A few weeks ago, there was a Muslim woman being guilty of consuming alcoholic drink in a bar and eventually was sentenced to caning. As expected, there was a huge debate in the print media as well as the Internet whether the sentence should proceed, and the debate is still and I bet will be alive for a long time.
To cane or not to cane is not a big issue. Whether she is actually obeying or teasing the Muslim is also not an issue. There is a bigger issue than that. It is whether the Muslims are willing to accept either Islam is a closed system or Islam is an open system.
A closed system means that there will be no further discussion or review over Islamic matters that were decided by scholars of the past centuries. Basically, it means the Muslims must accept whatever the fatwas or judgements which were written nearly a thousand years ago. Typically, it is called "taqlid" in Arab which simply means "to obey or follow", if I'm not mistaken.
On the contrary, an open system, just like a computer system, means that there are rooms for arguments and discussions over Islamic matters, regardless whether it is about syariah, ibadah, akidah, etc.
If the Muslims think that Islam is a closed system, then there is no point of discussion. As far as I know, as I didn't study religion, the punishment for consuming alcohol drink is caning. It means there is no debate whatsoever.
If the Muslims think that Islam is an open system, then debate should be allowed either in public or by invitation only.
Unfortunately, I'm of the opinion that the followers of the closed system are the majority and dominant. I don't think there is any room to talk about because the followers of the closed system will not allow you to do so. If you start talking about it, then there will be a lot of condemnations and accusations from all over.
I believe that religion is about interpretation, whatever religion it is. I hope there will be a lot of discussions and forums on the interpretation of the Quran, the Holy Book. We are living in the 21st century with new technologies, therefore some of them have to reviewed. Muslims must dig and study back all the references and literature they can find in the past.
I believe Islam is not completely a closed system and that is why God gives us the Holy Book to show us the right way. Evidence in the Holy Book points that we are encouraged to think, use our brain and heart. More importantly, we pray to God that we do not follow the wrong way at least 17 times a day. It means that continuously staying in the right path is very important.
Allahu 'alam.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Pension scheme for non-government servants
I am to glad to hear that the government is interested and studying on how to make it happen. In the local newspaper dated Friday 24 July 2009, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) is considering to offer pension scheme for people who work in the private sector. The operation of the scheme is still under study.
Currently, pension scheme is only offered to government servants which means that they can choose to withdraw the entire sum of money in the fund upon retirement or they can choose to take pension.
I'd mentioned before in my blog the imporantce of pension scheme for all. Thumbs up to the MOF.
Currently, pension scheme is only offered to government servants which means that they can choose to withdraw the entire sum of money in the fund upon retirement or they can choose to take pension.
I'd mentioned before in my blog the imporantce of pension scheme for all. Thumbs up to the MOF.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Poor response from the Ministry of Health
As of Monday, 10 August 2009, it was reported in the media that the H1N1 pandemic has taken 32 lives in Malaysia since the outbreak. Immediately, when I heard the news I went to the Ministry of Health website. In the Internet era I think it was a natural instinct or response people made.
Unfortunately, the website of the Malaysian Ministry of Health was not helpful. There was no link to H1N1 despite the increasing number of people dying due to the disease. The appearance of the Ministry of Health did not show any indication that H1N1 was really a pandemic.
I expected to see some warning of what people should do and should not do. At least show some statistics or any information to indicate the status of the pandemic. I did not see much action in there.
It seems to me that the Ministry of Health is not trying its best to keep the general public well-informed. Just because the news are reported in TV or radio news, it does not mean that the job is done. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to provide information to the public. Come on guys, not everybody are watching evening news.
To me, the way the Ministry of Health handle the H1N1 pandemic is poor. They could have done better.
Unfortunately, the website of the Malaysian Ministry of Health was not helpful. There was no link to H1N1 despite the increasing number of people dying due to the disease. The appearance of the Ministry of Health did not show any indication that H1N1 was really a pandemic.
I expected to see some warning of what people should do and should not do. At least show some statistics or any information to indicate the status of the pandemic. I did not see much action in there.
It seems to me that the Ministry of Health is not trying its best to keep the general public well-informed. Just because the news are reported in TV or radio news, it does not mean that the job is done. It is the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to provide information to the public. Come on guys, not everybody are watching evening news.
To me, the way the Ministry of Health handle the H1N1 pandemic is poor. They could have done better.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Wrong decision Muhyidin
In my opinion, yesterday, July 8, 2009, was the day when Muhyidin ultimately gave the rich and have ones the upper hand to maintain their status quo, while the poor and have not ones will have to remain in their circle if no supports are given.
