Dr. Mohd Nazari Ismail
Following recent headlines on Dubai’s billion-dollar debt problem, there has been a spate of analyses. Some were very detailed and contained a list of lessons to be learnt by other countries. One recent and notable analysis emphasized the need for predictable, sustainable, clear and certain policies and argued that it is because of the lack of all those factors that Dubai is currently facing problems. In other words, the writer is saying that not only is it possible for countries to avoid financial crises, it is also very simple since what is needed is to make sure that the countries’ policies are not unpredictable, not unsustainable, not unclear and not uncertain.
The question that springs to mind will then be: How come all those brilliant Ivy League-educated policy-makers in countries that have experienced debt-related financial crises in the past such as Iceland, Britain, Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Argentina, Brazil and of course the US itself (which boasts of having the top universities in the world and the most number of Nobel laureates in the field of economics and finance) have not figured these simple rules in the past?
And come to think of it, if avoidance of financial crisis is so simple, why do people bother so much in carrying out detailed research in order to prevent their recurrence? Maybe we should also not be too agonized with the fact that Malaysia has not produced any Nobel Prize winner in the field of economics or finance. The experience of the US has shown that having the best economics brains in the world is not going to help a country avoid the occurrence of financial crises.
Coming back to Dubai, it is worth pondering why financial crises continue to occur even though there had been so many crises in recent years which ought to have yielded important lessons. These include the 1987 Black Monday Crash, the 1994 Mexican Financial Crisis, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the 1999 Brazilian Financial Crisis, the 2001 Argentina Financial Crisis and the 2007 US Sub-prime Financial Crisis. Surely policy-makers have had enough data, facts and information at their disposal to help them prevent the occurrence of financial crisis, especially if it as simple as coming up with policies which are predictable, sustainable, clear and certain.
To be sure, financial crises are not a new phenomenon. They have been taking place for hundreds of years. One of the most famous was the Tulip Crisis in Holland which took place in the 1630s. What happened was that many highly indebted people could not repay their debts, enough to cause a crisis in the Dutch economy. While the Tulip Crisis was caused by over-speculation in tulip bulbs, in the case of Dubai, the cause is over-speculation in the property sector. But the essence of the two stories is the same: people got excited with the booming price in a particular sector. They then borrowed heavily to engage in speculative transactions causing further increase in the size of the speculative `bubbles’. Eventually the bubbles burst and many people became financially unstuck causing a downward spiral of price and more trouble to the economy which eventually led to financial and economic crises.
Strangely enough however, it seems that this simple lesson on the importance of having predictable, sustainable, clear and certain policies was not easily learnt because well after that episode, financial crises continued to erupt in Europe and the US. The most famous ones include the 1720 South Sea financial crisis in London, the US panic of 1873, and the Great Depression of the 1930s. They all have one thing in common. Many people borrowed money in order to engage in speculative transactions in a variety of assets such as property and stocks. These activities led to asset bubbles which eventually burst, resulting in widespread financial insolvencies and, thereby, economic crises.
One notable fact is that these financial crises during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries took place mostly in Europe or America and not in places such as the Middle East or South East Asia. So a question worth asking is whether in these regions, predictable, sustainable, clear and certain policies were in place to regulate their financial sectors? Well, obviously that is not true for the simple fact that these regions, in those eras had no financial sector to regulate. In other words, the main reason they did not experience any financial crisis was simply that they did not have any significant financial sector to start with. Of course eventually they began to develop their own financial sectors and soon they too experienced financial crises. The most serious one for South East Asian countries was the 1997 financial meltdown and just as in the case of other financial crises, it was also a story of debts, speculation and the bursting of asset bubbles.
Truth be told, once a country developed a lending-for-profit sector of its own, there is no avoidance of a financial crisis even if predictable, sustainable, clear and certain policies are in place. Britain and America are the best examples of this. As is well known to many, these are two countries which are models to others in terms of financial regulations and supervision. Nevertheless the fact remains that the same two also happened to be among the ones which are experiencing the worst financial crises in the world. One very important, maybe the most important, lesson we should learn is that the occurrence of financial and debt crisis is an inevitable outcome of the existence of a lending-for-profit sector. And the more `developed, sophisticated and advanced’ the sector is, the bigger and more serious will the crisis inevitably be.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
End-Of-Life Vehicle Policy: Putting People Last?
When the government said that it wants to put the people or rakyat first, many wondered whether the term `rakyat’ refers to the general public including the low income groups or whether it refers only to those in the upper income bracket. The recently announced End of Life Vehicle policy (ELV), if ever it gets implemented, will provide the answer to the question.
