Offline

My laptop was attacked by a vicious virus last week. Everything on my hard disc was completely deleted. Even the operating system went kaput. What's worse, all the work I did in the last four weeks for my thesis vanished too (monthly backup is clearly insufficient). I took it to three different PC clinics and every one gave me the same answer - all data is lost and the only way out is to re-format the hard disc and reinstall everything. Depressing week. To cheer myself up, I did a little retail therapy. And a new notebook will arrive next week. Some therapy!!! I now have a spare Toshiba Satellite Z25, which has just benefitted from a £150 repair and still have two years extended warranty. I dislike using my desktop - I find the keyboard cumbersome. So, I will not be posting anything serious until the new machine arrives.

On Bangsa Malaysia

Usually I would avoid a "copy and paste" of articles on this page. But the speech below, given by Dato Seri Lim Keng Yaik attracted my attention so much that I thought it would be unfair for me to just quote a few paragraphs. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I agree wholeheartedly (yet) with the speech. But any serious observer should refer to the full text before forming his / her mind. See full text below: Keynote Address by Dato’ Seri Dr.Lim Keng Yaik President Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia At the Anak Malaysia Convention Held at Grand Ballroom, Grand Seasons Hotel, Kuala Lumpur On 13th August 2005 Introduction I am grateful for being invited to speak at this Anak Malaysia Convention jointly organised by Gerakan Youth, Sedar Institute and Friedrich Naumann Stiftung. I congratulate the organisers for a job well done. My warmest regards to all distinguished guests, speakers, participants and members of Parti Gerakan. Ladies and gentlemen, this convention is timely because there is a serious need to rethink and review our nation-building project. It is only through a sincere and open review that we are able to identify and measure its success and failure, issues and challenges in order to help us achieve the desired national unity. National unity should not be interpreted as a communitarian ideology. The discourse of national unity entrapped within the sole purpose of breeding homogeneity or conformity does not reflect a clear understanding of the social landscape of our modern society. In turn, I urge you to consider our proposition of looking at national unity using a pair of multicultural and multiracial lenses. Consequently, the dynamics that help to foster national unity are essentially diverse and different. But within this diversity, we can find a true synergy and strength which is far stronger than homogeneity. Our nation-building project is supposed to create such positive outcome of national unity. However, a sense of national unity cannot be fostered through mere rhetoric or symbolism. Singing patriotic songs is good but singing them as an act of ritual is useless and meaningless. A sense of commitment to the nation and to the society must come intrinsically from within one’s heart and soul. This is what I called a sense of belonging and a sense of shared common identity to the country and to the society. Gerakan’s Proposition of Bangsa Malaysia Today, we would like to make you a proposition to consider coming together to foster a sense of belonging and a sense of shared common identity. At Gerakan, we call this proposition the creation of a truly ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. For this proposition to become a reality, we believe that our youths or our ‘Anak-anak Malaysia’ play a key role. Our younger generation should be taught to appreciate and respect the country’s rich cultural diversity and that it is essential for them to work together to face multifarious challenges of global scale. These diverse cultural values are our wealth and not a liability. The foundation of a society should be built from its diverse cultural values in order to shape its shared common destiny and identity. Moreover, I truly believe that for Malaysia and its people to come together as a nation, we need to learn to understand, accept and celebrate our pluralistic nature. Pluralism, I believe is an essentialist element of a Bangsa Malaysia. We should not deny our shared cultural heritage. Over the years, each and every community in Malaysia has absorbed and assimilated elements from other communities into their language, art, music, lifestyle, food and others. Is Bangsa Malaysia a reality or myth? The answer lies in the decision you make today. A nation-building project is never an easy one. Many countries took centuries to build a nation and a society. A great number of these societies were broken down and torn apart by unscrupulous conflicts masked by racial or religious overtones. Hence, different actors in the society must always be mindful of their action and interaction. We ought to practice self-discipline and to observe respect for our fellow countrymen of other races or faiths. We need to build our society or a truly Malaysian race not by getting overly obsessed with a few racial or religious conflicts but to build on our centuries of inter-ethnic relations, understanding, goodwill and cooperation. Moving forward, I urge you to conduct a critical assessment of our nation-building project. After almost 50 years of independence, do we have a general consensus on the concept of Bangsa Malaysia? Are we ready to embrace this concept? What are the characteristics of a Bangsa Malaysia? These are