’s qualified to teach English in a mainstream school, you’ll never be able to teach ESL. You need a TESOL/TEFL/TESL certificate because they know that ESL teaching is totally different from normal English teaching. The methodology is unique. But in Singapore, many schools think that just because you have experience in teaching English in a mainstream school means you’re qualified to teach ESL. I know many schools which advertise that they’ll consider those who have a Bachelor of English or Mass Communications or Arts. What?? Having studied English (let alone the others) in University would definitely not prepare you to teach ESL simply because the way one teaches ESL students requires a set of skills that studying English in University will not give you. I’d go so far as to say that through my experiences in teaching in other areas, I think teaching ESL is probably one of the most, if not the most, difficult kind of teaching there is. If you teach other subjects, the major requirement is to have expert knowledge in that subject area. For teaching ESL, one needs to have both expert knowledge (i.e. of the English language), but it also requires a set of teaching skills that is unique. This is because you aren’t just teaching the content of the English language. That’s just a small part of ESL teaching. You’re also teaching language skills and you yourself have got to possess the skill of using the English language to facilitate English learning. I know of qualified mainstream teachers in Australia who’ve said that they’ve benefited and learned more from their TESOL certificate than from their Postgraduate Diploma of Education. I’ve gone through my TESOL/CELTA certification - all 120 hours of input and 6 hours of meticulously evaluated teaching practice - and till now I still feel so inadequate because there’s so much more to learn.

I did a little bit of research on Australia’s high standards of ESL education. Australia has an ELT (English Language Teaching) accreditation scheme called The National ELT Accreditation Scheme (NEAS). The aim of NEAS Australia is to “establish and uphold high standards of service provision in English Language Teaching in Australia”. Not all English language schools in Australia are accredited by NEAS and of course that just means it hasn’t reached such standards. But many schools are (check it out under the “approved elt centres” link). Looking through the criteria for being accredited, I would posit a guess that probably less than 5% or 3% of language schools in Singapore (or other private schools that have an ESL department) would be able to attain the standards needed for accreditation. I would not be surprised if no school/department here would be able to.

Here are some important standards that I know many language schools/departments would not be able to meet (you can view their Standards and Criteria for ELT Accreditation here):

1) Under the Academic management section, it states that the centre has to appoint “a suitably qualified and experienced person responsible for the academic management” and beyond having a recognized degree, this person has to have “five years experience in managing and/or teaching on ELT programs” and also a “TESOL qualification at postgraduate diploma level or about”.

I have come across many schools/departments headed by people who would not even come near to such qualifications or experience. I’ve been to many interviews and I don’t recall a single person who’s interviewed me with such qualifications or experience. In fact, most have not taught ESL for many years and most do not even have a TESOL certification. I think I’ve only come across two or three interviewers who I would say have a good knowledge of what teaching ESL is about and who have good qualifications.
a word about degrees and qualifications.

2) Under the Teachers section, all teachers need to have not just a degree but also some sort of TESOL qualification. A teaching qualification would not do. That means, as I’ve already said, that a person can be qualified to teach in mainstream schools with some sort of Postgraduate Diploma in Education (PGDE), but still not be able to teach in the ELT centre. Why? Because teaching ESL is a totally different ballgame.

As I mentioned above, I know many teachers teaching ESL in Singapore who would not be able to qualify as ESL teachers in Australia.

3) Under Teacher professional development, it’s stated that the ELT centre needs to facilitate “ongoing professional development of teaching staff, to ensure teachers are kept up-to-date with current theory, knowledge and practice in the field”. Also, “newly qualified staff are provided with mentoring and support during their first year of employment”.

Again, I know no English school/department in Singapore that does this. And I think this is very important because the new staff need guidance and all the teaching staff need to receive ongoing professional development. Why? Because I think that a TESOL certificate is really the bare minimum that an ESL teacher ought to have. It hardly makes a person a good teacher and there’s still so much more to learn. A school that really cares for its students and its teachers would think about how they can provide teacher development.

4) Under Program delivery, “the student:teacher ratio for classroom based instruction does not exceed 18 students per teacher per class.”

As mentioned above, my first school had about 40 students on average on the class register. I’ve heard of at least 2 classes there just hitting under 50 students!! My previous boss told me the school went by the Ministry of Education’s standards of 40 students per class. I argued back that such standards are not appropriate for ESL teaching.

