Miroslav Volf and David Martin

Credits to Sivin for this engaging video.

"Professor Miroslav Volf sits down with David Martin, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, to discuss the state of faiths in the world today and whether the "secularization thesis" is proving accurate."

Abide with Me

Dalam Alkitab tertulis begini, "Manusia yang pertama, yakni Adam, menjadi makhluk yang hidup," tetapi Adam yang terakhir adalah Roh yang memberi kehidupan.

Yang datang terlebih dahulu adalah yang jasmani, bukan yang rohani. Yang rohani datang kemudian. Adam yang pertama dijadikan dari tanah, tetapi Adam yang kedua berasal dari surga.

Orang-orang dunia ini adalah seperti Adam yang pertama, yang dijadikan dari tanah, tetapi orang-orang surga adalah seperti Dia yang datang dari surga. Sebagaimana kita sekarang adalah seperti Adam yang dijadikan dari tanah, maka nanti kita akan menjadi seperti Dia yang dari surga itu.

Maksud saya, Saudara-saudara, ialah: tubuh yang dijadikan dari darah dan daging, tidak dapat masuk Dunia Baru Allah; dan tubuh yang dapat mati tidak dapat menjadi abadi. Perhatikanlah rahsia ini: Tidak semuanya kita akan mati, tetapi kita semuanya akan berubah.

Hal itu akan terjadi tiba-tiba dalam sekejap mata, pada waktu trompet dibunyikan untuk terakhir kalinya. Sebab pada waktu terdengar bunyi trompet itu, orang-orang mati akan dihidupkan kembali dengan tubuh yang abadi, dan kita semuanya akan diubah. Tubuh kita yang dapat mati ini harus diganti dengan tubuh yang tidak dapat mati, dan tubuh yang dari dunia harus diganti dengan tubuh yang dari surga.

Kalau tubuh yang dapat mati sudah diganti dengan tubuh yang tidak dapat mati, dan tubuh yang dari dunia sudah diganti dengan tubuh yang dari surga, pada waktu itu barulah terjadi apa yang tertulis dalam Alkitab, "Kematian sudah dibasmi; kemenangan sudah tercapai!"

"Hai maut, di manakah kemenanganmu? Hai maut, di manakah bisamu?"

(1Co 15:45-55)

Semoga Berjumpa Lagi, Uncle Lui

May 13 Forum

Medical Education in Malaysia : A reflection

Everyone wants to be doctor

Every year we hear about many students applying for medical schools and scholarships through various means. The government, being the major provider of medical education through public medical schools and overseas scholarships, is usually put at fault when high achieving students fail in their application into state-funded medical education for various reasons. These high achieving students often lament that their peers with lower academic credentials are given advantage over them due to the affirmative action policies of the government.

While no government in the world can guarantee public medical education for every aspiring student, a pro-affirmative policy will definitely reduce the chances of non-beneficiaries obtaining a place in a state-funded program. One therefore has to increase one’s chances of scoring a place through an arbitrary selection process, based on rough guidelines such as the following:

a) Do outstandingly well not only to qualify for public medical school, but superiorly, at the top of the class and region;

b) Exhibit strong leadership qualities and special skills through involvement in co-curricular activities at state and national levels;

c) Possess flawless communication skills in Malay and English in a collegial setting;

d) Be able to articulate opinions on various socioeconomic and political issues, besides showing appreciation of local culture and norms;

e) Have access to some well-known political parties and figures to support one’s application.

Thus, for the average student who does not benefit from affirmative action, it is very challenging to gain a place in state-funded programs. However, they have a reason to rejoice with the recent liberalization of private education in Malaysia in the last decade. Many aspiring students who failed a place in the public sector may be able to pursue medical education and career inside and outside the country. It is a popular career choice for many Malaysians of all ethnicities, as a medical career does not only promise social mobility but also a stable income and social prestige. With greater affluence and increasing accessibility for private medical education through various twinning and private programs, the demand has increased dramatically.

