stillhaventfound.org

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.

Allow me to rant a bit here. Allow me to be ultra-critical - a change from recent posts. I’ll never want to be ultra-critical to Churches and Christian leaders on this blog because I don’t think that builds up the body of Christ. I do take care in who I criticize but for me businesses are not OB (out of bounds). Actually, I love to criticize them. I’m not anti-capitalistic. Maybe I was once. And maybe there’s still a bit of that spirit in me. But I think capitalism has aided humanity in many ways - while also harming it in many ways. Whether one is for it or not, it’s inevitable. The idea is to accept that and focus on restraining how much harm it does while at the same time guiding it to do as much good as possible for humanity.

In today’s Straits Times Forum page, one writer wrote:

It appears to me that, increasingly, Singapore schools are being managed more like businesses than as institutions of learning. (Don’t run schools like a business, Mar 3).

How timely. I wrote recently about my new TESOL teaching job in a private school and how I’d never want to join a mainstream MOE school. And about how education has become more about preparing people to make money than about what education should be about. By the way, for an excellent book on what the purpose (end) of education ought to be, read Neil Postman’s The End of Education. In fact, read everything by Postman. He rocks. He writes beautifully and with much wisdom. I read almost all his books about 10 years ago. My favorite one and his most famous is the popular classic Amusing Ourselves to Death, which I write a bit about here. And I’ve browsed a bit of his Teaching as a Subversive Activity and have been wanting to get a new copy for myself for a long time because I think it would be an excellent book. The only problem is that it’s not really in print. But the title says it all and I believe his view of teaching is something I would strongly hold to.

Anyway, ever since my first full day teaching last week, I’ve been feeling extremely angry, I’ll admit. I’ve ranted to a lot of friends and so it’s time to rant on this blog I’ve realized how the private business school I’m working in is… wow, where do I start?

Let’s just say, I have no love for this school. I can’t stand businesses like the one I’m working for. I hate what it stands for because it stands for making money, not education. Education is big money nowadays, and that’s why businesses are going into the education business. It’s worrying when a business only cares about making money. It’s a hundred times more worrying when that business is an education business. We cannot afford to leave education into the hands of business people who don’t care about education but only care about making money.

As I said, I can tolerate the capitalistic spirit. I don’t normally bitch much about businesses which make a lot of money because that’s a reality in this world. Just make sure you don’t exist merely for maximizing profits. OK, maybe I’m naive because most businesses do that - unless you’re a social enterprise. But I think even if profits are on your mind always, it shouldn’t be to the extent that you neglect your employers or customers. But that’s what it is in my private school. I won’t mention the name simply because I’m not out to shame it. Actually, I’d love to do that. I’d love to see students stop attending that school until it gets its act together and starts realizing that education is ultimately about your students, not about making money off them.

Today, I had a good talk with my boss. I was very honest and we thrashed out a lot of things. I’m in the TESOL department and I can only speak for this department in my school. And I can tell you it’s professionally inept. In what way and why do I say that? I compare the way it’s run to what good TESOL departments or schools are run throughout the world - or at least throughout the developed world as I consider Singapore as part of the developed world. I’m familiar with how language schools are run in Singapore and in Australia. I know the professional benchmarks for how things are done in this industry (e.g. the coursebooks used, the teaching methodology used, the number of people in each classroom and how students are graded and put in different levels), and yet I’m super amazed at the way my department is run. Mainstream MOE schools at least implement best practices in their industry. This department is nothing but full of the worst practices I’ve known from a language school. All to the detriment of the students’ learning.

I’m angry because the biggest losers of all are the students. And these are foreign students who have paid good money to come here to study. To me, it’s a matter of principle and justice. It’s how you treat your students. The school is not poor. I know how much money they charge the students and how much money they make from them. The best they can do is give them a decent education - a kind of education they would get in any other language school in Singapore or Australia or in the developed world. But they are not getting such an education.