When the government for the first time spelled out the ELV policy, it was together with the announcement on the National Automotive Policy (NAP) the main objective of which, as we all know, is to sustain the growth of the nation’s auto industry. This is sufficiently indicative of the main motive for the ELV policy. The excited and happy response of the country’s main auto manufacturers more or less confirms this. They are all hoping that this policy will help increase their sales and profitability as owners of aging cars are persuaded to switch to brand new cars. On the other hand, owners of 10 to 15 year old cars many of whom are from the lower income groups are generally alarmed at the grim prospect of increased financial burden.
Some supporters of the ELV policy argue that it is high time that Malaysia follows other developed countries to implement the policy. This is a classic example of jumping-onto-the band-wagon fallacy because it ignores many significant differences between Malaysia and other developed countries such as Britain and Japan. One of the most important differences is in terms of income levels. Another is the price of cars. The 2008 GDP per capita (from World bank statistics) for Malaysia is USD7,221 while for the UK it is USD43,089. The price of an `average car’ in Malaysia, say a Proton Waja, is about USD19,000. If we compute Malaysian car price to GDP per capita ratio, it is about 2.63. In the UK, the price of a Proton Waja is USD19,200. The UK’s car price to GDP ratio is therefore 0.44. Therefore, relative to income levels, the price of cars in UK is about one-sixth the price of cars in Malaysia. In other words, the same Waja should only cost around RM11,000 instead of RM66,000 if we take our income levels into account. The fact is the price of cars in Malaysia is horrendously high due to protectionist policies. If the argument to justify ELV is that we should follow developed countries like the UK, new car prices in Malaysia should also first emulate car prices in the UK. Then only would the argument make any sense. Otherwise, the policy will impose a terrible burden on the average family. There will be many implications, from reduced savings for their children’s education to less money to pay for medical bills.
The government may argue that the reason is to improve the environment because new cars are more fuel efficient. This is actually a nonsensical argument. A recent study found that the positive impact on the environment by the US government’s `Cash for Clunkers’ program, which is a variant of the ELV policy, is very insignificant. Moreover Time magazine in its commentary on the US Government’s `Cash for Clunkers’ program highlighted the “undeniable fact that destroying an existing car — even a clunker — and manufacturing a new one requires energy and carbon emissions that would be saved if you just held onto your old car”. The reason is very simple. Assume that as a result of the ELV policy, there will be an additional sale of 200,000 cars on Malaysia road a year. If the average price of the cars is RM65k, then we are talking about a total increase of RM 13 billion which was completely unnecessary since without the ELV program there will be no such sales. The owners of the 200,000 new cars are now forced to work to pay for the purchases. Assuming that they are in the manufacturing sector, now the factories will be working longer etc. If they had not been forced to buy a new car, they would have had no new debt to worry about. Now instead of relaxing at home with their families, the car buyers are busy working in their factories and burning fossil fuel in the process. Actually, if the government is really serious about the environment, the focus should on reducing the number of big fuel-guzzling cars or SUVs or improving public transportation system so as to reduce the number of cars on the road rather than encouraging new car sales and new debts.
Another argument made for the ELV is to reduce accident rate. This is truly farcical because so far the government has not produced any statistics indicating that road accidents in Malaysia are caused by 15-year old cars. Actually we all know that most accidents actually involved motorcyclists. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence (such as the type of cars involved in accidents parked at a police station in my neighbourhood) seems to indicate that they are caused by young reckless drivers driving powerful new cars. Most owners of 15-year old cars are conservative or elderly drivers who simply do not speed recklessly on the road.
It is therefore obvious what the ELV policy is all about. It has nothing to do with the environment or the need to reduce accidents on the road. It is all about wanting to force people to buy new cars and abandon their old cars regardless of the roadworthiness of their existing cars or their income levels or financial situations. Presently many Malaysians have problems managing their debts. Hence the never ending reports of Ah Longs and their exploits. If the policy becomes practice, apart from the car manufacturers, the Ah Longs too will be very delighted.
As stated earlier, the ELV policy is going to be a real indicator as to whether the government puts the welfare of the people first or whether it is more concerned with the health of the country’s car industry. Fortunately I think our PM is not a politically foolish person. He knows that if the government is perceived to be unjust to the people vis-à-vis this ELV issue, then all his efforts to improve the perception of the people towards the government will suffer a serious setback. Nothing drives the people more towards the opposition than a policy that directly hurts the people’s pocket. ELV is one such policy.
When the government for the first time spelled out the ELV policy, it was together with the announcement on the National Automotive Policy (NAP) the main objective of which, as we all know, is to sustain the growth of the nation’s auto industry. This is sufficiently indicative of the main motive for the ELV policy. The excited and happy response of the country’s main auto manufacturers more or less confirms this. They are all hoping that this policy will help increase their sales and profitability as owners of aging cars are persuaded to switch to brand new cars. On the other hand, owners of 10 to 15 year old cars many of whom are from the lower income groups are generally alarmed at the grim prospect of increased financial burden.