Why? It is simply because the rich can just send their children to private schools. Even now, the rich are sending their children to overseas universities in the UK, US or Australia. Just look a the top 20 universities in the world. Most of them are using English as the medium.
The irony of this debate whether to use English as the medium of instruction or not is that those people who made the decision for the government also have the means to send their own children to private schools, local or abroad. And, they will do before 2012.
I'm pretty sure about this. Ask any parents. Ask them, if they got the money, which schools are they going to send to children? I bet it's gonna be the international schools or private schools. This is again another wrong decision made by the government.
The problem is while the government acknowledge that English is important, the government do not know how to teach English to children in the government schools. I really thought the quality of English among students has improved, but actually it is not.
From my short experience of being a tutor in the oldest university in Malaysia, my conclusion is that the quality is not improving which could be due to the wrong pedagogy used in the government schools. I can say this because out of, say, 10 written papers that I had examined and marked, students still do not know how to construct a proper English sentence. They do not know which one is verb, which one is noun, etc.
It was a frustrating experience because that was my first experience of teaching after finishing my Phd. I could not understand what they were trying to tell in their assignments. I'm talking about university students who are studying at supposedly the top university in Malaysia. The quality of writing is not there yet.
In fact, it is not wrong for me to say that university lecturers who failed to pass their Phd in the UK are the ones who are poor in English. Accept the fact that Phd is about putting your ideas into words. If your English is not up to standard, you will fail your Phd.
In conclusion, I resent the decision to scrap off PPSMI. The government are not bold enough to stand up to say that PPSMI is indeed a brave decision the government ever made. PPSMI has the potential to pave the way towards a better commonly unified version of government schools. To establish the link between the poor examination results and PPSMI at this infant stage of implementation is not fair. Improve the pedagogy and the result will prove it.
Why? It is simply because the rich can just send their children to private schools. Even now, the rich are sending their children to overseas universities in the UK, US or Australia. Just look a the top 20 universities in the world. Most of them are using English as the medium.
The irony of this debate whether to use English as the medium of instruction or not is that those people who made the decision for the government also have the means to send their own children to private schools, local or abroad. And, they will do before 2012.
I'm pretty sure about this. Ask any parents. Ask them, if they got the money, which schools are they going to send to children? I bet it's gonna be the international schools or private schools. This is again another wrong decision made by the government.
The problem is while the government acknowledge that English is important, the government do not know how to teach English to children in the government schools. I really thought the quality of English among students has improved, but actually it is not.
From my short experience of being a tutor in the oldest university in Malaysia, my conclusion is that the quality is not improving which could be due to the wrong pedagogy used in the government schools. I can say this because out of, say, 10 written papers that I had examined and marked, students still do not know how to construct a proper English sentence. They do not know which one is verb, which one is noun, etc.
It was a frustrating experience because that was my first experience of teaching after finishing my Phd. I could not understand what they were trying to tell in their assignments. I'm talking about university students who are studying at supposedly the top university in Malaysia. The quality of writing is not there yet.
In fact, it is not wrong for me to say that university lecturers who failed to pass their Phd in the UK are the ones who are poor in English. Accept the fact that Phd is about putting your ideas into words. If your English is not up to standard, you will fail your Phd.
In conclusion, I resent the decision to scrap off PPSMI. The government are not bold enough to stand up to say that PPSMI is indeed a brave decision the government ever made. PPSMI has the potential to pave the way towards a better commonly unified version of government schools. To establish the link between the poor examination results and PPSMI at this infant stage of implementation is not fair. Improve the pedagogy and the result will prove it.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Proposal of pension fund for non-civil service servants
After fifty years of independence, based on my own observation in Malaysia, in the long run I think people who work in the civil service sector are better off than people who work in the private sector. True, indeed I think it is true.
Malaysia is still a young country and still learning. One thing for sure this country is still learning is that how to manage pension fund. After fifty years of independence, the country might not yet be able to gauge the good and bad about the existing practice of pension plan.
The reason why I think civil servants are better off is that civil servants get pension after they're retired. If they pass away during retirement, the pension will be paid to their spouse or children who are under 18. In that sense, their welfare is secured in the long term because their pension are 'unlimited'. I don't know how 'unlimited' is that, but for that reason alone the civil servants are better off.
Compared with the non-civil service servants, they will only receive their Employees Provident Fund (EPF) money which is limited, subject to how much fund they have accumulated during their years of work. Once the EPF money is finished, they are risking themselves to be financially stranded. For that reason alone, their welfare are not taken care of and therefore they are worse off.
