MOE - Settle Your School Fees.

MOE is not wrong you know. It is the procedurally justified thing to do. 

You don’t pay, you don’t get your original PSLE result; just a copy. 

So, pay up, and we will hand over your original results slip. That’s the “longstanding practice” of MOE.

But how much is owed? 

Well, the child’s parents owed the school $156.00 of unpaid school fees (which a Good Samaritan had recently settled). So, the child did not get the original PSLE results, which was released last Thursday. 

This is what MOE has to say: -

“MOE’s consideration stems from the underlying principle that notwithstanding the fact that the cost of education is almost entirely publicly funded, we should still play our part in paying a small fee, and it is not right to ignore that obligation, however small it is. We hope parents support us in reinforcing this message.”

In a nutshell, that is the self-reliance rule of our welfare-adverse state. This withholding practice runs across our tertiary institutions/universities too. If you don’t settle your school/tuition fees, you don’t get your original examination results - period. 

This is not the first case a child’s exams results were held back for outstanding school fees.

In another case, as reported by Amelia Teng, a single mother of three children said “her twin boys received notice from their school last month that they would not be able to collect their N-level examination results slip as they each owed $310 in school fees.” 

The mother said “she has not been able to afford school fees for the past four years.”

After all said, is MOE too rigid, inflexible? Doesn’t MOE have a point? And it is really about doing your part to pull your strap up to the educational horse that the state has provided for you, right? That is all that is needed, that is, just play your part. How hard can that be? 

As MOE puts it, “we should still play our part in paying a small fee, and it is not right to ignore that obligation, however small it is. We hope parents support us in reinforcing this message.”

Honestly, when I read the post, and the numbers of negative remarks that have gone viral ”trying to call into question the intention and values of MOE”, I felt at first that we are not a very understanding people. 

Can’t we give MOE a break? They are just doing their job. Didn’t they say that that is a long-standing practice? It is about mutual empowerment, and not an unconditional handout, while you sit on your hands doing nothing. 

Mind you, it is a meritocratic horse we are running since independence, and you better wise up to pull yourself up before you can have a chance to ride it. 

Yet, at this juncture, I am reminded of Prof Teo You Yenn’s “differentiated deservedness”. 

That is a long word, but it is basically a Trojan-horse-like prejudice against the disadvantaged as a result of the unintended consequences of public policies that lead to the “ghettoization of the problem of poverty.”

Prof Teo wrote that the poor will always be known as “the needy”. And this “way of framing the problem of poverty isolates it” - recall “ghettoization” - and it “detaches the issues and challenges faced by a small minority of the population from those faced by everyone else. It dislodges the issue of poverty from the broader political economy in which it is produced. Importantly, it frames public interventions as “charity”, as “help”.””

In a consumerist society like ours with one of the highest income and social inequalities, being poor is not just a label, but a sentence, a social sentence. 

You are shown little or no respect and dignity. You live in a world of your own, isolated and ghettoized, one in which you are constantly seen as someone who is always in need, always needy, always asking for help, always bothering others with your financial problems. 

Is it then any wonder that the poor and homeless, who are struggling to make ends meet, are jaded, demoralised, and some are even dehumanised?

Sadly, I dread to think how their children who have innocently inherited this social stigma will overcome the ”differentiated deservedness” shown to them, not just by their richer classmates, but by the society at large, which incidentally offers conditional handouts only if they (in their impoverished state) do their part, however small. 

Yet, small is an understatement because to the wealthy, what is $156 or what is $310 (owed over four years)? That is what their children get as school allowance for a day or two. 

But for the poor, those who are struggling to pay the bills, worrying about whether they can keep their job, being abused in a marriage that they see no way of getting out, fearing that the banks will come with lawyers’ letters, and/or feeling that they have been a big disappointment to their children, $156 or $310 is everything to them. 

So, going back to MOE’s rationale, they can’t really be faulted. Rules are rules. They are just enforcing them. 

In fact, there are many social schemes for those who need help. All they have to do is ask and show up, play their part. Differentiated deservedness or otherwise, poverty is not a handicap right? 

And withholding results, reminding the child (who had worked hard for six years under trying circumstances) that their parents owe the state, is the least they can do right?

So, where do you lay the blame then? Or should you even bother? Does it help? 

Alas, the problem with a deeply divided, unequal and stratified state, however democratic, world class or efficient, is that it adds a layer of complexity to the saying, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.” (Gandhi).

