Restoring Honour and Integrity: A Call to Respect Tertiary Qualifications and Public Servants in Today’s Changing Work Culture!
To begin with, in today’s employment landscape, a growing number of individuals who have worked tirelessly to obtain academic qualifications are beginning to question the true value of their efforts. Thus, this concern is not born out of entitlement but from a deep sense of disillusionment, as many find themselves overlooked in favour of those without formal qualifications but with extensive on-the-job experience. Indeed, this unsettling reality calls for serious reflection on current employment practices and raises a vital question: “What, then, is the point of striving so hard for a qualification when experience seems to outweigh education?”
First and foremost, the notion that a qualification guarantees employment has become a distant myth. Notably, employers increasingly prefer those trained within the workplace, citing adaptability and immediate productivity. Yet, this preference leaves behind those who have invested years in higher education, often at significant financial and emotional cost. Besides, such a shift discourages future generations from pursuing tertiary education, as formal learning is valued less than informal experience.
In essence, this mindset diminishes the inherent value of education and undermines the belief that knowledge and practice can coexist. Moreso, the issue is not which is superior, education or experience, but whether society has lost its balance in honouring both. Thereafter, qualifications should never be dismissed as mere credentials but recognised as testaments of perseverance, discipline, and critical thought.
Correspondingly, the human cost of this imbalance is severe. Herein, many graduates find themselves unemployed or underemployed, their confidence eroded by repeated rejections and systemic bias against practical workers. The root issue is not one of ability but of recognition, the inability of current employment systems to appreciate academic accomplishment as an asset. As a result, society risks valuing expedience over excellence.
Therein lies the emotional toll on those who have studied diligently. Behind every qualification lies sacrifice, long nights, and the desire to contribute meaningfully to society. Whereas such effort is disregarded, it sends a message that formal education no longer matters. This, in turn, undermines both individual motivation and the moral fabric of a nation that once prized wisdom, equity, and innovation.
Reflectively, the divide between qualification and experience ought to be seen as complementary, not competitive. On the other hand, tertiary institutions and industries must cultivate pathways that connect theory and practice, whilst apprenticeships, graduate programmes, and internships should function as genuine bridges between learning and doing rather than as symbolic gestures.
Consequently, policymakers and employers must reform recruitment strategies. It is vitally crucial for us to value education, not the rejection of experience; it is an acknowledgement that scholarship fosters ethical awareness, innovation, and depth of understanding. Henceforth, workplaces that blend graduates with seasoned practitioners achieve lasting creativity and resilience.
Undoubtedly, when academic achievement is dismissed, the repercussions are far-reaching. It implies that effort and perseverance lose meaning, and students are disheartened from pursuing excellence. Notwithstanding, the widening divide between those who can afford unpaid experience and those who cannot fosters inequity and restricts social mobility.
Consecutively, this issue becomes particularly evident after secondary education. Subsequently, many young people enter tertiary study believing it will secure meaningful work, only to face disappointment upon graduation. Meanwhile, others who bypass formal education and train on the job progress swiftly. Even so, those with practical skills should be encouraged to pursue tertiary recognition, for experience alone must be complemented by academic grounding. At such moments, I often find myself deeply contemplating the point of having such qualifications when employers undervalue individuals who have laboured faithfully. Alongside this ongoing neglect breeds emotional fatigue and spiritual questioning, not of one’s calling, but of a society that fails to honour discipline and integrity. Truly, it feels unjust when knowledge and perseverance go unnoticed while others rise with ease through circumstance.
Equally important, my ICT qualification required an 80% pass mark in each paper, demanding precision, discipline, and perseverance. Most importantly, it is distressing to see those without such credentials gaining entry-level employment while those academically equipped for practice remain sidelined. Thereupon, stigma suggesting that qualifications are redundant is deeply misguided, and the growing culture of paper-chasing, where learning is dismissed rather than valued, erodes workplace morale, thereby clearly diminishing the noble intent of education to empower rather than demean. It is also crucial to stop pressuring individuals to pursue higher qualifications when they are not ready, as this disregards well-being and purpose. Hereafter, are we undermining those who have worked hard for their tertiary qualifications and apprenticeships, both certified and deserving, in favour of those lacking either distinction?