Yes, I agree that the civil service servants pay might be not that attractive, but the 'unlimited' pension is a big incentive, if the information I have about government pension is correct. So if the civil servants think carefully about it, they should appreciate and committed to their job. There should be no more complaints about public services.
Therefore, I think it is about time for the government to think about the welfare of non-civil service servants. I reckon a big portions of them would be people who work in the factories or plantations. They are contributing to the economic growth of the country as well, so they should be rewarded with a good pension plan.
Based on my observation, the existing pension plan is not doing good enough to the retirees of private sectors. For example, I was informed that most of the retirees will finish consuming their EPF money within four to five years. It means that they have to be prepared to go back to work after five years after retirement. Who will take retirees?
Currently, the compulsory retirement age is 58 for the public sector. Assuming that the private sector is following suit, I doubt that employers will take the retirees back to employment. For many people, I believe it is difficult to absorb and digest.
As a result, it is about time for the government to take charge and lead the way regarding the pension plan for private sectors workers. In the UK for example, both public and private workers are entitled to national pension as long as they contributed sufficiently to the national insurance fund in terms of the amount of money and the duration of contribution. It means workers welfare are somewhat well-protected.
It is reasonable that the government should take care of labours, regardless of whom they are working for, as all of them are doing good to the nation. Currently, every worker and his/her employer are contributing to the EPF monthly.
My proposal is like this. I suggest that the government to chip in money into the workers fund, so that the private workers will have extra money in their pension fund. It means that the pension fund for the private sectors will consist of three sources instead of two, i.e. the workers themselves, their employers and the government. This fund will be accessible by the private workers only when they reach retirement age or disability. Basically, the private sectors workers will have more money in their pension fund. However, the government must not allow the private workers to use the money like they do now with part of their EPF money. That's the main purpose of the extra fund.
Although the proposal will increase the government expenses on pension, it is necessary and fair exercise. At least, those who are working hard in the factories and plantations will feel that the government appreciates their contribution. In fact, everyone will feel that the government is doing the right thing and looking after its own people. Furthermore, it gives incentive and motivation to local people to work hard. Otherwise, the country will be swamped with too many illegal immigrants which is already happening for so many years.
Malaysia is still a young country and still learning. One thing for sure this country is still learning is that how to manage pension fund. After fifty years of independence, the country might not yet be able to gauge the good and bad about the existing practice of pension plan.
The reason why I think civil servants are better off is that civil servants get pension after they're retired. If they pass away during retirement, the pension will be paid to their spouse or children who are under 18. In that sense, their welfare is secured in the long term because their pension are 'unlimited'. I don't know how 'unlimited' is that, but for that reason alone the civil servants are better off.
Compared with the non-civil service servants, they will only receive their Employees Provident Fund (EPF) money which is limited, subject to how much fund they have accumulated during their years of work. Once the EPF money is finished, they are risking themselves to be financially stranded. For that reason alone, their welfare are not taken care of and therefore they are worse off.
Yes, I agree that the civil service servants pay might be not that attractive, but the 'unlimited' pension is a big incentive, if the information I have about government pension is correct. So if the civil servants think carefully about it, they should appreciate and committed to their job. There should be no more complaints about public services.
Therefore, I think it is about time for the government to think about the welfare of non-civil service servants. I reckon a big portions of them would be people who work in the factories or plantations. They are contributing to the economic growth of the country as well, so they should be rewarded with a good pension plan.
Based on my observation, the existing pension plan is not doing good enough to the retirees of private sectors. For example, I was informed that most of the retirees will finish consuming their EPF money within four to five years. It means that they have to be prepared to go back to work after five years after retirement. Who will take retirees?
Currently, the compulsory retirement age is 58 for the public sector. Assuming that the private sector is following suit, I doubt that employers will take the retirees back to employment. For many people, I believe it is difficult to absorb and digest.
As a result, it is about time for the government to take charge and lead the way regarding the pension plan for private sectors workers. In the UK for example, both public and private workers are entitled to national pension as long as they contributed sufficiently to the national insurance fund in terms of the amount of money and the duration of contribution. It means workers welfare are somewhat well-protected.
It is reasonable that the government should take care of labours, regardless of whom they are working for, as all of them are doing good to the nation. Currently, every worker and his/her employer are contributing to the EPF monthly.
My proposal is like this. I suggest that the government to chip in money into the workers fund, so that the private workers will have extra money in their pension fund. It means that the pension fund for the private sectors will consist of three sources instead of two, i.e. the workers themselves, their employers and the government. This fund will be accessible by the private workers only when they reach retirement age or disability. Basically, the private sectors workers will have more money in their pension fund. However, the government must not allow the private workers to use the money like they do now with part of their EPF money. That's the main purpose of the extra fund.