The key verb here is “treats”. Because we can always do charity, showing our good side, relieving the burdens of those left behind, but the dark side of altruism is how we never let the poor forget how generous and magnanimous we can be. 

And I end with what MOE said - “We hope parents support us in reinforcing this message.” 

But then, who will reinforce the message the poor has been trying to tell the rich and their leaders for the longest of time? Mm...I guess that shouldn’t be their problem?

A God for the Poor.

A God for the poor?

I always wonder, is there a God for the poor? By poor, I mean those who struggle with minimum wage. They come in all roles conceivable - that is, husbands, fathers or mothers who are largely making ends meet. They also struggle with their mortgages and kids' education expenses. They have little savings because they do not earn enough. Most times, they get exploited and are taken advantage of. They live from hand to mouth.

Is there a God for them? Is there a God for their children who have to depend on hands-me-down, skip lunches as they barely have enough for meals, and work part-time as they study to support their family? 

I write this because I often hear televangelists telling their congregation that following Jesus’ footsteps means expecting great things, mainly endless material blessings. 

Mind you, the Duplantis, Osteens, Roberts, Tiltons and Copelands of the mega-prosperity gospel have all happily jumped into the hundredfold bandwagon to equate faith with fortune, belief with blessings and devotion with possessions. 

It is often said that believing in God comes easy when success shadows the believers, especially for those who come to their wealth via family inheritance. 

For those who are successful, God can’t help but seem closer, more real, more tangible, and this reminds me of the Bible study session conducted by Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) in opening scenes of the movie Crazy Rich Asians in the comfort of her multimillion-dollar mansion.

And how often does one hear this from the rich and prosperous exuding much envied humbleness: “God is blessing me. I am nobody without Him. All I have is His, my possessions, my promotion and my wealth. I wouldn’t be here without His strength, His guide and His help. I am just a servant, a humble steward. I own nothing. Indeed, all is His.”

But, what does a believer who has little (the poor) have to say then? He can’t claim prosperity the way the rich and prosperous can so humbly disclaim with infectious modesty. He has nothing to his name. He is more worried about how he is going to pay the bills, hold down a job, and save enough for the near future. 

Well, at this juncture, I want to add that it is almost second nature for the already prosperous to tell them that if they truly believe, their time too will come. In other words, they can be equally rich too. 

But good intention aside, that kind of name-it-and-claim-it gospel might just turn out to be the glittering hundredfold bandwagon sailing pass the rest of the struggling world as they trumpet the prosperity gospel from their first class seats. Can you then blame the poor for thinking that maybe God has forgotten them?

So, what is the everyday reality? 

At some point, we have to come to accept that, for every person who succeeds, there will be dozens who do not make it. The ratio matches the leadership, that is, one leader or employer to hundreds of workers - give or take. It is never the reverse. The system we have to contend with is invariably skewed that way. 

It is a socioeconomic pyramid with the handful at the top and a very broad base at the bottom. This is the way it is even if there is high social mobility, and this explains why Jesus said that the poor, we will always have with us. Although he meant it another way, the identification in the majority is just about accurate throughout history. And most of them will leave this earth the same way they came.

So, where does that leave the poor then? While there is a God for the prosperous (so claims the prosperity gospel), do we have a God for the poor, the struggling, the deprived and the disadvantaged for all their life? 

My thoughts on all this came to an illuminating point when I met a client this week. He came to me because his wife was seeking for a divorce. It was a long 27-yr-old marriage with two young adult daughters doing reasonably well academically. 

They were also reasonably well off running two businesses earning a high monthly income. They in fact have two properties, though mortgaged, but were worth quite a lot in the market. At one point, he even told me that they once owned two luxury cars and were living large. 

But he told me that things went downhill when he lost big in the stock market. After that, he met with a tragic road accident when he rear-ended another vehicle. He was hospitalised for months and could no longer run his business as before due to his serious injuries. He now earns close to minimum wage and is struggling to make ends meet with a divorce to worry about. 

I am not here to write about the divorce because there are many factors involved in a marriage of 27 years, but what he shared was that he found his faith after he met with the accident. He told me that he thought he was going to die, but he miraculously came back to life. He said that God gave him a second chance and he has learnt his lesson. He is now a devout believer but he has little to his name - contrasting with what he once had before. 