Some supporters of the ELV policy argue that it is high time that Malaysia follows other developed countries to implement the policy. This is a classic example of jumping-onto-the band-wagon fallacy because it ignores many significant differences between Malaysia and other developed countries such as Britain and Japan. One of the most important differences is in terms of income levels. Another is the price of cars. The 2008 GDP per capita (from World bank statistics) for Malaysia is USD7,221 while for the UK it is USD43,089. The price of an `average car’ in Malaysia, say a Proton Waja, is about USD19,000. If we compute Malaysian car price to GDP per capita ratio, it is about 2.63. In the UK, the price of a Proton Waja is USD19,200. The UK’s car price to GDP ratio is therefore 0.44. Therefore, relative to income levels, the price of cars in UK is about one-sixth the price of cars in Malaysia. In other words, the same Waja should only cost around RM11,000 instead of RM66,000 if we take our income levels into account. The fact is the price of cars in Malaysia is horrendously high due to protectionist policies. If the argument to justify ELV is that we should follow developed countries like the UK, new car prices in Malaysia should also first emulate car prices in the UK. Then only would the argument make any sense. Otherwise, the policy will impose a terrible burden on the average family. There will be many implications, from reduced savings for their children’s education to less money to pay for medical bills.
The government may argue that the reason is to improve the environment because new cars are more fuel efficient. This is actually a nonsensical argument. A recent study found that the positive impact on the environment by the US government’s `Cash for Clunkers’ program, which is a variant of the ELV policy, is very insignificant. Moreover Time magazine in its commentary on the US Government’s `Cash for Clunkers’ program highlighted the “undeniable fact that destroying an existing car — even a clunker — and manufacturing a new one requires energy and carbon emissions that would be saved if you just held onto your old car”. The reason is very simple. Assume that as a result of the ELV policy, there will be an additional sale of 200,000 cars on Malaysia road a year. If the average price of the cars is RM65k, then we are talking about a total increase of RM 13 billion which was completely unnecessary since without the ELV program there will be no such sales. The owners of the 200,000 new cars are now forced to work to pay for the purchases. Assuming that they are in the manufacturing sector, now the factories will be working longer etc. If they had not been forced to buy a new car, they would have had no new debt to worry about. Now instead of relaxing at home with their families, the car buyers are busy working in their factories and burning fossil fuel in the process. Actually, if the government is really serious about the environment, the focus should on reducing the number of big fuel-guzzling cars or SUVs or improving public transportation system so as to reduce the number of cars on the road rather than encouraging new car sales and new debts.
Another argument made for the ELV is to reduce accident rate. This is truly farcical because so far the government has not produced any statistics indicating that road accidents in Malaysia are caused by 15-year old cars. Actually we all know that most accidents actually involved motorcyclists. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence (such as the type of cars involved in accidents parked at a police station in my neighbourhood) seems to indicate that they are caused by young reckless drivers driving powerful new cars. Most owners of 15-year old cars are conservative or elderly drivers who simply do not speed recklessly on the road.
It is therefore obvious what the ELV policy is all about. It has nothing to do with the environment or the need to reduce accidents on the road. It is all about wanting to force people to buy new cars and abandon their old cars regardless of the roadworthiness of their existing cars or their income levels or financial situations. Presently many Malaysians have problems managing their debts. Hence the never ending reports of Ah Longs and their exploits. If the policy becomes practice, apart from the car manufacturers, the Ah Longs too will be very delighted.
As stated earlier, the ELV policy is going to be a real indicator as to whether the government puts the welfare of the people first or whether it is more concerned with the health of the country’s car industry. Fortunately I think our PM is not a politically foolish person. He knows that if the government is perceived to be unjust to the people vis-à-vis this ELV issue, then all his efforts to improve the perception of the people towards the government will suffer a serious setback. Nothing drives the people more towards the opposition than a policy that directly hurts the people’s pocket. ELV is one such policy.