I’m glad to know, however, that I know no other schools that accept that number of students per class. The most elsewhere I know would be 25 to 30, which is still too high. Many schools I know have between 10 and 20 students, but probably only because they can’t get more per class. If they could get more, I have no doubts that a lot of them would just squeeze them all into one class because it makes good business sense.

Just a note here regarding certification. A certificate or a degree is a just a paper. One can be certified and qualified, and yet be a bad teacher. And one can lack paper qualifications and yet be a great teacher. One owner of a school who interviewed me didn’t care whether its teachers were certified or not. I was quite shocked, not because I think certification is the be all and end all of ESL teaching, but because I think it shows a lack of awareness of TESOL being a very specialized field that requires a unique set of skills to be good at it. Of course, such skills can be learned on the job. It could be learned internally in the school. But schools here don’t train their teachers. Many just think that if you’re experienced in teaching before or if you’re good at teaching in general, you’d make a good ESL teacher as there isn’t much difference between teaching in general and ESL teaching in particular.

Anyway, on to some specific encounters during my search for a job. I’ve talked to at least two people whose experience have further confirmed to me how education is becoming more of a business than about the learning of students. One person was part of a group that came together to start a school because they got so sick of their past experiences in the education industry and how the people there only wanted to make money. Another person talked about being cheated by a partner.

I also had a good talk with a HR personnel who interviewed me. This person honestly shared with me that the White teachers in the school were given a higher starting salary and didn’t have to do as much administrative work as local teachers. This (along with other repulsive company practices) made me sick and this person shared that she didn’t agree with it, but it was the owner’s policy. We got along well during our talk and so I asked why he continued in his job if he didn’t agree with such practices. I got a good enough answer from him.

In a way, I don’t blame the school for such policies. The students want white teachers, so the school has to provide for them if it wants their business. But it just shows how ignorant the students are and how much of an unprincipled money-grabbing fool the owner is. The owner is a typical Singaporean with a hangover colonial mentality. Compare him and his school with another school owned by a British. I had one of my first interviews (for an ESL teaching job) in Singapore with him. He offered me a job which I didn’t take for some reasons. But I asked him honestly whether it’s hard for a non-White to get an ESL teaching job in Singapore. He said he had no problems hiring a non-White as long as the person is qualified and able to teach well. Skin color didn’t make a difference to him. And he went on to say that if his students came to him to ask for a White teacher, he’d tell the student to either accept the teacher he has or leave. What can I say? Either a very lousy businessman, or one with principles.

I wrote to the Ministry of Education here and asked whether there are any standards for ESL schools and teaching here in Singapore - just like NEAS in Australia. And I’m looking forward to hearing from them if they bother to reply me. While being critical of the many ESL schools here, I do understand that a lot of unprofessionalism comes from a general desire to make money and also ignorance of what ESL is all about. The latter is understandable because we don’t have that long a history of being into ESL like other places like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, the US and Canada. These countries have much better standards of professionalism because they’ve been doing this for ages. The ESL industry is only starting to come alive due to more intense globalization. More and more foreign students are coming to Singapore - especially from China, but also from Southeast Asia - and the numbers are only going to increase further as the Singapore government pushes hard to reach its goal of attracting 150,000 foreign students by 2015. All this only means more money and bigger business for many private education organisations. It remains to be seen how the ESL industry in Singapore will develop.

One thing I’ve realized is that there doesn’t seem to be any incentive to provide good education for foreign students. From what I know (which may be wrong), students who come to further their studies in private education organisations here do not really know much about the schools here. That’s because there are just so many around. Sure, there are some of better reputation. But then there are so many other small ones offering education programs. Students overseas mostly go through agencies in their home countries. By the time they reach Singapore, most would already have chosen which school to go to. And agencies over there don’t care whether the school is good or not, but only how much commission they get from the school. So the agencies would probably recommend a school that pays them more per student.

Therefore, a good language school which puts the students’ language learning above making money and which thus invests in good teachers and good facilities and makes sure that the classroom size is small, etc., may not make as much business as a school which puts money first and doesn’t care so much about the students’ learning, but which has more money to pay agents overseas. There’s thus very little monetary incentive to be a good language school.

Of course, Singapore does have accreditation schemes for private education organisations, but I don’t think they have any yet in regards to ESL teaching. I hope one day they will come up with one like NEAS in Australia, although I think it’s still a long way away.