At this point, he admitted to me that he was nevertheless happy. Despite everything, he has found a certain reassurance, clarity and hope in his life. It was not something that he had when he had money. In fact, he told me that his happiest days were when his wife and him were struggling to make ends meet when they first got married living in a small rental flat. 

I said that that was ironic and he nodded. He recalled a time when he was travelling in his luxury car with his two daughters arguing behind, and across the road, he saw a family with kids crowding at the back of an open lorry, laughing as they were sharing heartily. 

This encounter kept me thinking about the God that the poor has - like the client of mine. It is a God who is different in form and substance from the way the prosperity gospel has painted or airbrushed him. 

I felt that the greatest misconception is to equate God with prosperity as if such blessings is the only aim of His redemptive plan for His people. 

We often make God into our own cultural image because we want to make him the reason for our prosperity. Somehow, that adds a certain sacred and religious glow to our status. We therefore sell God in a way that fits our image of what we want him to be. This misattribution gives us a sense of control, entitlement and uniqueness (or specialness). 

Now, let me be clear to say that I am not saying that prosperity and godliness are incompatible. What I am saying is that godliness is much more than prosperity, even at times, to the exclusion of it. For the greatest amongst us is often the least amongst us. The disciples of Christ come to mind here, right?

In other words, it is not necessary the case that you are rich, therefore you are godly, and you are poor and you are (so-called) god-less. Most times, I dare say that God is the least concerned with your financial status because His blessing is about a life that bears fruit, and the fruit is never one-dimensional, that is, material success. 

So is there a God for the poor? Of course there is, just as there is a God for the rich. More relevantly, He is the God of the harvest and in the harvest field of redemption, we all stand equal before Him, the rich and the poor. For at the end of the day, the ones who are truly rich are those who unfailingly strive in their lifetime to bring the fruit of the Spirit in their life to full bloom. Amen.

Amal Hussain - Yemen girl dies from famine as the world watches.

You can’t look at Amal and turn away not feeling the pain and sadness. The haunting eyes of Amal Hussain says it all. 

Amal was only seven-year-old. She lived in the current war-torn country that is Northern Yemen. 

It is a Saudi-led war in Yemen and Amal’s family is affected when their province, Saada, borne the brunt of at least 18,000 Saudi-led airstrikes since 2015.

It reports that “Saada is also the homeland of the Houthi rebels, who control northern Yemen and are seen by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as a proxy for rival Iran.”

But that little historical and political background means nothing to little Amal, who was dying of starvation as a result of severe famine. 

The papers report that Amal was “at a health centre in Aslam, 145km north-west of the capital, Sanaa. She was lying in a bed with her mother. Nurses fed her every two hours with milk, but she was vomiting regularly and suffering from diarrhoea.”

All her doctor, Mekkia Mahdi, could do was to sit by her bed, “stroking her hair”. She tugged on ”Amal’s flaccid skin of her stick-like arms” and said: “Look, no meat. Only bones.”

Amal’s condition had been deteriorating since she was brought into the health centre and she was discharged because the centre had to make room for new patients. 

Dr Mahdi urged the family to bring Amal to a nearby Doctors Without Borders hospital in Abs, but the family was broke. 

Amal’s mother said: “I had no money to take her to the hospital. So I took her home.”Upon bringing Amal home, relief agencies provided some consolatory help like sugar and rice. 

But it was not enough to save little Amal.

On 26 October 2018, “three days after she was discharged from the hospital,” Amal died. 

Her mother said: “My heart is broken. Amal was always smiling. Now I’m worried for my other children.”

Lesson? One.

The world has to decide what she wants. Because, until she decides, innocent victims like Amal will continue to be born into a world whose main and only preoccupation is, well, herself.

Now, I can understand that we live in a self-centered world. 

This is plain to see. This is also part of our evolved survival mechanism to care for self, to survive and flourish. 

For if I cut my own finger, and see it bleeds, I will want immediate medical attention. 

In a rich or well-off family, living in a society with good health facilities, thousands of miles away from war-torn country where Amal resides, my bleeding finger will receive the best treatment, the quickest relief, and in a day or two, I will be back to my air-conditioned office in a high-rise building to continue my zealous pursuit of wealth accumulation. 