Ibadah Qurban: Ibadah yang tidak diambil berat orang Islam di Malaysia
Assalamualaikum kpd semua,
Hari Raya Aidil Adha semakin hampir. Salah satu dari ibadah besar yang dilakukan pada hari raya nanti ialah ibadah Qurban. Malangnya bila kita perhatikan, ibadah ini semakin tidak diambil berat oleh umat Islam di Malaysia walau pun ialah dikategorikan sebagai `sunnat muakkad' atau pun sunat yang diberatkan. Di surau atau mesjid kita akan perhatikan ada beberapa ekor lembu sahaja akan dikurbankan padahal ada beratus atau beribu keluarga Islam di sekeliling surau atau mesjid tersebut. Kenapakah ini berlaku? Adakah kerana keluarga2 Islam itu tidak mampu melakukan ibadat kurban? Sebenarnya kos ibadat kurban sangat sedikit iaitu hanya sekitar RM360 untuk satu bahagian iatu minima untuk satu keluarga kalau hendak menyertai ibadat kurban. RM360 boleh dikumpulkan dengan hanya melakukan simpanan RM1 setiap hari sahaja untuk selama setahun. Rata2 orang Islam sanggup melanggan broadband internet sebanyak hampir RM100 sebulan yang bermakna lebih dari RM1,200 setahun. Tetapi kenapa tak sanggup belanja 25% peratus dari kos tersebut untuk tujuan ibadat sunnat yang dituntut oleh Allah? Mungkin kerana kurang mengetahui pensyariatan dan fadhilat kurban itu sendiri? Kalau itulah sebabnya maka saya append di bawah beberapa ayat Quraan dan Hadis berkenaan ibadah Qurban semoga akan memotivasikan semua untuk menyertai ibadat untuk tahun ini. Pastikan tuan/puan baca hadis yang terakhir.
Pensyariatan Qurban
1. Firman Allah S.W.T dalam surah Al-Kautsar ayat 2 :
Maksudnya : "Maka kerjkanlah sembahyang kerana Tuhanmu semata-mata dan sembelihlah korban sebagai bersyukur".
2. Allah S.W.T.telah berfirman dalam Surah Al-Haj ayat 37 :
Maksudnya: "Daging dan darah binatang korban atau hadiah tidak sekali-kali akan sampai kepada Allah, tetapi yan sampai kepadaNya ialah amal yang ikhlas berdasarkan taqwa dari kamu".
3. Sabda Rasulullah S.A.W.:
Maksudnya : "Aku diperintahkan dengan menyembelih korban itu dan ia adalah sunat ke atas kamu". (Hadis riwayat Tirmidzi)
FADHILAT IBADAH QURBAN
Fadhilat yang diperolehi daripada ibadah korban ini amat besar antaranya:
1. Menambah amal kebajikan. Sabda Rasullah Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam:
Maksudnya: "Korban itu bagi tuannya dengan setiap bulunya adalah kebajikan".
(Hadis riwayat Tirmidzi, Ibnu Majah dan al-Hakim)
2. Sebagai penebus dosa Sabda Rasullah Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam kepada Sayyidatina Fatimah:
Maksudnya: "Hai Fatimah,berdirilah di sisi korbanmu dan saksikanlah ia, sesungguhnya titisan darahnya yang pertama itu pengampunan bagimu atas dosa-dosamu yang telah lalu".
(Hadis riwayat al-Bazzar dan Ibnu Hibban)
3. Mendapat tempat yang mulia di sisi Allah.
Sabda Rasullah Sallahahu 'Alaihi Wasallam:
Maksudnya: "Wahai manusia, sembelihlah korban dengan mengharapkan pahala daripada Allah dengan darahnya, bahawa sesungguhnya darah korban itu jika ia tumpah ke bumi maka ia akan mengambil tempat yang mulia di sisi Allah Azza Wajalla."
(Hadis riwayat Thabrani)
4. Rasullah Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam pernah bersabda:
Maksudnya : "Tiada dibuat oleh anak Adam pada Hari Raya Adha akan sesuatu amal yang lebih disukai oleh Allah Ta'ala daripada menumpahkan darah (menyembelih korban). Bahawa korban itu datang pada hari kiamat dengan tunduk-tunduknya, bulu-bulunya dan kuku-kukunya. Sesungguhnya darah korban itu mengambil tempat yang mulia di sisi Allah sebelum darah itu tumpah ke bumi, maka hendaklah kamu buat korban itu dengan hati yang bersih."
(Hadith riwayat Tirmidzi)
5. Ancaman terhadap orang yang mampu melakukan qurban tetapi tidak melaksanakannya. Daripada Abu Hurairah Radhiallahu 'anhu katanya, sabda Nabi Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam:
Maksudnya: "Barangsiapa yang ada kemampuan untuk berqurban tetapi tidak melakukannya, janganlah dia hadir bersama kami di tempat sembahyang kami".
