Professional & Professionalism

In the course of my career as a professional property valuer, there have been many occasions when I've undertaken jobs for clients for which I did not get paid the fees for my services. This is not a problem unique to me only. As a matter of fact, many of my peers have had similar experiences. Furthermore, it is a common problem faced by many other professionals too, not just the valuers.

It has been suggested to me by fellow valuers, that we should not be held liable if we were not paid for valuations done. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The point is that we are professionals, and once we prepared valuation reports, it is reasonable to expect anybody reading those reports, to rely on them. This is of course subject to limiting conditions such as the purposes for which those reports were prepared, and other exclusions which would have been clearly specified in the reports. The person reading those reports is not expected to know whether or not we have been paid for our services. But even if he did know that we have not been paid, that still wont suddenly diminish the standard of care expected of us as professionals.

As professionals we owe the duty to perform to the best of our ability regardless of the amount we are paid for our services. In the very competitive job market, fees are often discounted, sometimes by ridiculous margins. However, that should not be a yardstick for the services that we provide. We are all expected to uphold the highest of standards. If I think what the client is offering to pay me does not commensurate with the time and effort required to do the job, then I would have to reluctantly turn down the job. But once I accept the job, then I would try my best to do it well, fees notwithstanding. It is not enough for us to claim that we are professionals, but we must also practise professionalism.

There are many people who claim themselves as professionals in their respective fields of expertise, but not all of them actually behave professionally. Their conduct, to say the least, does not measure up to the title of a professional.

A couple of days ago, there was something of a stir in our state's football team. Although I'm not a football fan, I couldn't help but notice the commotion. It was reported that a number of the players boycotted a training session on grounds that they haven't been paid their salaries for 3 months. This is in the midst of preparing for a match. I saw a post in facebook where this matter was raised, and there were many comments in support of what the players did. There were comments saying something like "No wonder we lost; because the players were not paid their salaries."; and "How are we supposed to improve the performance of our players if they're not paid their salaries?"

I'm not sure what's the truth about the management of the team and what's the story about the unpaid salaries. If it's true, then I sympathize with their predicament and there is room for improvement in the management of the team. However, I can say that the people who boycotted the training session are not professional football players, because their conduct doesn't reflect professionalism. If they are not happy playing for the team because of unpaid salaries or whatever other reasons, then they should tender their resignation. For as long as they've agreed to enter a match, they should play to the best of their ability, whether or not salaries have been paid. A professional shouldn't use the excuse that they are not, or unwilling, to perform to the best of their ability because that is all they would do for the amount that they are paid.

The expectation of a professional is very high, and one is expected to practise professionalism to be worthy of the title.

Dubious Question

A friend shared what appears to be a page taken from an English test paper (see attached picture). The instruction at the top of the page says: "Choose the best answer to complete the sentences."

The first 2 questions had something to do with English. Question 1 uses the word "She", so the correct answer was indeed A, i.e. aunt, because the rest of the answers are all referring to men. Question 2 uses the word "teaches" in it, so that indicates her profession as a teacher. 

Question 3 is a little more complicated and I was informed by my friend that it caused quite an uproar. Today, I'm seeing some of my facebook friends sharing this exact picture and it has garnered over 2000 comments, mainly about Question 3. I notice that some people agree with "chicken rice", but the vast majority of the commenters are of the view that the other choices are also equally acceptable.

I decided to weigh in on the subject, but I prefer to do it here instead of my facebook page.

To start with, I'm not surprised at Question 3. It's the kind of question that reflects our education system as a whole, where kids are told to accept something as "the truth", for no other reason other than because it is the norm; or because it is deemed to be a healthier choice. This type of question does not take into account that some people do not eat rice for lunch like me. As a matter of fact, these days I hardly ever eat rice for dinner too. It does not take into account that it is entirely possible that some people usually eat fried noodles, for example, for lunch, instead of chicken rice. In other words, what's really happening here is that if some of the kids sitting for this test are among those who usually eat fried noodles for lunch, they are expected to lie and say that they usually eat chicken rice even though they know very well that that is not the truth. They are expected to say something that is not the truth for the sake of passing the test, because apparently that is the best answer according to their teacher. 

Perhaps if Question 3 were set slightly differently - say instead of "I", the word "Malaysians" is used, then maybe it is much more acceptable if the teacher says that the "best" answer is chicken rice, because I suppose the majority of Malaysians eat rice for lunch, though even that is still debatable. I personally feel like that there are many, many Malaysians who don't eat rice for lunch. Otherwise, food outlets such as McDonald's, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut and the likes would have closed down long ago. Somehow I have the impression that all these fastfood outlets are equally busy during lunch, if not busier than the chicken rice shops.

I also don't like Question 3 because although the question itself is in English, to me it has nothing to do with English. It is not a test on grammar or vocabulary. An English test should test the kids' proficiency in the language. It doesn't have to be on grammar or vocabulary specifically, but it should be something to do with the mastery of the language, instead of testing the general knowledge on the eating habit.

Question 3 is a dubious one to me, and after reading it several times, I'm beginning to suspect that this was not taken from an actual English test; that it may in fact be a hoax of some sort to cause an uproar? I'm hoping that someone will reveal that it is indeed a hoax somehow.