One thing I have to acknowledge. My boss is nice and she accepted and in fact agreed with most of my criticisms. I think she was probably nearly as horrified and outraged as I was/am when she arrived to take over the department. And she’s hoping to change it. And yet, I believe the problem is bigger than she thinks. She can change some things, but not everything. She asked me to stay on to help her change the way the department does things. And in a way, I’d like to. But in another way, I know that she faces a lot of constrains. Why? Because she’s just the head of the department and not the head of the whole school. And guess what? No matter how much one wants to change things for the better, I think the core problems will still remain because it’s ultimately about money. The owners and shareholders of the school only care about making as much money as possible. They don’t really care about whether the students receive a good education.

One of my biggest criticism is the textbook the school is using, which it has created. I told my boss straight to her face that it’s crap. And my boss pretty much agrees with me on this. It’s a big joke. She’s trying to revise and update it. And yet I know that no matter how much they do so, it’s still going to be pretty much a big joke. My school insists on using their own textbooks and has created a textbook that any ESL/EFL teacher in the know will tell you does not meet the standards of what an ESL/EFL textbook should be. It’s not even based on good ESL/EFL methodology and research. And it isn’t as if there aren’t good ESL/EFL textbooks out there. There are TONS of them. So many good ones created by professional teachers with years of experience that are published by the biggest educational book publishing companies in the world. That is, good stuff. Tried and tested stuff. Stuff that most every good schools in the world would use. I’m serious about this. Most ESL/EFL schools do NOT create their own textbooks. Simply because there are so many good ones available that they can pick and choose which one they want to use. These textbooks may not be perfect and that’s why teachers around the world are free to adapt them to their context. But the fact is that most schools and teachers throughout the world, as far as I know, use these well-known coursebooks. But somehow my school works differently…

Because of the poor textbook, I feel so sorry for my students. They are being taught crappy stuff. They are bored stiff with the textbook - as I am. And they aren’t learning what they should be learning. I feel sorry for them because these students have come here all the way to study English and they aren’t learning much with the textbook. I’ve had to spend a lot of time photocopying extra materials from books I’ve bought personally for my teaching to supplement the use of the textbook. And today my boss told me that I am not allowed to use outside materials. What? You want me to feed my students the crap that’s been created by the school? You yourself agreed that the book is bad. But I understand that her hands are tied too - by the way the school works. And she kinda threatened to sack me if I continued to use additional materials. And so I’m faced with the choice of being in complicity with my school in short-changing my students or getting sacked for wanting to help my students improve their English. Touch choice aye?

Actually, I’m not afraid of being sacked. I know I’m being a difficult employee. But I wouldn’t have it any other way. That’s me. I would do anything to stand up for people I think I should stand up for. It’s about principles and justice and one’s values. It’s about the right thing to do. I cannot stand seeing businesses making huge profits while short-changing their customers. And education should never be about making money. But throughout the world, it has become so.

Have no doubt, I understand my boss’ situation. I understand her position. In many ways, there are lots of constraints for her too. Her hands are tied by the people above her. So I’m sympathetic to her situation. But have no doubt too that the people I ought to be most concerned about are the students.

I’m passionate about education. I’m passionate about teaching. And I love my students and want more than anything for them to improve their English. That’s why I feel so strongly about all this. I’m not paid much. But it’s not about me or the teachers. A school ought to exist for its students and ultimately education ought to be about the students and their learning, not about anything else or anyone else.

That’s my rant.

Update: On Tuesday, my boss gave me a 20% raise. I’m not sure why she did that (but of course I’ll accept it!) because I never complained about my wages. My talk with her was never about my wages. I did say that I feel the school doesn’t take care of the teachers and the students. I argued my point well and I continue to hold to that fact. But I don’t think I ever mentioned my pay (which is low by industry standards).

Besides a terrible textbook, my second biggest complain was the size of (i.e. number of students in) the classroom. Typical ESL classrooms are not meant to be big at all. You get big classrooms (up to 40 students) in mainstream schools. But in the ESL industry (in the developed world), it’s different. I’ve never come across any ESL classrooms in language schools with that many students. That’s just not the standard for the ESL industry. Most classrooms have at most 25 students. Most of the time, it’s between 10 and 20. The reason is very simple. Teachers can pay more attention to students and the quality of teaching would be much better.