Now, if that bleeding finger should be that of my child’s, due to some careless play, I would spare no effort to rush her to the clinic for immediate treatment. I would not hesitate, even for a moment, seeing the tears in her eyes.Again, she would receive the fastest relief and her little world of play will resume as before. 

But what if the bleeding finger is suffered by neither myself nor my child? What if the bleeding finger happens to someone I don’t even know like Amal? 

And what if Amal is thousands of miles away from me, in a war-torn country, where innocent civilians like hers are merely collateral casualty of men in power who are blind to their fate and obsessed by their own?

Will my heart be as affected for Amal as I am affected when my little girl suffers from a bleeding finger? Will I feel the urgency for Amal as I feel for my little girl? 

Alas, that’s the understandable part of our self-centredness. But what makes it worse, far worse, is the drive for wealth, for endless accumulation, under the materialist creed. 

This changes our self-centredness into something even our loved ones cannot recognise. We always make excuses for the accumulation of wealth, assuring ourselves and others that we are the same person before embracing that creed and will be the same person thereafter. 

But the reality, as people like Amal has shown, is that we are not. No doubt the materialist creed rewards industry, risk-taking and perseverance, but what it does not reward is a heart of contentment and peace. 

In fact, most of the time, by embracing that creed, we are telling ourselves to never settle, where nothing is ever enough, and our heart becomes a bottomless pit of insatiable appetites.

That is why the Rich Young Ruler walked away as an aspiring believer, and not a living one.

While we may overcome self-centredness after a determined struggle, we are helpless to overcome it when we give ourselves totally to this materialist creed - or, serving two masters. When greed becomes all-consuming, the self becomes all-possessing.

And when the self becomes all-possessing, we lose not only the hope of our salvation, we also lose the heart of being a human. That is where men in power, for self-preservation and enrichment, will fight to the end, bulldozing their way, just to demand for more of what they do not need, engaging in ego-battles they are bent on winning, and sacrificing lives they do not care. 

This has been the fate of mankind, from the beginning of time till now. It has also been a vicious cycle of human greed, hatred and arrogance that has elevated the self as worth every effort to prosper at the expense of all other lives that are clearly dispensable. 

So, innocent lives like Amal will continue to suffer under this indecisiveness of humanity because her heart seek to be human but her actions betray that ideal for the shiny things of this world. And another term for it is the inauthencity of good intentions for the road to hell is often paved with it. Cheerz.

Ps: Some years back, Professor Steven Pinker wrote a highly persuasive book (700+ pages) hailing a new era of peace in our modern times where the better angels of ourselves are featured more prominently in this value-warped world. 

It is a peace founded on the moralised infrastructure of our global institutions that is fundamentally rule-based and driven by an apparently sound liberal ideology of human freedom to express, to choose and to create (to innovate). 

It was all going well after WWII under this breezy banner of liberalised values until the economic crash in 2008/9. I will not go on a historical romp to trace the cause(s) of that downfall, but suffice to say that it is one historic downfall where the price tag (of recovery) was picked up by the people and not the culprits because they were essentially “too big to fail.”

Alas, if you look at it holistically, this peace that Prof Pinker is talking about may just be a peace not so much for all, but for the entrenched, elitist interest in our globalised society, and the moralised infrastructure that had evolved after WWII may have been hijacked by them (the 1%) under the surreptitious and unscrupulous cover of humanitarian aid and philanthropy, and the banner of UN Millennium Development Goals. 

Now, there is no doubt that the world today as compared to it two hundred years ago is better in every conceivable way - healthcare, infant mortality, transport, technology, science, knowledge, sanitation, creature comforts, and so on. 

But the betterment in those aspects does not necessarily bring about a betterment in values (materialist creed), authenticity (our double-mindedness), and hope (look at climate change and our probable eventual doom).

Maybe the difference between then and now is that the bad guys (for want of a better term) are better at exploiting values we hold dear to preserve and perpetuate their power and wealth in society. 

What is made more insidious is that the focus tends to be on individuals suffering and how to alleviate that and it stops short at taking the macro-view of looking at how the system as a whole can be changed. Bandage over bullet wound? 

Let me sum it up with these words by a Harvard Business School Professor Gautam Mukunda: -

“”The ability of a powerful group to reward those who agree with it and punish those who don’t also distort the marketplace of ideas. This isn’t about corruption - beliefs naturally shift to accord with interests. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.” The result can be an entire society twisted to serve the interests of its most powerful group.””

Food for thoughts?