Hari Raya Aidil Adha semakin hampir. Salah satu dari ibadah besar yang dilakukan pada hari raya nanti ialah ibadah Qurban. Malangnya bila kita perhatikan, ibadah ini semakin tidak diambil berat oleh umat Islam di Malaysia walau pun ialah dikategorikan sebagai `sunnat muakkad' atau pun sunat yang diberatkan. Di surau atau mesjid kita akan perhatikan ada beberapa ekor lembu sahaja akan dikurbankan padahal ada beratus atau beribu keluarga Islam di sekeliling surau atau mesjid tersebut. Kenapakah ini berlaku? Adakah kerana keluarga2 Islam itu tidak mampu melakukan ibadat kurban? Sebenarnya kos ibadat kurban sangat sedikit iaitu hanya sekitar RM360 untuk satu bahagian iatu minima untuk satu keluarga kalau hendak menyertai ibadat kurban. RM360 boleh dikumpulkan dengan hanya melakukan simpanan RM1 setiap hari sahaja untuk selama setahun. Rata2 orang Islam sanggup melanggan broadband internet sebanyak hampir RM100 sebulan yang bermakna lebih dari RM1,200 setahun. Tetapi kenapa tak sanggup belanja 25% peratus dari kos tersebut untuk tujuan ibadat sunnat yang dituntut oleh Allah? Mungkin kerana kurang mengetahui pensyariatan dan fadhilat kurban itu sendiri? Kalau itulah sebabnya maka saya append di bawah beberapa ayat Quraan dan Hadis berkenaan ibadah Qurban semoga akan memotivasikan semua untuk menyertai ibadat untuk tahun ini. Pastikan tuan/puan baca hadis yang terakhir.
Pensyariatan Qurban
1. Firman Allah S.W.T dalam surah Al-Kautsar ayat 2 :
Maksudnya : "Maka kerjkanlah sembahyang kerana Tuhanmu semata-mata dan sembelihlah korban sebagai bersyukur".
2. Allah S.W.T.telah berfirman dalam Surah Al-Haj ayat 37 :
Maksudnya: "Daging dan darah binatang korban atau hadiah tidak sekali-kali akan sampai kepada Allah, tetapi yan sampai kepadaNya ialah amal yang ikhlas berdasarkan taqwa dari kamu".
3. Sabda Rasulullah S.A.W.:
Maksudnya : "Aku diperintahkan dengan menyembelih korban itu dan ia adalah sunat ke atas kamu". (Hadis riwayat Tirmidzi)
FADHILAT IBADAH QURBAN
Fadhilat yang diperolehi daripada ibadah korban ini amat besar antaranya:
1. Menambah amal kebajikan. Sabda Rasullah Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam:
Maksudnya: "Korban itu bagi tuannya dengan setiap bulunya adalah kebajikan".
(Hadis riwayat Tirmidzi, Ibnu Majah dan al-Hakim)
2. Sebagai penebus dosa Sabda Rasullah Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam kepada Sayyidatina Fatimah:
Maksudnya: "Hai Fatimah,berdirilah di sisi korbanmu dan saksikanlah ia, sesungguhnya titisan darahnya yang pertama itu pengampunan bagimu atas dosa-dosamu yang telah lalu".
(Hadis riwayat al-Bazzar dan Ibnu Hibban)
3. Mendapat tempat yang mulia di sisi Allah.
Sabda Rasullah Sallahahu 'Alaihi Wasallam:
Maksudnya: "Wahai manusia, sembelihlah korban dengan mengharapkan pahala daripada Allah dengan darahnya, bahawa sesungguhnya darah korban itu jika ia tumpah ke bumi maka ia akan mengambil tempat yang mulia di sisi Allah Azza Wajalla."
(Hadis riwayat Thabrani)
4. Rasullah Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam pernah bersabda:
Maksudnya : "Tiada dibuat oleh anak Adam pada Hari Raya Adha akan sesuatu amal yang lebih disukai oleh Allah Ta'ala daripada menumpahkan darah (menyembelih korban). Bahawa korban itu datang pada hari kiamat dengan tunduk-tunduknya, bulu-bulunya dan kuku-kukunya. Sesungguhnya darah korban itu mengambil tempat yang mulia di sisi Allah sebelum darah itu tumpah ke bumi, maka hendaklah kamu buat korban itu dengan hati yang bersih."
(Hadith riwayat Tirmidzi)
5. Ancaman terhadap orang yang mampu melakukan qurban tetapi tidak melaksanakannya. Daripada Abu Hurairah Radhiallahu 'anhu katanya, sabda Nabi Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wasallam:
Maksudnya: "Barangsiapa yang ada kemampuan untuk berqurban tetapi tidak melakukannya, janganlah dia hadir bersama kami di tempat sembahyang kami".
Monday, October 12, 2009
Obsession with University Rankings: A Case of Missing the Forest for the Trees?
Dr. Mohd Nazari Ismail.
Prof. Gerhard Casper, when he was president of Stanford University in the US once wrote to a magazine that ranks US universities: “As the president of a university that is among the top-ranked universities, I hope I have the standing to persuade you that much about these rankings - particularly their specious formulas and spurious precision - is utterly misleading”. He added “I am extremely sceptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically.”
There is certainly a basis for his remark. This is because of the odd fact that in recent years very little positive correlation exists between the performance level of universities in a country and the ability of that country to avoid social and economic malaise.