But each class in my school has 40 ESL students per class. The result is that the students’ learning and the teachers’ teaching suffer because it’s harder to control that big a class and you can’t pay much attention to each student. But of course the school only wants to make as much money as possible so they enroll 40 students in each class.

So my boss talked to me on Tuesday and said that after what I had complained about the day before about the big classrooms, she’s decided to raise my pay! I was shocked. Not because I was happy with the pay rise. But because I felt that was so insulting. My concerns were mainly for the students, not for my pay. I told her that it’s a nice gesture to increase my pay but that’s not going to change anything. The students aren’t going to get better teaching because of my pay rise. The students will get better teaching and better attention if the class size is reduced. I’m not interested in my pay rise as much as I’m interested in the school giving the students what they deserve and what they have paid for.

But of course I’ll accept the pay rise and I thank God for that

For those of you wondering what I’m doing now (as in work-wise), well, I’m teaching English. Not in a mainstream Singapore school. I’d never survive working under the MOE (Ministry of Education) with the way things are. I’m reminded of Mark Twain’s quote about not letting schooling interfere with education. Going to school nowadays - in most countries but especially Singapore and many Asian countries - is not about true holistic education that values the whole person. It’s not about passion for life, but about exams and money. It’s about doing well so that you can get a good job so that you can earn good money. As with everything done in Singapore, the schooling system is there for just one purpose: to promote economic growth. The ‘god of economic utility’ has become the pre-eminent reason for schooling. That’s in keeping with pragmatic Singapore.

Woops, I didn’t start this post wanting to bash the MOE, the Singapore education system or the Singapore government Singapore’s education system, like its way of governing, is but a reflection of society-at-large. Society not just of Singapore, but of the world. So in a way, I don’t blame them. It’s the way things are. But then again, I do. The youthful idealist in me doesn’t stay silent for long. He (Mr. Youthful Idealist) is quite in sync with the whole of creation which groans… (Romans eight)

Anyway, back to where I was. Not only am I not teaching English in a mainstream school, but I’m not teaching English to those who speak it as their first language. I teach English to those who speak it as their second (or third…) language. The common term for the industry I’m in is TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). It’s a huge thing throughout the world because millions of people desire to take up English as it’s the language of the world. And teaching such people is very different from teaching English to first language English speakers (i.e. most Singaporeans) or even teaching any other subjects. The teaching methodology is different and there are so many things to learn in order to be a good TESOL teacher. Like I said, it’s a huge industry.

Anyway, I won’t get too much into all this. Just to mention that I started moving into this last year. I got my Cambridge CELTA (Certificate in English Language Teaching to Adults) - a TESOL certificate - in Perth, Australia. And today was my first day of teaching English in the private school I’m working at. It’ll be a great challenge for me which I’m quite excited about. 90% of my 40 or so students are from China and have only been here for 1-2 months.

Why I went into this area? It’s because I love teaching. I love relating and interacting with students - especially youth and young adults. But why TESOL specifically? I’ve shared a bit here. Basically, I want to do missions work in future and teaching English is a skill that’s greatly in demand in many developing countries. Thus, having this skill would enable me to be a tentmaker.

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.

We are told that many Western missionary organizations pull their workers out of a place as soon as there is any sight of trouble. Advance will be very slow with such a mentality! If self-preservation is so important then there is no point going in the first place. God is always looking for children who are willing to die for Him if necessary. The countries in the Back to Jerusalem vision do not welcome the Gospel and there will be certain trouble when anyone attempts to take it to them. All the way through the Bible there was trouble when God’s people proclaimed the truth. Elijah was called the “troubler of Israel” (1 Kings 18:17). When Paul and Silas appeared before the authorities in Philippi their accusers said they “are throwing our city into an uproar.” (Acts 16:20). Indeed as you read through the Book of Acts it seems every time Paul preached the Gospel there was one of two reactions: revival or riot!

We understand that there is a time for caution and a time to escape, such as when the Apostle Paul was placed inside a basket and lowered over the Damascus city wall to escape those who wished to kill him (see Acts 9:22-25).

But there is also a time when Christians should march forward regardless of danger. Consider the courageous words of the Apostle Paul when he said,

And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me – the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace (Acts 20:22-24).