several pertinent questions to get today’s discussion on the ball. The Making of a Truly Bangsa Malaysia In my own assessment, there are several challenges and obstacles to our nation-building project and the creation of a Bangsa Malaysia. First, the project is faced with a ‘historical burden’ which must be removed. It stemmed from a politically motivated view of interpreting our historical past. For example, the dominant historical narration of our struggles for national independence and the formulation of the social contract between the main races often take a very narrow communal slant. An often repeated reminder to the Chinese and Indian community in this country is that the government did them a great favour by granting them citizenship to stay in this country. Hence, they should be grateful and beholden to the state. The making of statehood cannot be based on a static interpretation of history. How can we ask these communities to sacrifice and devote their energy, resources and time to help in nation-building if they are often demoralised by such statement? An objective narration and documentation of history is a dynamic process. Our society has gone through together horrid time of the cruelty of colonialism, imperialism and other challenges. We have survived and thrived as a society. Perhaps, it is timely that the future narration of history can reflect more on our join struggles and collaborations. We cannot achieve much as a society and as a nation – with a first-world ambition – if we continue to deprive our younger generation of a true reflection of history. Second, I find that our sense of ethnicity or religiosity is stronger than our sense of nationhood and citizenship. I am worried that this way we are promoting and expanding our existing racial and religious silos. Most of the policy debates, social discussions or societal dialogues are exclusively race or religious centric. There are not many Malaysian centric dialogues or discussions. I can only generalise that the idea of a shared common destiny and a shared common identity has not sink into the mainstream thinking yet. We still put race and religion first, and society and nation second. Thus far, our national unity efforts are polemical, ritualistic and artificial at best. Henceforth, I would be interested to listen to suggestions from our speakers on how to reverse the current mindset. Third, we need a political paradigm shift. Our model of power sharing is not premised on a zero-sum game. I would like to urge all politicians and aspiring politicians to look inside-out instead of outside-in. We have to be externally focused and forward looking. Remember, narrow communal assertion, slogan and chest-beating will only create more racist reactions. We need to re-examine the relevance and impact of populist race-centric political approach. We need to find if this approach is detrimental to our nation-building project and national unity agenda. Fourth, I would like to warn Malaysians of a culture of exclusivity which is breeding in our society. This culture is trying to create exclusive groups within our society. What this culture is saying is if you are not one of us, you should mind your own business. Inevitably, this culture is limiting inter-civilisation dialogue and discussion. Another trajectory from this culture is the establishment of extremist groups which promote dangerous ideology and belief. The government has taken serious actions against any form of extremism and all kinds of extremist bantering. Fortunately, Barisan Nasional leaders are mindful that we need to protect our pluralistic nature. The most challenging task is identifying a set of shared common values which all Malaysians can embrace and adopt as a collective value system. Perhaps, this forum could make an attempt to identify some of these shared common values and norms. Harmonise Bangsa Malaysia with the New National Agenda Nearly 50 years since independence, evidently our nation is searching for a new agenda. Over the past few weeks, our political scene is buzzing with a new proposal to adopt and implement a “New National Agenda”. In the era of globalisation characterises by constant change, we need a new agenda or a development strategy to ensure that we are keeping up with these changes. In this regard, our nation-building project should be harmonised with this new national agenda. To construct an inclusive and conclusive national agenda, promoters of this agenda should understand the current realities faced by the nation. The agenda must be able to withstand rigorous public scrutiny. The essential elements in the agenda must be able to address current challenges faced by the society. The agenda must also be broad enough to accommodate the aspirations of all Malaysians, and not just any particular community alone. We cannot resurrect something old and outdated from the past and call it ‘new’. This act is similar to pouring old sour wine into a new bottle. If we are not willing to embark upon a paradigm shift, this new national agenda will be an effort in futility. Conclusion Gerakan is not pioneering a new movement or creating a new community of ‘Bangsa Malaysia’. We believe that intrinsically, deep down the heart of all Malaysians, they cannot find any explicit reason to reject this proposition. A journey of a thousand miles must start with a first grand step. It is time that we examine how far we have travelled and the direction we are taking after almost 50 years of independence. Finally, I hope you will this convention meaningful and worthwhile. Thank you.