I’m partly Australian - don’t ask me to explain what I mean by that But I have to say I’ve never been exactly proud to be an Aussie and have never really felt like one since I’ve spent most of my years in Singapore.

Because John Howard was Prime Minister during most of my grown up years, that kind of made it even harder for me to identify with being an Australian. But living in Australia last year changed my thinking quite a bit. One of my happiest days last year was when Kevin Rudd thoroughly defeated Howard and the conservative Liberal-National Party coalition. Good riddance to them. And today, as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd issued an apology to Australia’s Stolen Generation, I feel proud once again.

I feel proud that the leader of Australia did the right thing. That was the compassionate thing to do. I guess it says a lot that it took so long. And I do know that many Australians are not in agreement with Kevin Rudd on this - which is really sad. And yes, I think there’s a lot more that needs to be done than merely this apology. But I’ll savour the moment anyway.

I don’t think I’ll ever feel totally like an Australian. Socially, I’m more at home in Singapore. Having lived most of my life here, there’s that great connection that I can’t deny. However, politics means a lot to me because it’s about how the government (and people) treat other people - especially the least of them. It’s reflects one’s values and what you view as important. That speaks a lot to me. My heart will always have a place for Singapore, but I can’t identify with the political culture (or party?) that prefers pragmatism rather than standing up for what’s right. As someone said, society is judged by how we treat the least among us.

My thoughts are with the Burmese people. It’s good to see some people in Singapore (not all Burmese, some Singaporeans too) caring about what’s happening there (see here, here and here). Here’s an article on the role of my pragmatic (read: spineless) and hypocritical government in the oppression of the Burmese people.

It is indeed heartening to know of what Dove is doing with its Campaign for Real Beauty and Self-Esteem Fund. Investing part of its profits into a good social cause ought to be the way to go for corporations. Whatever has come out from their advertisements, commercials and educational programs aimed at changing mindsets deserves our praise, but more importantly, our reflection on how we ought to perceive beauty.

Having said the above, imagine my shock and disappointment in discovering that the parent company of Dove, Unilever, also owns brands like Fair & Lovely and Pond’s. Both products pride themselves in offering more beautiful skin. And one important aspect of being beautiful, according to them, is having fairer (i.e. whiter) skin.

This unbelievably racist idea clearly shines through their commercials. These can be viewed at Youtube.com. (Just search for “Fair & Lovely commercial” or “Pond’s commercial“). In the beginning of these commercials, dark-skinned women are shown leading less happy and less successful lives. After using the skin-whitening product, their skin becomes lighter and amazingly their lives become happier and more successful.

The racist stereotype that black is ugly and white is beautiful is a very common perception throughout the world. Just like the idea that being thin or having double eye-lids is beautiful, this is something that ought not to be promoted, let alone harnessed to make money off the vulnerable. And yet Dove’s parent company is doing precisely that. Indeed, it’s hard to understand the disconnect here. As someone else has said, and I have no reason now to disagree, “What Dove gives with one hand, Unilever’s other brands take away with the other”.

I wonder what representatives of Dove and/or Unilever have to say about these advertisements and the message being promoted through them? Why is there such a conflict in the messages? I would also like to know whether Dove thinks the idea of equating beauty with white skin is as wrong as equating it with slimness.

(The above was what I wrote to the Straits Times Forum page on 23rd February 2007. The actual published version of my letter can be viewed below. You can read more about this topic at:

- The New York Times‘ Telling India’s Modern Women They Have Power, Even Over Their Skin Tone
- The Situationist’s Shades of Fairness and the Marketing of Prejudice
- Guardian’s Beyond the pale
- CounterPunch’s Pigmentation and Empire
- Salon’s Race, poverty and skin-whitener
- Feministing’s Who’s the fairest of them all?
- The Wall Street Journal’s Critics Say Ads for Skin Whiteners Capitalize on Malaysian Prejudice)

———-

The Sunday Times’ Inbox, 4th March 2007

Ads’ idea of beauty biased

IT IS heartening to see what Dove is doing with its Campaign for Real Beauty and its Self-Esteem Fund. Investing part of its profits in a social cause is the way to go for corporations. Advertisements and educational programmes aimed at changing mindsets on how we perceive beauty deserve our praise.

