Friday, 25th September 2009, 07:53am
It was with much rushing and flying that I visited Singapore from 17th July to 10th August 2009, and again from 18th to 20th September 2009. During this periods, particularly the former, I had more time to spend time with some friends, most of whom are in education line. One of my purposes in the visit was to preach in Providence Presbyterian Church as part of its invitation preparation to serve full-time there. That is to say, the leadership of the church would like to hear me preach first, before proceeding further. I on my part decided to accept the invitation on a non-committal basis.
It was there that I learnt more about the situation in Singapore a year after I left for Hong Kong. First of all, the church does not seem to know what my role/s would be. This once again re-emerged as an issue during my latter trip. Further, I now understood from the leadership represented by one of its key leaders that theological education would be something the church should not be embarking upon. In addition, the remuneration package would have to be far below my current package. All this is helpful for my own decision making.
Secondly, I came to appreciate my teaching job here in Hong Kong. For during the two trips, I discovered that the Pentecostal College I was working in before my departure for Hong Kong actually invited a former SBC (Singapore Bible College) colleague of mine to be a faculty member and offered him a starting salary of S$4,000.00, which was S$1,000.00 more than what I was offered! This was something I was upset about, for that former colleague of mine holds only a master of divinity degree from Singapore Bible College, and has not been able to complete his PhD at a nineth rate seminary in the States. He has no publications and his PhD does not seem to be near completion anytime now. Yet, that College offered him such a big salary!
I should know better, actually. For when I was there in that Pentecostal College, the leadership actually told a few blatant lies. One of which in fact directly involved me. It was over several 'descriptors' which the leadership had asked others to write, but have my name down as the writer. These were in fact the equivalents of our 'course syllabi', written up as part of the requirement for the application for validation of our BA in theology degree by a UK university. And it was only about an hour and a half before a scheduled meeting with the representatives from the UK university that I was told to lie that I was the one who wrote it, if I was ever asked by any of the representatives. The other lie was about the college not making a single cent from the doctoral programme conducted on behalf of that UK university, when in fact that university gives back to this Pentecostal college two-thirds of what a student pays for the fees. In other words, the Pentecostal college was and is making quite an amount from the PhD programme. But the leaders have lied about it, not once, nor twice, but again and again.
Having learnt about the first incident, that my friend was offered S$4,000.00, I am quite pleased that I have left the college and come to Hong Kong.
But the above issues are not as problematic as the attitude of rushing to get a degree programme validated, while professors and lecturers are being unfairly and unjustly treated. One of these problems has to do with the idolatrous practice of 'worshipping the whites and the west'! If a lecturer comes from the West, then he is better and should be rewarded more. He is even better if he is a white. In the first theological school I taught at, if the lecturer is a white, and comes from some of those schools considered 'elite' by the leadership (but in fact are nineth rate seminaries such as Dallas and Trinity), then that lecturer will have carpet reception, and whatever he says will be treated with more than the gospel truth! Such is the college's idolatry!
In another theological college, if a lecturer is a local but attends one of the 'elite' schools such as RI (Raffles Institute) or ACS (Anglo-Chinese School), and is a member of the Methodist, then he is one-up and will receive better treatment. If he is an Anglican, he too will be well treated. For the bishop of the Anglican church is very much involved in the governance of the college. Better still, if the lecturer has attended an 'elite' university in the UK or a seminary in the States, never mind if he cannot teach, or is hot-tempered or stupid.
It is important for education to be made available to as many as possible. However, education takes time and therefore cannot be rushed. For educating a person is a long and arduous process, and more so theological education. There is a need to know, understand and grasp the philosophy of education of a school, before one proceeds further. In this light, education can never be embarked upon for the purpose of profiteering. This is even more so in theological education. In almost every seminary in Asia, none can survive as a seminary by solely depending on income generated from school fees. For fees only make up about a tenth of the budget in most seminaries. Even in secular universities, none have managed to make its programme part of the overall profit-making strategy. Usually, universities that survive well financially are those that engage in cutting-edge and high level research, which yields original results for the industry. In theological education, seminaries would need to engage the 'industry (i.e. the church)' if they ever want to survive financially.
Further, the professors are the real backbone or software of the seminary. If the professor/lectuers are not respected and given the space to work and develop themselves, then the seminary would have to be prepared for frequent faculty exits! In a sense, education not only involves the persons being educated, but also the faculty who are themselves continually being educated, and self-educating. The progressive ones will want to grow and seek the betterment of the self, while the incompetent ones usually will be content with the status quo. Seminary's leadership that is satisfied with such a state of affairs only destroys the seminary in the long run.
Let us be quick in thinking, just in treatment of professors, but slow to offer more degree programmes, slow to encourage paper chase.