On seeking paradise

Finished Desperately Seeking Paradise yesterday. Excellent book. I have a few comments to make but will leave that for later. I find the book so engaging such that I have ordered five copies to be sent to several top brass in PAS. They may think I have been influenced by those they label as "Islam Liberal" (btw, this "labeling" needs to stop). But the book contains so much we can learn from, I think it is worth taking the chance. Attended the City Circle yesterday - a panel discussion on how to empower the Muslim communities. I am a bit disappointed with the way it was handled. Since it was a panel discussion, the discussion was not really focused and no one actually presented a way forward on how to empower the Muslims. But I am impressed by the rep of Hizb at-Tahrir and was even more impressed by the panel's ability to unanimously defend HT's right to exist as an organization. This was despite Ehsan Masood's, as chairperson, attempts to make cheap snipes at HT. Will now start reading Freakonomics. I can only afford some light reading now. The courgettes, carrots, aubergines and chilies in my back garden need some extra attention, I may be pressed for time. The grass needs cutting too.

Books, books, books

In the last four weeks, I have bought several books: 1. The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (DiMaggio & Powell) 2. The Other Malaysia (Farish Noor) 3. Islam Embedded (Farish Noor) 4. Setting the people free: the story of democracy (John Dunn) 5. Freakonomics (Levitt & Dubner) 6. The wealth of nations (Adam Smith) 7. Desperately seeking paradise (Ziauddin Sardar) (I blame the last one totally on Abidin as I bought it purely because I read about it on his blog. Let's see if it was a good purchase) I have finished reading Farish Noor's The Other Malaysia. This is an excellent collection of articles and it helped me understand Farish's thinking. I disagree with his almost total devotion to free-will and rational choice (libertarianism) but at least I can understand why. On the whole, I don't think he has the authority to speak about Islam just like I do not have the authority to speak about car manufacturing. The fact that both he and I are Muslims, and the fact that he and I both drive cars do not make either of us an expert in Islam or on cars. But his articles and thoughts on various issues deserve attention and should not be brushed aside. I have also finished John Dunn's Story of Democracy. The text is not easy to understand due to its literary style. The book traces the origin of democracy from the time of Pericles and Thucydides and relates democracy to modern time. It concludes with a discussion on "Why Democracy?". Unless you really want to read an academically oriented critique of democracy, this book is perhaps is perhaps not for you. If I knew better, I wouldn't have bought this book. I am now half-way through Sardar's Desperately Seeking Paradise. What an interesting journey for a man! Another few days and I will be ready to comment. I have a feeling that Islam Embedded and The Wealth of Nations will have to stay on the shelf and collect dust for a few months before I get to read them properly. .