However, I am dismayed to learn that Dove’s parent company, Unilever, also owns brands like Fair & Lovely and Pond’s, which have commercials that promote a very narrow and, some might say, racist idea of beauty. Both products pride themselves on making skin more beautiful. But being beautiful, according to their ads, is having fairer – that is, whiter – skin.

In the beginning of these commercials, dark-skinned women are shown leading less happy and less successful lives. After using a particular skin-whitening product, however, their skin becomes lighter and, amazingly, they become happier and more successful.

This stereotype that black is ugly and white is beautiful is very common. But just like the idea that being thin or having double eyelids is beautiful – and, by extension, that being fat or having single eyelids is not – this is something that should not be promoted, let alone harnessed to make money off the vulnerable. And yet Dove’s parent company is doing precisely that.

I don’t like to suck up to people, as in go there and tell them, ‘Oh, did you wait very long? I’m really sorry to keep you waiting.’ I’m not that type lah. I will just say, ‘Thank you for supporting me.’ That’s the most I feel is appropriate for me ‘cos I’m not that type.

I wasn’t all out to garner votes. I was just too much of being myself. But I’m glad that I left because I was myself. I wouldn’t want to be someone else.

…I can never be an Idol. I’m too hardcore, I’m too rough… I’m not clean enough, not safe enough.

…If I lie to myself, that’s when I really get pissed. That’s what I really don’t wanna do. I want to be me. What I seek, what I do, I wanna breathe me.

…I hope that the contestants would be a lot more sincere. All the love, the smiles and stuff, some of it may be strategic, some of it may be genuine… We mingle a lot, but somehow I feel that some of them aren’t exactly sincere about it. I hate the feeling.

That’s why I’m kind of relieved to leave the competition also. I sincerely cannot take all this kind of act.

(Rahimah Rahim, quoted from She’s hit rock bottom)

I hadn’t heard of Rahimah Rahim before I came across the above article while searching the MediaCorp TV website to see if the Liverpool vs. Chelsea Community Shield match would be televised on Channel 5. As of this writing, I still haven’t seen or heard any of her performance.

Yet, I don’t need to hear her sing to admire her. It is not her singing that I respect of her, but her strength of character. What do I mean? The above article says it all: she’s kind of an Outsider, and I think Meursault/Albert Camus, Howard Roark/Ayn Rand and Colin Wilson would agree.

I say kind of because a true Outsider would never seek to be the Singapore Idol in the first place. He would never seek the praises and acceptance of man, but live for truth - and that alone would be good enough for him.

Full credit to her though, for she tries to live like that. As the writer of the article said, she stands for honest truth. Not fame, not love, not money - but truth. A man of lesser character would seek fame, power, love of man and riches. Not her. Just truth will do, thank-you-very-much. Yes, she’s also got a bit of Thoreau in her…

My dear Rahimah, for the sake of living consistently according to your principles, for the sake of living life first hand and not second, for the sake of being true to yourself and your values, I’m glad you’ve left the competition. For if you had not, you’ll only face the temptation to win the approval of man stronger and stronger each week - i.e. the temptation to lose your soul to gain what cannot satisfy you.

Do not compromise. Live your life as who you are, live your life true to yourself. The world may not like what they see in you. They may even end up disliking you, hating you. But if you stand firm and live an authentic life, you will win in the end…

I’ve been starting to hate Singapore more and more in the past year. I could state many reasons why this is so, but this entry isn’t inspired by all those reasons but just by one - as I read a newspaper article about Singapore’s pragmatic foreign policy.

Let me state first of all that I’ve not always felt this strongly against Singapore. I wrote here about how I could relate better to the Singaporean culture - having been brought up here - than to the culture of other countries (like Australia) and therefore also about how I wanted to live in Singapore. But I guess affection and closeness to a place and culture can be both positive and negative. If you were brought up in a particular country and love what it stands for, you’re doubly in love with it and doubly proud of it as compared to a person who was not brought up in that country but still loves what it stands for. The opposite is true too: if you were brought up in that country and hate what it stands for, your hatred for that country is magnified as compared to if you weren’t brought up in that country. Why? Simply because the fact you were brought up in that country makes you more affectionate for the country and thus more sensitive to its successes and failures.

The article I’m talking about is Size matters - for S’pore’s foreign policy from the 27th July 2006 edition of the Today newspaper:

SINGAPORE does not have the luxury of pursuing a foreign policy of abstract ideals because of a simple reason: The world can do without Singapore.