More medical schools are opened not only by private institutions, but by state-owned institutions as well. The overwhelming popularity of medical education has been exemplified by the opening of various colleges, including ones which are dubious. State governments lobby for the opening of medical school campuses, medical schools are used as political and economic tools to reward different regional communities, like the recently Terengganu state university. Newer urban communities aspire to have the prestige of a medical school like the Cyberjaya, Iskandar Developmental Region and Kuala Lumpur Education City. To meet the fierce demand for medical education insufficiently provided by domestic providers, state scholarships seek not only to fund medical education for students from traditional providers like the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India and Egypt, but also lesser known and somewhat questionable ones like Indonesian, Ukrainian, Russian, Czech and Polish institutions.

Sustainability

I am no economist. But I have a deep nagging fear that the Malaysian health system may not be able to absorb a steady stream of fresh medical graduates into the workforce. Health workers are not mass-produced workers for the system, but they are more of apprentices who require ongoing training and supervision from their seniors. Would they therefore gain adequate and appropriate post-graduate medical education?

Beside, with a health budget of RM8.7 billion (from 2006 figures), 6.33% of the national budget, health spending per capita is a meagre RM327. I wonder whether the government would be able to consistently increase its spending on healthcare to employ more doctors annually, not considering those who are already underpaid and overworked. With an increasing influx of graduates, would we be able to pay our doctors reasonably comparative to other developing countries, and would we be able to provide adequate ongoing training and supervision? The thought of the Phillipines, where doctors have to go overseas as nurses haunt my dreams.

With the proliferation of private healthcare providers due to a poorly coordinated dual health system, leeching off public medical consultants and medical officers, are we seeing junior doctors bloating our underinvested public health institutions, providing less than optimal care to our populace?

The justification for excessive and unsustainable training of medical students is the shortage of medical staff, repeated often by government officials and ministers of health. Tun Dr Mahathir’s ambitious Vision 2020 with a doctor-populace ration of 1:500 has perhaps driven the craze for the mass-production of medical graduates to achieve a so-called “developed nation status”. But to aspire for such unrealistic figure within a short time without proportionate increase in GDP per capita healthcare spending comparative to other OECD, is perhaps an exercise of self-delusion. Without an economy resilient and strong enough to support an extensive health system, a hyperinflated model of healthcare would mean few things; underpaid, overworked and undertrained staff.

Cheap measures to prevent these underpaid and overworked staff namely by bonding them with an almost-lifetime bond of 10 years (for basic training) and another 8 years (for postgraduate training) may work in the short term to prevent them from escaping the system that treats them with equal dignity with a factory machine. But until and unless there are systemic reforms in the public healthcare funding, recruitment and delivery of service, we are deluding ourselves of a “developed status healthcare” boasting only of our holy ratio of 1:500, but unable to deliver a system that effectively engages with the health of the nation. We will only be able to boast of thousands of health slaves providing for the people, but we may not be able to deliver a system that is well-funded, well-equipped, well-trained, well-coordinated and well-delivered to the people. Our noble intentions of serving the people would bear no fruit, as we may lose public confidence in the long run due to suboptimal services.

Thus, a brave systemic reform in Malaysia is sorely needed.

One School For All

Satu bangsa satu bahasa

Malaysia berjaya!

JPA Scholarships

The controversy regarding the JPA scholarship has emerged again, with a few alleged top scorers complaining of not getting overseas scholarship despite getting more A1s. From my limited knowledge, they were given a local scholarship instead. They were upset that their peers who obtained less A1s were given an overseas scholarship. Without knowing whether they are applying for the same course (note that medical scholarships have higher academic requirements than other courses) or whether the SPM subjects that they took correlates with the course that they are applying for, we can’t make any conclusion and therefore place our trust in our beloved champions of our respective races (be it MCA, DAP or MIC), ironically in the midst of a new political climate.

The JPA scholarship is indeed a prized scholarship within the medium to lower class non-bumiputera students who aspire for an overseas education. Since the cap on SPM subjects has been taken away in 2000, more students are taking more subjects in order to improve their chances of scoring as many A1s as possible to secure that scholarship. Like myself, many of them do not know that other scholarships and financial assistance do exist to help them further their studies elsewhere.