Not least, recent developments expose the fragility of professional recognition. The liquidation of ITPNZ, an organisation that for decades certified IT specialists and assessed overseas credentials, illustrates that even respected institutions can falter. Following unrecoverable debts and the loss of its accreditation licence, ITPNZ entered liquidation, leaving many professionals and students in limbo. Both the NZ Herald report and the ITPNZ official closure notice4 confirm that this outcome stemmed from ongoing financial challenges. Evidently, a recent article published on ITPNZ’s full paid membership page has confirmed the details of its closure and liquidation. It is therefore imperative to restore the honour and credibility once attached to tertiary qualifications, ensuring that those who earned them through rigour and sacrifice receive the recognition they deserve.
By comparison, in earlier decades, the pursuit of a tertiary qualification was revered as a mark of intellect and perseverance. Nations such as Singapore exemplified this ideal, where entry into the former University of Singapore, now the National University of Singapore (NUS), was reserved for individuals of exceptional diligence and ability. Remarkably, NUS continues to rank among the top twenty-five universities worldwide, reflecting its enduring prestige and influence. Singapore’s Ministry of Education continues to produce exemplary government scholars, with educators trained across multiple disciplines, often required to complete double majors and minors. Such achievement symbolised not only knowledge but moral integrity and scholarly discipline. Graduates from these tertiary institutions were held in the highest esteem, their qualifications representing the collective advancement of their nation. In the olden era, education, rightly esteemed, cultivates reverence and moral strength; virtues our modern world must urgently reclaim.
What’s more, have we also forgotten our public servants who labour faithfully for the nation’s well-being? In that light, many have studied hard to earn the credentials that enable them to serve with competence and humility. On the contrary, increasing disrespect and public slander have driven many to resign, eroding morale and damaging mental health. Hereby, society must rediscover compassion and gratitude toward those who sustain essential services. In doing so, churches and communities must also recognise the emotional strain borne by these individuals, some of whom have been laid off or taken settlements under New Zealand’s employment legislation. Not only that, empathy mirrors the heart of Christ and restores dignity to those who serve quietly and faithfully.
Henceforward, unequivocally stated that cheating within academia is neither acceptable nor ethical. It is vitally crucial that all tertiary institutions act decisively, prosecuting where necessary, against dishonest conduct such as providing or receiving unauthorised assistance during quizzes, including the sharing of answers or copying another student’s responses, which constitutes cheating. Primarily, academic leaders must ensure that integrity is upheld at all times and that honest students are not unfairly reprimanded for the misconduct of others. It is equally concerning when disruptive students disturb learning environments while those genuinely affected are wrongly penalised, undermining academic integrity, which is the cornerstone of trust and excellence. Without it, qualifications lose all meaning, and every learner must pursue knowledge with honesty, discipline, and respect for truth, for integrity in study reflects integrity in life.
In accordance, such realities compel us to reconsider how society values education itself. If tertiary institutions can collapse, and qualified individuals remain underappreciated. In that case, the meaning of qualification must be redefined, not as an economic tool but as a symbol of moral endurance and a lifelong pursuit of wisdom.
In light of the above, we must restore equilibrium between learning and practice so that neither is elevated at the other’s expense. A truly educated society values every contributor, both the scholar and the skilled worker, and provides room for each to thrive with dignity and purpose.
Consequently, let us move forward with renewed conviction, ensuring that education and employment work hand in hand to cultivate a fair, inclusive, and flourishing society. On that note, every qualification, like every act of labour, bears significance, for both reflect human perseverance and the pursuit of excellence in service to others.
In reflection, Proverbs 22:29 reminds us that those who are skilled in their work will stand before kings, not before obscure individuals, and as Colossians 3:23 calls us to labour wholeheartedly, as unto the Lord, not for human praise. Nevertheless, both skill and diligence, whether through study or experience, are gifts from God entrusted for the betterment of others. Finally, let us uphold integrity in every task, honour learning in all its forms, and remember that our labour, grounded in faith and humility, is never in vain before the eyes of God.
Ultimately, are we, as a society, truly honouring those who labour faithfully, study diligently, and serve selflessly, or have we allowed complacency to erode the respect that once defined our shared humanity?