Making trouble is inevitable for any believer who truly wants to obey God. Anyone who wants to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo will not achieve much for the Lord. The structures that keep countless millions of people enslaved to sin and Satan must be confronted before they will crumble, and when you confront evil there will always be trouble.

This is the main reason house church Christians in China have been persecuted for decades. They are not persecuted just because of their faith in God. If they chose, they could all settle down in a Three-Self Church, worship God each Sunday, and live relatively stress free lives as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don’t try to share them with others.

The reason house church Christians are arrested and imprisoned in China is because they cannot keep still. They cannot possibly keep their mouths shut because Jesus has revealed Himself to them and they have been radically changed from the inside out. They understand how the prophet Jeremiah felt when he said, “If I say, ‘I will not mention him or speak any more in his name,’ his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot.” (Jeremiah 20:9)

Western Christians often ask us why we think there is persecution in China and other countries and not in the West. There are several different things to say about this, but one question we would like to ask is this: “Do you boldly preach the truth of God’s Word to sinners inside and outside your churches?”

If you do, you will soon find out there is persecution wherever you are. “Those who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12). This Scripture does not say “might” be persecuted, but “will” be persecuted. If you are not being persecuted, the problem isn’t with God’s Word. Perhaps the question should be asked, “Are you truly desiring to live a godly life in Christ Jesus?” Persecution may take a different form in one country from another, but there will be persecution.

As the Back to Jerusalem vision unfolds, we know there will be many troubles, but “A righteous man may have many troubles, but the Lord delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones; not one of them will be broken.” Psalm 34:19-20

The Muslim and Buddhist nations can torture us, imprison us, starve us, but they can do no more than what we have already experienced in China for many decades. Thousands of young men and women will go as missionaries who are not afraid to die for Jesus. They are not afraid to bleed, as they know their bodies are merely temporary tents to be used in the Lord’s service and that one day they will be in paradise where there is no pain and no tears. They are not only ready to die for the Gospel, they are expecting it.

(Taken from What about security? What plans do you have to protect Back to Jerusalem workers?)

—–

So true, yet something we seldom hear in the Church today! For more of my thoughts on missions and persecution, see Christianity and Idealism. Also, my friend Zach has written some extremely thought-provoking stuff on this topic and his case against secrecy in missions here. I think it’s only when we keep the eternal perspective in mind will we be able to face persecution without fear.

My journey did not begin with a lifelong desire to be a missionary to Africa. The desire came when I began realizing there was more to life than the personal comfort in which I had surrounded myself—a graduate degree, a nice car, and a safe job.

I was moving to Africa for selfish and unselfish reasons. Selfishly, I hoped Africa would save me from a life of numbness, a life of seeking mere satisfaction—more money, more recognition, more whatever. I hoped to find it true that less is more.

Unselfishly, I wanted to help the one-sixth of humanity living without basic food, water, and shelter. My heart was touched from continents away.

(Cassandra Zinchini, Surprised by Friendship)

I dunno whether I’ll continue to write much here this year. I think it’s a sign that I’m living closer to my dreams if I read and write less! It’s about living the life after all, not just thinking about it.

No doubt, the mind is important. The two most important and fascinating intellectual pursuits over the past few years for me have been Theology and International Development. Interest in the former dates back at least 10 years when I truly became a Christian, while that of the latter started from around 2001.

I do have a great interest in going into the more academic arena. I love to read and do research, and I also love to teach. I love to reflect and think - and also to challenge people (especially youths) to do that.

Some people who know me well have encouraged me to further my studies and get my PhD. No doubt, that’s been a bit of a temptation, but never much. I’ve never really believed in furthering my studies. In a way, it goes against my principles. It’s too costly and time consuming and I don’t think it’s what the world needs.

I know people will say that your PhD and your certificates get you places. It gives you the credibility you need and allows your voice to be heard. No doubt that’s true. The world looks well upon such degrees. But that doesn’t mean we need to conform to what the world wants. I don’t think God gives a damn about whether you have a PhD or even whether you have a basic Bachelor degree. I don’t think God cares even 1% as much as we do about our titles, awards and certificates. These are all wordly concerns, things we easily put our trust in - to the detriment of our own faith in God.