This was a sombre message some 400 youth got from Transport Minister and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim yesterday.

Speaking at the Temasek Seminar held annually to raise the awareness of security-related issues, Mr Lim drove home the truth about the republic’s vulnerability and called on youth to understand the country’s pragmatic approach behind its foreign policy.

…even though there have been criticisms that Singapore’s positions on global events are not always consistent — or as a student at the seminar put it, “we constantly cater to the views of the superpowers and lose our ‘Singaporean-ness’ as a nation” — sticking up for “abstract ideals” is a luxury that Singapore cannot afford.

Said Mr Lim: “By necessity, the Foreign Ministry cannot always elucidate the strategic considerations behind our public positions. Some have commented that our positions on global events are not always consistent …

“As someone once said, consistency is the virtue for trains. But what is consistent in our foreign policy is a dogged and clear-eyed protection of our core interests, nothing more or less,” he added.

Nothing in the above is particularly surprising to anyone who understands politics in general or international politics in particular. All countries act pretty much in their own self-interest. (This is realpolitik or realism). After all, they have a responsibility to their own citizens. However, it’s true to say that some do so much more than others. And Singapore happens to be one of the most guilty countries in this aspect.

While Singapore’s relatively tiny size makes it more difficult for her to stand for principles and ideals, I do not think that excuses us from being unprincipled in our actions. It’s precisely our pragmatic, unprincipled and utterly self-interested actions (in both foreign and national policy) that make me sick.

For example, Mr. Bilahari Kausikan, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, once responded to a student’s question regarding Singapore’s support of the US War on Iraq by saying:

The Americans were deluded, it doesn’t mean we supported them because we thought it would work. I believe the question you are too polite to ask is, did we suck up to the US? Well, yes, our basic interest was to show support for the USA, you are right.

So Singapore leaders support America no matter how wrong her actions are. We do so because we would get things in return from them. Never mind the fact that what she does is wrong or that our support for her makes us complicit in her wrongful actions. For our leaders, morality never figured in the equation. It was all about sucking up to America so that they would return our favor in future. What kind of leaders do we have? And what kind of people does Singapore have when the majority (even Christians) just stand idly by? We are a politically apathetic people. Politics do not matter. If our leaders partake in oppressing others, most Singaporeans couldn’t be bothered. The suffering of others does not matter to us. What only matters to us is ourselves and our families. That’s the kind of country and people we are.

Also during this same National Education (NE) dialogue, Mr. Kausikan was asked:

Does that mean if thousands of people are being slaughtered in Burma, we won’t do a thing because it’s not in our self interest?

His answer?

Yes

Full credit to him for his honesty. Politicians are seldom honest, seeking always to hide behind politically correct rhetoric - just compare what Mr. Kausikan said above to what was said about Singapore’s support of the US War on Iraq by another government official here. However, I can’t say the same about him as a person. I’m not sure how he can say the above without feeling guilty or questioning why the hell he’s part of such an unprincipled government. But then again, most politicians are like that, perhaps especially so in Singapore.

As I said above, being small in size does not justify our lack of principles. It does not justify us supporting America in a foolish and unjust war so that they will ultimately sign an FTA with us and be merciful to us in other ways. It does not justify us supporting oppression (or merely ignoring oppression) in other countries in order that Singaporeans will live slightly better lives than if we were not to participate in such acts. Indeed size is not an excuse because there are small countries in the world that do have a backbone and do concern themselves with promoting good ideals - at least they do so much more than Singapore does.

I should add that pragmatism doesn’t just characterize the foreign policy of Singapore. Pragmatism characterizes the whole of Singapore society. I can’t totally blame the leaders of Singapore because they are but doing what the people want. If they are doing something contrary to what the people want, they would have gotten voted out. But the great majority of Singaporeans don’t actually give a shit about what happens to other people. We don’t have any high and good ideals we treasure and would defend. And in a way, I understand why political leaders, as well as people in general, are pragmatic and make decisions based on pragmatism, though I don’t always agree with it.

And, yes, it’s true that it’s not only the people living in Singapore who are pragmatic, but rather the majority of the world’s people live lives ruled more by pragmatism than good ideals. Yet I also believe that Singaporeans (and her leaders) are some of the most pragmatic people on this earth. Because of all this, I’m just not sure how I can feel anything but strong dislike for such a country that stands for nothing but its own self-interest.