This was not always the case for if we look back into history, there used to exist very strong linkage between the existence of superior academic institutions and the level of the countries’ economic and social welfare conditions. This is a truism for the Roman civilisation, the Arab-Muslim civilisation during the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates as well as the European civilisation during the Renaissance period. The Romans’ excellent academic institutions which were built upon knowledge sourced from Greek scholars resulted in the flowering of their civilisation. The golden age of Islam was also the time when famous educational institutions such as Al-Azhar in Egypt and other educational institutions in Islamic Spain prospered. In Europe, the Renaissance was also the time when universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne and others came into existence.
However, in recent years this linkage seems to have completely disappeared. The top 11 performers of the 2009 THE-QS ranking are American and British universities. However it is interesting to note that these two countries are not only the source of global financial problems, they are also the ones that are in the most critical state. America, despite having Harvard, MIT and other top ranked universities even possesses the dubious honour of being the most indebted country in the world. Its total debt is estimated at almost 50 trillion dollars and its public sector deficit for 2009 is a whopping USD1.4 trillion. On top of that it is also the world’s largest source of carbon emission per capita.
Britain, despite having Oxford and Cambridge, has an external debt which is 400% of GDP, the highest in the G7. Moreover, in a recent ranking of the stability of financial institutions by the World Economic Forum, the UK and the US were ranked at number 37 and 38, below many developing countries.
In Asia, Japan has the most number of top performers in the THES-QS table with the University of Tokyo being the highest ranked Asian university. Eleven Japanese universities are also among the top 200 in the world. But the performance of the Japanese economy is among the worst in the region. In addition, its public debt is predicted to surge to 200% of GDP in 2010. Japanese corporate bankruptcies soared by more than 10% in February of 2009 compared to the previous year and its economic problem is probably the main cause for its position at number 8 in the world in terms of suicide rate.
South Korea is another Asian country that did well in the ranking with four of its universities listed among the top 200. But Korea was among the countries that suffered the worse effects of the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. Its finances were so badly affected that, unlike Malaysia, it had to go cap in hand to the IMF to ask for financial help. South Korean’s economy is still in a precarious position with its foreign debt at the end of 2008 at USD380 billion or 28% of its GDP. South Korean’s position at number 11 in the world in terms of suicide rate is probably also linked to its economic problem.
It is therefore clear that nowadays having the most number of universities in the higher echelon of THE-QS ranking does not mean that the country’s social and economic welfare is also among the best in the world.
This situation is puzzling as one of the most important functions of a university is to produce academicians and graduates who can help generate ideas and formulate policies that will eventually lead to the creation of a nation with a high level of social and economic welfare. When academic institutions are unable to stop economic and social rot from taking place in society, then clearly they are not playing their true roles even if they are among the top in global rankings.
Therefore, the question that needs to be asked is why is there little linkage currently between the economic and social welfare of a country and the performance of the universities of that country. There are two plausible explanations. First, there is a possibility that the top THES-QS-ranked universities from the US, Britain and other socially and economically ill countries have not been producing real intellectuals or thinkers. They may have merely been producing `workers’ or technocrats who are meant to fill the job markets rather than intellectuals who can generate ideas in and provide advice on social values, economic systems and the practices needed to build an economically and socially stable nation. Another possible reason is that the wrong type of research and teaching activities are going on at these universities. In other words, maybe the economic and social frameworks that underlie research and teaching activities there are flawed? If this is true, then what kind of frameworks do we need in Malaysian universities to ensure that our country do not suffer the same fate? These clearly are the types of very complex issues that need further analysis and discussions. Mere concern with the superficial issue of our universities’ position on the THE-QS ranking may be a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.
Prof. Gerhard Casper, when he was president of Stanford University in the US once wrote to a magazine that ranks US universities: “As the president of a university that is among the top-ranked universities, I hope I have the standing to persuade you that much about these rankings - particularly their specious formulas and spurious precision - is utterly misleading”. He added “I am extremely sceptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically.”
There is certainly a basis for his remark. This is because of the odd fact that in recent years very little positive correlation exists between the performance level of universities in a country and the ability of that country to avoid social and economic malaise.
This was not always the case for if we look back into history, there used to exist very strong linkage between the existence of superior academic institutions and the level of the countries’ economic and social welfare conditions. This is a truism for the Roman civilisation, the Arab-Muslim civilisation during the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates as well as the European civilisation during the Renaissance period. The Romans’ excellent academic institutions which were built upon knowledge sourced from Greek scholars resulted in the flowering of their civilisation. The golden age of Islam was also the time when famous educational institutions such as Al-Azhar in Egypt and other educational institutions in Islamic Spain prospered. In Europe, the Renaissance was also the time when universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne and others came into existence.