On doctors working abroad

(warning: another long entry) I started my university life by studying medicine. After three years, I realized that I did not want to be a doctor but my sponsor disagreed. They insisted that I complete the medical course even though I repeatedly told them that I would probably not survive doing something I did not enjoy. After four years in medical school, I (perhaps luckily) failed in one of my exams and, to my delight, this then allowed me the opportunity to change course. I moved from medicine to management, gladly paying my own way and even arranged with my former sponsors to re-pay the money they gave me while I was doing medicine. Now that everything is in place, and arrangements have been made with my former sponsor, I am greatly enjoying what I do. But I pity my Malaysian colleagues in medical schools, especially those who are still studying or have graduated from medical schools in the UK. Medicine itself is not an easy subject. It takes at least five long years to complete, which is much longer than most other courses. You have to understand complete textbooks, many which are hundreds pages thick. You have to learn an array of Latin words especially for anatomy (why can’t they use normal English words when naming muscles and bones?). And the expectation on them is high, especially when they graduate. Just take a look at the letters and articles recently published in Malaysian media about Malaysian medical graduates working abroad. They are accused of being greedy, unpatriotic, selfish and ungrateful, to say the least. I am lucky again in that sense. Having not continued with medicine, and after sorting out the finances with my former sponsor, I am not tied to any of these predicaments. Since I paid for my own studies right up to postgraduate level, I am free to do what I want without people calling me ungrateful or greedy. Ethicality of professional training Many of the doctors I know, who are working in the UK and / or Ireland, give relatively similar reasons on why they want to continue their stay in the UK. Contrary to popular belief, money is not the prime motivator among the doctors I know personally. Yes, money is relatively good over here, but most would say they are here because the better post-qualification training. Training is the primary factor. The crux of their argument, usually, is that it is better for a doctor to return home as a consultant rather than just as a junior doctor. Thus, if they are being trained in the UK without the need for Malaysian taxpayers to pay for their training, surely they must be doing all Malaysians a huge favour. While I can sympathise with that argument, I must question the ethicality of the reasoning. Being trained in the UK, paid by British taxpayers, raises serious issues of ethicality. The amount of taxes paid by these doctors while they work in this country almost never equate to the amount of money used for their post-qualification training. Thus, they are effectively using local taxpayers’ money. Is it ethical for Malaysians to use local taxpayers’ money with the aim of using their expertise in a different country (e.g. Malaysia)? The Malaysian doctors working in the UK should realise that they are actually contributing to some of the problems faced by British health services. For most junior to mid-level doctors here, they have to renew their training contract from time to time. Many contracts have to be renewed in August every year. Just last week, the British Medical Association reported that many young doctors are being left without jobs due to the stiffest competition for training places faced by the NHS in years. It was reported that more than 200 applications were received for every training position, with some posts attracting more than 1000 applications. The presence of junior and mid-level doctors, like the Malaysians, who (as they claim) are not planning to stay in Britain permanently are without doubt contributing to this problem. Those Malaysians who have taken up training posts are crowding the system and are preventing doctors who actually want to permanently remain in Britain from taking their rightful training places. Is it ethical for Malaysian doctors (though perhaps not that many) to take up the spaces and the money meant for training doctors who are supposed to remain permanently here? Human resources projection Another issue that these doctors need to consider is Malaysia’s own human resources projection. (In writing this, I am going to assume that the Malaysian Ministry of Health has made a long-term projection on how many medical personnels are needed and this projection is the basis for sending students abroad) Responsible governments would not use the public coffer to sponsor just anyone to go study abroad. I hope the Malaysian government, in sending students abroad, do so based on careful planning and projection. For example, if they send 100 students to do medicine in 2005, this should be done on the projection that at least 90 (assuming 10% drop-out) would return home in 2010 as junior doctors. I want to reiterate my intentional use of the term ‘junior doctors’. When I signed my contract many years ago, it clearly stated that upon graduation, I have to return home to serve for at least 10 years. This must mean they expected me to come back within five years as a junior doctor, not as a specialist. If they want me to come back as a specialist, surely the contract would state that I should come back with an MRCP or FRCS after, say, ten years, not just five. And here is the problem with the doctors’ argument that they want to gain from the ethically questionable ‘free’ training abroad. Who gave them the authority to neglect the country’s need for junior doctors who can be sent to rural areas to be (what Ida Bakar called) ‘workhorses’? How come these once-sponsored students suddenly become too superior to work in rural areas? I would say that once we sign the sponsorship contract, we are morally and legally duty-bound to return to Malaysia to be junior doctors. Yes, becoming specialists may be ideal, but the contract says that you are supposed to serve as junior doctors in Malaysia first. And you signed that contract. Since when does a sponsored student get the moral high-ground to demand and insist that they would only do what they want, without due regard to the commitment they made when signing the contract? I have even heard some say that the government should not sue Malaysian doctors working abroad for repayment. Rather, the government should ‘entice’ them with better pay and better career prospects. This is a sham! To give a simple analogy, if you borrow money from the bank, you have to repay it under the terms agreed in the original loan agreement. The borrower can never say “Now that I have taken the funds, I will repay it whenever I want. The bank must not sue me but it should give me preferential treatment instead”. The receiver of funds cannot dictate such terms, let alone claim the moral high-ground or claim the right to preferential treatment when they fail to observe the terms. Worse still, some of the students who originally said that they are here to exploit the free training have continuously and repeatedly failed in their professional examinations. How many times