In light of the above, you can refer to the full written article published on Substack: substack.com....
Time to Tickle Your Thinker 🧠
If a zookeeper had 100 pairs of animals in her zoo, and two pairs of babies are born for each one of the original animals, then (sadly) 23 animals don’t survive, how many animals do you have left in total?
Do you think you know the answer? Simply 'Like' this post and we'll post the answer in the comments below at 2pm on the day!
Want to stop seeing these in your newsfeed? No worries! Simply head here and click once on the Following button.
Seen, Unseen, and Still Serving — Before We Speak: The Measure of Our Responsibility and Trust!
Why work, mental health, public service, and respect demand a deeper understanding of sympathy and empathy as we embody the body of Christ and bear witness to others?
At first glance, the debate surrounding working from home versus working in the office appears to centre on efficiency, accountability, and organisational performance. Yet, such a framing remains insufficient. At a deeper level, this debate reveals something far more searching about how society understands work, how it speaks about those who serve within complex systems, and how readily empathy is extended when suffering is not immediately visible.
Too often, public discourse proceeds as though all workers experience labour in identical ways, as though personal circumstances are uniform, and as though human resilience is inexhaustible. In opposition to this, Scripture resists such flattening of experience. More precisely, humanity is portrayed as embodied and relational, entrusted with meaningful labour rather than labour that overwhelms or diminishes dignity, as stated in Genesis 2:15.1 From this standpoint, when work is discussed without attentiveness to context, power, and vulnerability, harm inevitably follows.
For many individuals, working from home has enabled continued participation in employment that might otherwise have become unsustainable. Of particular note, reduced commuting demands, increased flexibility, and greater capacity to attend to health and caregiving responsibilities have allowed people to remain engaged rather than excluded. Viewed in this way, remote work has not constituted indulgence but survival. On this basis, the biblical call to bear one another’s burdens is not theoretical but profoundly practical, as stated in Galatians 6:2.
Set against this, it must also be recognised that working in the office continues to carry relational and communal significance. It is worth noting that physical presence allows trust to emerge through ordinary interaction, mentoring to develop organically, and concern to be perceived before distress escalates into crisis. Within such settings, the workplace may function as a site of shared responsibility rather than surveillance. In parallel, Scripture affirms this relational vision, reminding communities that formation occurs not merely through shared task but through shared life, as stated in Acts 2:42 – 47.
At this point, a more confronting question arises. Put plainly, how readily are judgments formed about experiences never personally encountered? By extension, how frequently are circumstances interpreted through one’s own lens rather than approached with a willingness to understand another’s? At this juncture, the wisdom tradition speaks directly into this tendency, urging restraint in speech and attentiveness in listening, as stated in James 1:19. Absent such restraint, debates about work move beyond disagreement and begin to wound those already carrying exhaustion, grief, or quiet struggle.
In answer to this, traditions that prioritise listening and discernment offer a necessary corrective. Notably, the New Zealand National Baptist Hui of 2024 and 2025, convened in accordance with commitments to collective reflection and shared responsibility, were grounded in the conviction that wisdom emerges through attentive presence, humility, and openness to diverse perspectives. Practically speaking, these gatherings prioritised shared discernment and prayerful listening, thereby modelling a form of community that resists efficiency as its primary value. Within this framework, difference was approached with care rather than suspicion, and herein lies a challenge to contemporary workplaces and public discourse alike. Taken together, such an approach affirms that understanding is formed relationally rather than transactionally. In turn, these hui offer a compelling example of how communities may be shaped by humility, restraint, and mutual regard rather than assumption or control.2
With this in mind, the manner in which public servants are spoken about demands particular care. Over recent years, many within the public service have endured sustained pressure, heightened scrutiny, and a marked erosion of respect from members of the public. In effect, such roles require absorbing frustration and hostility directed at systems over which individual employees hold limited control, while simultaneously maintaining professionalism, neutrality, and restraint. As a result, these conditions impose an undue and unnecessary emotional burden upon those whose labour exists for the benefit of the wider community.