(I’ve always believed that the greatest in the Kingdom of God aren’t those we hear about - be it that great theologian, that great pastor or that great leader. All the greatest have probably never been in the limelight. They probably don’t network as well or have as many friends as the leaders we know. The greatest are simply those who fear God - not man - the most, those who seek the praises of God first, not that of man.)

Make no mistake. I am all for thinking critically. I think Christians would practice their faith better if they were more critical (and holistic!) in their theological understanding. I think development practitioners and NGOs would better be able to help the poor if they were more critical in their understanding of development issues. Furthermore, as a Christian, Jesus also asked us to worship God with our minds. So using one’s mind is very important.

But having said that, I think we have too many people who only read, talk and write. Too many people who read too much, talk to much and write too much - and live too little. There’s just too little living of the life.

The Christian world doesn’t need more theologians, it needs more missionaries. It needs to de-emphasize the importance of academic requirements for entry into pastoral or missionary ministry. Since when in the early Church did missionaries or pastors need to go through theological training to qualify? The focus on all other matters but living needs to decrease. And I’m all for young Christians [in terms of both their spiritual or physical (age) maturity level] becoming a pastor or missionary.

I spent the last 6 months on a huge charity project, and as meaningful as that may be, it’s not something that truly satisfies me. In fact, it leaves me deeply unsatisfied - just like my life for as long as I can remember.

I don’t really care about my “career”. I am not interested in making as many friends as possible or networking widely to get places. I don’t really care about my reputation or name. People seek comfort in all these things. People take years to increase their stature in these areas. But to me, I’ve always wanted something different. None of these ultimately satisfies.

To me, the most important thing is to serve the poor and lost together with a person I can love and treasure. Even if that meant leaving blogging, leaving writing, leaving reading, leaving my family, leaving my friends, leaving the modern and developed world to start really living the life - that would still be more than satisfying.

There is no greater meaning or satisfaction than to serve the Father of my Lord Jesus Christ wholeheartedly - even if it means dying for Christ. Many in this world are lost and dying. Billions are in poverty. If only I could leave Singapore this year and serve Him wholeheartedly with someone I love. It’s not about whether one is ready. The time is always now…

That would be my new year’s wish…

The children involved need to be cute and not sick as this would be more attractive for the media.

- Vice-President of a large Multinational Corporation - the main sponsor a huge charity project I’m involved in - on the kind of children’s home his company would like the Media Conference of the project to be held in.

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’m not good at respecting elders or submitting to authority. Whether that’s a good thing or bad, I guess that really depends.

It’s not that I don’t respect anyone or that I will never submit to any authority. It’s just very hard for me to find people I can truly respect and look up to. And trust me, I wish I could find such people. It’s always good to find mentors and leaders you can look up to and learn much from. For me, I can’t say I’ve found anybody like that. And I think it’s simply because I’m very idealistic and have high standards. I’m a perfectionist. I demand a lot of myself and same for others. That doesn’t mean that I don’t have time for those who fail to reach those standards. For indeed, I myself fail my own standards most of the time. I am my worst critic.

So for me to really respect someone, the person has to be truly outstanding - in my eyes, at least. There are many wonderful people out there. But very, very few I can really, really respect.

One thing that really irks me about those older than me is that, in the presence of the young, they always have to talk a lot about their life, their vast experiences and through all that give lotsa advice to the young. Now, I have no problems with receiving advice. But age and experience alone does not qualify one to give advice to another. Elders need to stop thinking they have all the answers to the problems. They need to stop speaking to the young in a condescending way as though they know everything. Seriously, I am not impressed. Many others may be, but not me.

Why can’t old people learn to talk less and listen more? I think I’m more inclined to respect someone who listens and takes an interest in the life of the young, rather than one who always wants to advice the young.

Old people do have more experience, no doubt. Experiences they have gone through may be worth a lot when say a 60 year old one hundred years ago is advising a 20 year old. But in this rapidly changing world, their experiences are worth less because things aren’t the same anymore. The young learn fast. So old people shouldn’t assume that the young are as ignorant as they were at their young age.