However, in recent years this linkage seems to have completely disappeared. The top 11 performers of the 2009 THE-QS ranking are American and British universities. However it is interesting to note that these two countries are not only the source of global financial problems, they are also the ones that are in the most critical state. America, despite having Harvard, MIT and other top ranked universities even possesses the dubious honour of being the most indebted country in the world. Its total debt is estimated at almost 50 trillion dollars and its public sector deficit for 2009 is a whopping USD1.4 trillion. On top of that it is also the world’s largest source of carbon emission per capita.
Britain, despite having Oxford and Cambridge, has an external debt which is 400% of GDP, the highest in the G7. Moreover, in a recent ranking of the stability of financial institutions by the World Economic Forum, the UK and the US were ranked at number 37 and 38, below many developing countries.
In Asia, Japan has the most number of top performers in the THES-QS table with the University of Tokyo being the highest ranked Asian university. Eleven Japanese universities are also among the top 200 in the world. But the performance of the Japanese economy is among the worst in the region. In addition, its public debt is predicted to surge to 200% of GDP in 2010. Japanese corporate bankruptcies soared by more than 10% in February of 2009 compared to the previous year and its economic problem is probably the main cause for its position at number 8 in the world in terms of suicide rate.
South Korea is another Asian country that did well in the ranking with four of its universities listed among the top 200. But Korea was among the countries that suffered the worse effects of the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s. Its finances were so badly affected that, unlike Malaysia, it had to go cap in hand to the IMF to ask for financial help. South Korean’s economy is still in a precarious position with its foreign debt at the end of 2008 at USD380 billion or 28% of its GDP. South Korean’s position at number 11 in the world in terms of suicide rate is probably also linked to its economic problem.
It is therefore clear that nowadays having the most number of universities in the higher echelon of THE-QS ranking does not mean that the country’s social and economic welfare is also among the best in the world.
This situation is puzzling as one of the most important functions of a university is to produce academicians and graduates who can help generate ideas and formulate policies that will eventually lead to the creation of a nation with a high level of social and economic welfare. When academic institutions are unable to stop economic and social rot from taking place in society, then clearly they are not playing their true roles even if they are among the top in global rankings.
Therefore, the question that needs to be asked is why is there little linkage currently between the economic and social welfare of a country and the performance of the universities of that country. There are two plausible explanations. First, there is a possibility that the top THES-QS-ranked universities from the US, Britain and other socially and economically ill countries have not been producing real intellectuals or thinkers. They may have merely been producing `workers’ or technocrats who are meant to fill the job markets rather than intellectuals who can generate ideas in and provide advice on social values, economic systems and the practices needed to build an economically and socially stable nation. Another possible reason is that the wrong type of research and teaching activities are going on at these universities. In other words, maybe the economic and social frameworks that underlie research and teaching activities there are flawed? If this is true, then what kind of frameworks do we need in Malaysian universities to ensure that our country do not suffer the same fate? These clearly are the types of very complex issues that need further analysis and discussions. Mere concern with the superficial issue of our universities’ position on the THE-QS ranking may be a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
No need for excitement over temporary recoveries
Those familiar with Jalan Universiti near Universiti Malaya (UM) will remember that some time ago, rush hour traffic jams in front of the Sultan Abdul Samad Secondary School were horrendous. The main reason was that at the intersection of Jalan Universiti, Jalan Kemajuan and Jalan Dato' Abu Bakar, there was a roundabout. Any traffic expert can tell you that a roundabout is suitable only for those places where the traffic volume is not too high. But if the volume is high, a roundabout will only worsen the traffic flow. Only a systematic method of alternating the rights to transverse the roads could prevent a gridlock. The traffic problem was therefore unavoidable as long as the roundabout was there and this had little to do with whether road-users were ethical or civic-minded or otherwise in their attitude. Mercifully, the local authority had the common sense to replace the roundabout with a traffic light junction and a fly-over. Now traffic jams aroundthe location has lessened drastically even during peak hours.
This is similarly the case with the economy. When the financial system is flawed due to its predication on the lending-for-profit industry, there is no avoidance of periods of crises. The nature of the system creates conditions very similar to those of traffic jams. Certainly there will be periods of economic growth, just as there were periods of smooth traffic flow on Jalan Universiti. But that would be around 6.00am when the day has just started. But as more road users enter the road on their way to work, the flow would start to slow down. At 7.00am the first sign of a gridlock would appear. In the context of the US and the global economy those early signs of economic gridlock were around late 2007. At 7.30am the gridlock would be obvious to all. Transposing that to the US economy, this was in 2008 when the sub-prime problem was in full swing. Between 7.30am and 9.00am, the traffic situation around Sekolah Sultan Abdul Samad at Jalan University would be almost at a standstill.