I went to the Global Day Of Prayer (GDOP) 2006 meeting at the National Stadium tonight. It’s been a long time since I’ve attended one of these nationwide Christian meetings where Christians from different Churches in Singapore gather together. I recall attending many years of what used to be annual “Day To Change Our World” gatherings at the Singapore Indoor Stadium - held a day before Singapore’s National Day each August, if I recall correctly. I thoroughly enjoyed those times: being in the cozy 10,000 seater indoor stadium packed with Christians from all over Singapore, worshipping and praying for our nation…etc. Haven’t done all this for years! Tonight, I was with about 20,000-30,000 other Christians.

I love gathering with all Christians from different Churches because it reminds me we’re all Christians and united in Christ. Indeed, such times are rare - when divisions within the Church ceases for at least a moment and unity in Christ is glimpsed. How I wish there were more of these times! How I wish less of the times when pastors speak out against other pastors and churches against other churches…when power-plays within churches and between churches become so obvious…when leaders of churches preach and act as though their church is the only true church of God or their interpretation of Scripture the only valid one.

Therefore, tonight’s meeting was pretty good. Aside from the fact that not that much time was spent on prayer (I’ve learnt through my years as a Christian never to expect much prayer done when attending a prayer meeting), everything else went on well. There was a time during the service when two well-known pastors (one representing charismatic evangelicals and the other non-charismatic evangelicals) repented for how each side treated the other. Then they washed each others’ feet. I thought that was a positive moment.

I commented to a friend that I hope next year Pastor Kong Hee of City Harvest Church and Pastor Joseph Prince of New Creation Church would do exactly the same thing on stage! For those in the know, though both churches are charismatic, both also teach stuff that are in many ways poles apart from the other. New Creation is strong in the “grace” message. City Harvest, on the other hand, sometimes go the opposite extreme and has often been very critical of the teachings of New Creation. I’ve written a bit about both churches here. Such divisions make me sick. It makes me embarrassed to be called a Christian. Why can’t we all just get along? If only we were all united in our cause and purpose. Then the Church of Christ would be so much stronger…

(Ahh yes…there’s ego, there’s pride, there’s the desire for power and fame. We’re still all sinners and so, yes, it’s all understandable. I myself am no saint! But ahh…still…can’t we just all get along?…)

Anyway, in response to my comment, my friend then added the name of Timothy Tow, one of the leading Bible Presbyterians in Singapore. The Bible Presbyterian denomination is, of course, a fundamentalistic denomination - and proudly so. Many years ago, I invited him to attend with me a Far Eastern Bible College course on “Calvin’s Institutes” which was taught by Mr. Tow. What we got instead was a lot of attacks on Charismatic Christianity!

My thoughts on fundamentalism - that’s for another day. It’s saddening enough to see two of the most influential charismatic leaders in Singapore at odds with each other. Really, let’s not bring a fundamentalist into the picture…

I hope there will be more GDOPs to come. I hope more and more churches would be involved. City Harvest had their Emerge Conference and so their members didn’t go. Let’s hope in future their conference won’t clash with the GDOP but they would make an effort to be part of this great gathering. And I hope the same for New Creation. Both are huge churches and I hope they don’t become too exclusive - thinking they can just do their own thing and not need to join together with other Christians from other churches in Singapore.

I also hope more conservative Churches would get involved. I’ve noticed a difference between this year’s GDOP meeting and previous “Day To Change Our World” gatherings. There has definitely been a conscious effort to make the GDOP meeting more welcoming to non-charismatic Churches. You can tell by the fact that there were hymns sung during worship and that no pastor prayed in tongues - something that would offend many non-charismatics.

[I used to hate it when tongues was used out loud (from the pulpit and the audience) during the “Day To Change Our World” meetings. Not because I am against the use of tongues. I pray in tongues everyday. However, I know non-charismatic Christians would not be comfortable with it. And for me, that’s a good enough reason to cease using tongues in front of them. There’s no need to offend others. If we want Christians from different churches and traditions who hold to different interpretatoins of Scripture to unite, then let’s unite on the essentials. Don’t play up any non-essential doctrine to the extent of offending other Christians. There’s really no need for that.]

May God use the GDOP in future to bring more Christians together all over the world. Though I do think that the only thing that’s going to draw together extreme fundamentalistic Christians and extreme charismatics is intense persecution. Only then would we draw together in unity against the common enemy…