Perhaps the most irritating thing I hate about the advice of the old is that they are supremely pragmatic people, giving supremely pragmatic advice. Most old people are like that anyway. They lose their idealism as they grow old and that’s a sad thing. Most of the old look down on the idealism of the young. And that’s what I can’t stand about old people. They have lived for long and know how the world works and so their advice is very often to be pragmatic, not to be too idealistic and that one should sacrifice one’s principles because this is just the way the world works.

I really liked what OCBC Bank chairman Dr. Cheong Choong Kong said at his convocation speech (22/04/06) at the University of Adelaide. His first advice was:

Don’t do what is expected. Be contrarian. No one’s ever achieved greatness by following the textbook or meekly obeying orders.

Now, here’s an elder’s advice that is worthy of respect. We need more of such people. We need more of such advice. We hear too little of such advice. Actually, sorry, we do hear a lot about such advice. Such advice was printed in Singapore’s mainstream newspaper. We constantly hear people telling us to be different, non-conformist and creative. But most people who say it’s good to be such don’t usually mean it, do they? That’s why most people don’t live like that. It’s cool to say we should be like that. It’s totally uncool and frowned upon if one were to actually live like that.

We hear a lot about creativity being something that only a non-conformist possess. For a confomist and someone who is too willing to listen to the advice of others and submit to authoriy would never do anything different. Asians, in particular, face the problem of too much conformity. Their culture values conformity and frowns upon individualism.

Now, I’m not being pro-western, I’m not idealizing individualism. I do think there is a place for both. We don’t want to go to the extreme on either end. Being different or a non-conformist is no great thing on its own. Being rebellious against authority isn’t a virtue.

But I just wish to see a bit more non-conformity around here. We can start by not giving a damn about what most of our elders think of us and our lives and saying “no thank you” to their advice. We need to stop giving so much respect to the advice and words of our elders. Especially so in an ultra pragmatic place like Singapore.

Dr. Cheong’s second advice is that life is confusing:

Outside the university, very little is plain and simple, black and white, and there is no all-knowing professor whom you can turn to for unambiguous answers.

There’s an important link between his first and second advice. Only if you realize that the world is complex and confusing and that many things aren’t so black and white - only if you realize that would you be be able to accept his first advice. If things are so black and white for you, then you may as well go to seek the “wisdom” of elders because surely they would have sorted life out after so many years and would have good advice for you. But if you know life is more complex, then when you listen to an old man’s advice, you’d take it with a pinch of salt and would realize you still need to figure a lot of things out for yourself and do things your own way.

So who are the people I respect? I respect people who hold strong to their ideals without compromising them - of course their ideals have to be worthy and good! Especially those who suffer because of them, because it shows they truly believe in them - however impractical they may be. Like Henry David Thoreau said:

Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.

People with good principles and ideals are most worthy of respect. These are people who are hardly pragmatic. People like Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Aung San Syu Kyi. Even people like Jorge Mario Bergoglio. As for people closer to home and to my life, I admire opposition politicians in Singapore like JB Jeyaretnam and Chee Soon Juan. Regarding the later, I don’t agree with everything he says or does but I give great credit to him for standing up for what he believes and sacrificing so much for his cause. It takes guts to continue to do what you believe in despite so much opposition and humiliation. That’s what I admire about him. Singaporeans are too pragmatic a people to appreciate someone like him. As for someone I know personally, it would be my friend Zach and his wife Angie, whose faithfulness to God and the ideals of the Bible and His will put almost every Christian I know to shame.

And of course, regarding submitting to authorities, I try my best to submit my life to the authority of God. Yes, to God, and not to church leaders. Church leaders have to earn people’s respect. With most of them thinking they have a direct line to God and thus are somehow more spiritual than normal church members, with them thinking that their advice ought to be taken as that of God’s and that their interpretation of Scripture always the right one (a bit funny since so many church leaders and pastors disagree with one another’s interpretation of Scripture), it’s hard for them to earn my respect. Give me a Church leader who is humble, non-dogmatic, more keen to listen than talk and lives the Christian life out and you’ve found yourself a follower in me.

And for those who think all I’ve written sounds like the foolish idealism of a young person, I’ll end here with the last words of advice by Steve Jobs’ 2005 Convocation speech at Stanford:

Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.