does one need to fail before admitting that perhaps it would be better to return to Malaysia? Surely there must be a limit for otherwise the contract may never be properly fulfilled. Thus, the argument that they want to stay to be trained does not hold water. Firstly the ethicality of their stay is definitely questionable as they are abusing the British taxpayers’ funds. Secondly, these doctors are legally and morally bound to serve as junior doctors after graduating. They do not have the rights nor the authority to claim otherwise as most responsible governments would sponsor students based on specific projections of the country’s human resources needs. By staying abroad to be trained as specialists, they neglect their obligations to fulfil the terms of their contracts to return as soon as they graduate. Way out Of course there is a way out. The most obvious one is for them to re-pay the money they have received as per the terms of their initial contract. Better still, the graduates can negotiate with their sponsors and sign another agreement to allow them to stay and work / train. Some have done just that. They signed a new agreement with their sponsors, and postponed the date by which they have to return to serve Malaysia. These are the ones who must be admired as they know their responsibilities, and have opted to make formal arrangements to pursue their career and ambition. It is the ones who blatantly breached their contracts that cause irk. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the best way forward is for the government to scrap funding by scholarships altogether. There is absolutely no reason to give free money to anyone, especially if that give-away is racist in nature. A better way forward is to make all funding as loans, rather than scholarships. Repayment can be either by paying back the full cash amount in instalments, or by serving for a fixed period of time. In either case, the agreement must be a loan agreement, not scholarship. The loans must be offered to all Malaysian citizens regardless of race or religion, and the agreement must be enforced in full, without fear or favour. The difference between what I am suggesting and the current system is in the implementation. Firstly, the current scholarship system clearly expects students to serve, not re-pay. If they breach this understanding, they would have to repay only a percentage of the funds. This is ridiculous. Why should those who breach their contract, and refuse to serve, be rewarded with a bulky discount? They should be made to pay the full amount. Secondly, since it is a loan, it is available to anyone regardless of race. The current system clearly favours the Malays. Why should the Malays continue to be favoured when good doctors can come from any race or religion? The current scholarship system is unfair and racially biased. The benefit from this loan system is that everybody becomes obliged to repay by one method or another. If they refuse to pay or to serve, then they must -not ‘could’, but ‘must’- be taken to court, just like any other loans. Yet, they are also not obliged to serve if they do not want to since they can re-pay the money in full if they prefer. This would create choice, and the Malaysian health system itself would naturally be forced to improve if they want to attract the new doctors. If they choose to re-pay the funds, then the same funds can be used to sponsor another student. The Malaysian taxpayers can rest assured that their money is not lost or given away freely. And the doctors can choose where they want to work so long they pay back every sen they have borrowed. By providing loans rather than scholarships, Malaysians of all races stand to benefit. And most importantly, if the terms are observed, Malaysians who graduated from abroad will not be under the moral pressure to work in places they do not want to (e.g. in Malaysia). Government’s responsibility One thing that must be stated is the government has a lot to do. They must enforce contracts properly, without fear or favour. Looking at the current situation, it wouldn’t be excessive if we were to say that the government does not take doctors who are in breach of their contracts to court because mainly they are Malays. This needs to change. Those who defaulted and breached their contracts are guilty of a criminal offence, regardless of their race or religion. As a Malay Muslim, I am ashamed of this unjustifiable favouritism to an extent that even criminal offences are looked at negligently. Unless the doctors have made an alternative arrangement post-graduation, they must face the music if they choose to breach a legal contract. By making all fundings as loans rather than scholarships, it should be clearer and more obvious to everyone that they need to repay the fundings, or face the consequences. There will be no more dilly-dally. The government must also address the problem of doctors resigning from the public sector to work privately. Lengthening the period of compulsory service is one thing that must be considered. If they want to do something more radical, then perhaps they can consider nationalizing the whole medical service (I personally do not favour total nationalization but it should not be discarded without due consideration). One thing the government needs to do immediately is to clarify their expectations to those who are still studying abroad. Does the government want them to return as specialists, or as junior doctors? Some of those working here now assume that it would be better for the country for them to return as specialists. Hence their stay post-graduation. If this is what the government wants, then students should be asked to sign another contract outlining how long they can defer their service to the country and what exactly their professional targets are. But if the government wants them to come back as junior doctors, then this should be clearly explained so that they no longer have the mistaken understanding on what is expected from them. I know that the government is also currently sending senior doctors for further training abroad. This is good and must be continued. But I want to suggest that if these senior doctors receive salaries while training abroad, then their Malaysian salary must be freezed. I do not see why they should be paid twice, one for the job they are doing abroad, and another for a job they are not doing in Malaysia. After all, the foreign salaries are generally much higher than the Malaysian ones. I want to end by emphasizing that we certainly need to change the Malaysian health provision system. (In fact, I want the whole government to be changed!). But that does not mean those who have received public funds can ignore their legal and moral obligations. Imagine what would happen if sponsored students from all fields do what is being done by the doctors and refuse to return home by using the same arguments the doctors are giving. Law graduates do not want to return until they become senior barristers; lecturers do not want to return until they are professors; management graduates do not return until they are CEOs; etc. If the non-medics were to copy the attitudes and the excuses given by the so-called crème de la crème, Malaysia’s human resources planning would be in deep trouble.