Although the proposal will increase the government expenses on pension, it is necessary and fair exercise. At least, those who are working hard in the factories and plantations will feel that the government appreciates their contribution. In fact, everyone will feel that the government is doing the right thing and looking after its own people. Furthermore, it gives incentive and motivation to local people to work hard. Otherwise, the country will be swamped with too many illegal immigrants which is already happening for so many years.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Lack of passion could be the answer
At this point I can concur that a lack of passion could be the reason why the conference and colloquium that I had attended before did not meet my expectation. They were dull and plain. In fact, passion could be the main reason why we fail or success.
May be I can relate to my experience while staying in the UK. Football is big in there. Every big city and small have their own football club. Size does not matter. Passion is more important. I can tell how busy and crowded it was on a match day. Football fans are very passionate about football. That could be the reason why their league is famous and envied by all.
You can tell that the quality of football either at La Liga in Spain or Serie A in Itali is not much different from the EPL. The players skills are almost at par with each other. The quality is indifference, but the difference is that it is noisier in the EPL, which means their passion is very high. When passion is high, it makes life more excited and meaningful. Whether your team lose or win, it doesn't matter because you're passionate with your team.
I certainly believe that passion and success are related. So, next time, be more passionate in your work and you'll be rewarded, insya Allah.
May be I can relate to my experience while staying in the UK. Football is big in there. Every big city and small have their own football club. Size does not matter. Passion is more important. I can tell how busy and crowded it was on a match day. Football fans are very passionate about football. That could be the reason why their league is famous and envied by all.
You can tell that the quality of football either at La Liga in Spain or Serie A in Itali is not much different from the EPL. The players skills are almost at par with each other. The quality is indifference, but the difference is that it is noisier in the EPL, which means their passion is very high. When passion is high, it makes life more excited and meaningful. Whether your team lose or win, it doesn't matter because you're passionate with your team.
I certainly believe that passion and success are related. So, next time, be more passionate in your work and you'll be rewarded, insya Allah.
Friday, April 17, 2009
More academic discussion
A few days ago I had the opportunity to attend to a colloquium in one of local univ. In the last post, I mentioned about the lack of healthy and useful discussion which I observed from a seminar I attended last month.
Unfortunately, it still happens and it bothers me. This is even worse because a colloquium is supposed to be an academic discussion in nature. It means that the discussion on theories and applications should be more rigorous. Moreover, the colloquium was presented by a foreign professor who I thought was quite impressive in his talk.
When someone finished talking and followed by Q&A, there are two assumptions can be made. First, if the audiences are engaging and knowledgeable, then there will be a lot of Q&As. Second, if there are only one or two questions asked, then the assumption is either the audience clearly understood what he/she was talking about or the audience understood nothing.
Going back to the colloquium at the local univ. that I attended, I have reservation because the latter took place. First, the talk was less than one hour, to be precise it was about 45 minutes. The ones I usually went at the Univ. of Bath easily took one hour, more often one and half hours. Second, there were only three questions in the Q&A session.
From quantitative view, it sounds not good. If the audiences were more knowledgeable, the numbers should be bigger. Of course, I cannot judge the quality because it is subjective. Furthermore, the professor was a foreigner. I'm sure he was paid handsomely to come over here and give a talk.
I wish the colloquium was more lively because that is what the foreign professor was paid for.
Unfortunately, it still happens and it bothers me. This is even worse because a colloquium is supposed to be an academic discussion in nature. It means that the discussion on theories and applications should be more rigorous. Moreover, the colloquium was presented by a foreign professor who I thought was quite impressive in his talk.
When someone finished talking and followed by Q&A, there are two assumptions can be made. First, if the audiences are engaging and knowledgeable, then there will be a lot of Q&As. Second, if there are only one or two questions asked, then the assumption is either the audience clearly understood what he/she was talking about or the audience understood nothing.
Going back to the colloquium at the local univ. that I attended, I have reservation because the latter took place. First, the talk was less than one hour, to be precise it was about 45 minutes. The ones I usually went at the Univ. of Bath easily took one hour, more often one and half hours. Second, there were only three questions in the Q&A session.
From quantitative view, it sounds not good. If the audiences were more knowledgeable, the numbers should be bigger. Of course, I cannot judge the quality because it is subjective. Furthermore, the professor was a foreigner. I'm sure he was paid handsomely to come over here and give a talk.
I wish the colloquium was more lively because that is what the foreign professor was paid for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