Many of them like myself many years ago, may have not been exposed to academia well enough to appreciate the wide variety of undergraduate courses available, be it of liberal arts or the sciences. We were just told by our teachers, parents, seniors and friends that the only way to go is JPA. And the only way to get it is to eat our Pelangi textbooks and regurgitate them out into the exam paper, besides going for tuition classes for every subjects that we are taking from the best tutors in town (nevermind that they suck in teaching at school).

It is also interesting that there is a growing sense of entitlement for those scholarships, with many claiming that they deserve that scholarship. Not any type of scholarship but an overseas scholarship for their many A1s, regardless of their co-curricular achievement, communication skills or socioeconomic background. This is particularly reflected in Sdr. Lim Kit Siang’s call for automatic grants for students achieving 9A1s and above. “Why must deserving students BEG for scholarships?” our politicians lament.

While it is probably a political suicide not to harp this issue among the non-bumiputera community, I feel that it is a bit too much to promote a sense of entitlement. The very people who are championing the removal of some special rights, are the very people who are advocating a new form of rights; “the Special Rights of 9A1s”. This right should be served by the nation by drawing upon the almost unending national reserves, regardless of the economic crisis nor pure common sense. As long as these rights are served and the money invested on tuition classes brings returns, anything goes.

Without putting a check, an unhealthy sense of entitlement may justify the removal of the 20% allocation for Sabah and Sarawak students and students with special needs, who may not necessarily meet the 9A1 mark to be entitled for this right. Perhaps students whose parents earn less than RM1500, who can barely afford to gain 10A1 may have to give way for their peers who get 13A1s, 14A1s, 15A1s or more, in the ever increasing competition to fight for the limited number of scholarships, all in the name of the Holy Meritocracy. With the trend of increasing A1s, thanks to the rat-race kiasu mentality of some urban middle-class Malaysians, the poor and the disadvantaged may be marginalised.

Who cares for the poor and disadvantaged? They are lazy and too bad they have learning difficulties, says some. Personal responsibility and hard work is the key to success, and certainly the passport to gain the “Special rights of the 9A1”. The survival of the fittest is the way to go, who cares about bad genes, post-colonial displacement, socioeconomic disparity, urban-rural divide and unequal opportunities?

Living Fully Until We Die

"The modern hospice movement is rooted in a much older idea of hospitality. Indeed, the term comes from the same Latin root as hospital and hostel. Places of hospitality were not confined to the Latin-speaking world, however. Greeks, Indians, Romans, early Christians, and Muslims all built places where pilgrims and travelers, particularly the sick, could rest and find care. In modern times, Christians showed their commitment to hospitality for the hurting by building hospitals and, at the end of the 19th century, the first institutions dedicated solely to caring for the dying. Called hospices, these institutions lacked the fully formed philosophy that would characterize the modern movement, they but did offer inspiration to the movement's founder, Dame Cicely Saunders.

Saunders established the first modern hospice, St. Christopher's, in 1967. Located in London, St. Christopher's was the result of Saunders' experience treating dying people, her belief that people could flourish even as they died, and her sense of Christian call..."

"Saunders also used St. Christopher's to show how religion could be integrated into the experience of dying. Her hospice was open to Christians and non-Christians alike but had, she said, a Christian foundation. She also claimed that treating physical pain gave patients freedom—a freedom she saw them use "in time for family reconciliations, in deepening relationships, and in all the sorting out of beliefs and memories that can help others say, with Pope John XXIII, 'My bags are packed—I can go with a tranquil heart at any moment.'"

Even after her retirement in 1985, Saunders actively promoted her movement as well as her beliefs about the intersection of faith and dying. She strongly condemned euthanasia. Hospice, according to Saunders, encouraged people to live fully until they died. Convinced that with modern drugs people need not die in pain, she claimed that euthanasia precluded the work of a good death—the reconciliation with mortality, with family, and with God that occurred as people died. "It is not for us to say that the suffering is fruitless," she wrote, "nor that there is nothing more for the patient to do or learn in this life." People were not the own masters, she claimed."

Sarah Johntone for Christianity Today