Beyond this, public servants operate within constraints rarely visible from the outside. Specifically, legislative frameworks, political direction, confidentiality obligations, and persistently high workloads shape daily practice, often amid limited resources and minimal margin for error. Importantly, evidence from the Public Service Commission confirms that significant proportions of public servants experience ongoing work-related stress and mental health strain. On that note, these findings are not abstractions. Rather, they represent people who continue to serve faithfully while carrying responsibility for outcomes that affect the well-being of communities and the nation as a whole.
Within this reality, assumptions that working in the public service is easy require gentle but honest correction. For those who hold such views, placing oneself within these roles would offer a sobering and necessary perspective, as only lived experience reveals the intensity of the work, the constraints under which it is performed, and the moral weight such responsibilities carry. In that light, public servants do not merely complete tasks. Instead, such roles require acting ethically and professionally at all times, upholding the Privacy Act and a wide range of government legislation, the scope of which varies according to department and sector. Moreover, many public servants are sworn under a secrecy oath, binding them to protect sensitive information, internal processes, and the public trust, even in the face of misunderstanding or criticism. Furthermore, ethical integrity is consistently required, including the declaration of any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest, such as when family members are employed within the public service, and this obligation must be upheld with full professionalism at all times.
In fulfilling these obligations, responsibility is borne for people, information, and decisions that shape the life of communities and the country, often under considerable pressure and with limited freedom to respond publicly. Within these constraints, public servants are frequently able to disclose the stress arising from their roles only to a trusted counsellor, bound by confidentiality and professional care, and not within their own family.
Alongside these demands, another reality remains largely unspoken. Namely, confidentiality and non-disclosure requirements frequently prevent public servants from speaking openly about workplace experiences. As a consequence, inaccurate narratives are often left unchallenged. Silence, however, is easily misinterpreted. Here again, Scripture cautions against such misjudgement, reminding readers not to assess one another by outward appearance alone, as stated in 1 Samuel 16:7.
Nor, importantly, does the impact of public service necessarily conclude when employment ends. Instead, transitioning out of such roles can prove difficult, as skills developed within complex public systems are not always readily recognised elsewhere. At the same time, many former public servants continue to live with the mental health consequences of prolonged stress, including burnout and anxiety, while carrying the fear of being questioned about why employment ceased or has not resumed. In such moments, even casually posed enquiries may reopen wounds that remain unresolved.
Consequently, a persistent cultural assumption endures that working for the government is easy or insulated from harm. To maintain such a view, however, is to overlook the intensity, constraint, and moral responsibility inherent in public service. On the other hand, such assumptions often fail to recognise the degree of trust and honesty upon which public service depends, without realising that public servants can be trusted to act with integrity, including where such individuals serve wholeheartedly in their ministry roles voluntarily as well, even when their work is misunderstood or unseen. In reality, these roles uphold systems that sustain education, health, justice, social support, and democratic trust. Through such labour, communities are shaped, the vulnerable are protected, and society is enabled to function.
In light of the above, the present conversation demands more than opinion. Rather, it calls for inward examination and outward care. Specifically, it calls for sympathy that acknowledges suffering, empathy that seeks understanding, and love demonstrated not merely through words but through restraint, reflection, and action. Equally, it calls for resistance to boundaries that isolate, exclude, or silence, particularly when such barriers deepen loneliness rather than foster community.
Finally, the question is not whether working from home or working in the office is preferable. Instead, the more pressing question concerns how one chooses to speak, judge, and respond. Most importantly, if life appears easy from a distance, then perhaps the invitation is to step into another’s shoes rather than to speak from afar. Nevertheless, such a posture requires humility, attentiveness to inward thought, and love enacted through outward expression.
Let’s allow this discomfort to form us, for such unease often marks the beginning of greater understanding and demands sympathy, empathy, and support, calling us decisively towards unity and shared responsibility
Atua (God) Bless.
** Please check out the article below, which I have published on Substack: nzanonymouschristian.substack.com....
Poll: As a customer, what do you think about automation?
The Press investigates the growing reliance on your unpaid labour.
Automation (or the “unpaid shift”) is often described as efficient ... but it tends to benefit employers more than consumers.
We want to know: What do you think about automation?
Are you for, or against?
-
9.5% For. Self-service is less frustrating and convenient.
-
43.4% I want to be able to choose.
-
47.1% Against. I want to deal with people.
Loading…