And that is the state of the US economy from 2008 up to now when the credit situation caused the financial system to seize up. Operations at thousands, if not millions, of firms were brought to a stand-still. A large percentage of these firms will also be experiencing insolvency problems, as is the case with General Motors, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac and Fannie May in the US. Stimulus packages may get the economy moving again but only temporarily. Eventually the system will seize up again and the problem will get worse and worse, due to the worsening credit problem and increased level of indebtedness as the stimulus packages are also carried out using borrowed funds with interest charges attached. Stimulus packages, as economists are only too aware, merely serve to postpone the problem to a later time. Any growth in the economy due to stimulus packages will not be permanent. They will replaced by another period of slow-growth and recession.
In other words, the recovery situations are not unlike the temporary periods of smooth traffic flow at Jalan Universiti. It provides no reason for us to celebrate just as the daily commuting motorists at Jalan Universiti saw no real reason for joy when traffic jams eased up around 11 am. This was because they realised that as long as the roundabout was not removed, traffic congestion and gridlock could occur at any time. In fact they were also very sure that the problem would repeat itself every day between 5 pm and 8 pm and between 7.00 am to 10 am.
Back to the economy, we are now seeing some signs of apparent recovery. Strangely enough, we are now hearing excited comments by some economists who, for reasons best known to them, seem to completely ignore the temporary nature of these recovery periods. They seem to be behaving more like politicians rather than professional economists. Of course we can understand why politicians have to put a positive spin on any news as their political fortunes are dependent on whether the electorate feels good about the economy or not. But why are some economists behaving the same way? The only plausible explanation is that the fortunes of these economists are also probably contingent on those of the politicians.
In any case, we should remind both the politicians and those economists that despite the positive signs in the Malaysian economy, the Japanese economy, which is the second largest in the world, is still mired in a deep slump. In August Japan's exports shrunk by 36%, especially in the auto and steel industries. Much of Japanese exports go to the most important economy in the world - the US. But Japan's export to the U.S. fell by 34.4% this year with the largest decline being in the metal sector which fell by 82.2% in August. The weak Japanese domestic economy is reflected by the fact that its imports fell by 41.3% compared to that of August of 2008. All these reports indicate to us that as far as the world economy is concerned, the traffic jam has not eased up. Furthermore, if we bear in mind that the `roundabout' has not been replaced, it is far wiser for us to be thinking more on how to eventually remove it rather than to waste our time standing by the sides of Jalan Universiti and cheering the temporary easing of the traffic jams. Otherwise the students at Sekolah Sultan Abdul Samad will look at us and think that we are all a bunch of idiots.
This is similarly the case with the economy. When the financial system is flawed due to its predication on the lending-for-profit industry, there is no avoidance of periods of crises. The nature of the system creates conditions very similar to those of traffic jams. Certainly there will be periods of economic growth, just as there were periods of smooth traffic flow on Jalan Universiti. But that would be around 6.00am when the day has just started. But as more road users enter the road on their way to work, the flow would start to slow down. At 7.00am the first sign of a gridlock would appear. In the context of the US and the global economy those early signs of economic gridlock were around late 2007. At 7.30am the gridlock would be obvious to all. Transposing that to the US economy, this was in 2008 when the sub-prime problem was in full swing. Between 7.30am and 9.00am, the traffic situation around Sekolah Sultan Abdul Samad at Jalan University would be almost at a standstill.
And that is the state of the US economy from 2008 up to now when the credit situation caused the financial system to seize up. Operations at thousands, if not millions, of firms were brought to a stand-still. A large percentage of these firms will also be experiencing insolvency problems, as is the case with General Motors, Lehman Brothers, Freddie Mac and Fannie May in the US. Stimulus packages may get the economy moving again but only temporarily. Eventually the system will seize up again and the problem will get worse and worse, due to the worsening credit problem and increased level of indebtedness as the stimulus packages are also carried out using borrowed funds with interest charges attached. Stimulus packages, as economists are only too aware, merely serve to postpone the problem to a later time. Any growth in the economy due to stimulus packages will not be permanent. They will replaced by another period of slow-growth and recession.
In other words, the recovery situations are not unlike the temporary periods of smooth traffic flow at Jalan Universiti. It provides no reason for us to celebrate just as the daily commuting motorists at Jalan Universiti saw no real reason for joy when traffic jams eased up around 11 am. This was because they realised that as long as the roundabout was not removed, traffic congestion and gridlock could occur at any time. In fact they were also very sure that the problem would repeat itself every day between 5 pm and 8 pm and between 7.00 am to 10 am.
Back to the economy, we are now seeing some signs of apparent recovery. Strangely enough, we are now hearing excited comments by some economists who, for reasons best known to them, seem to completely ignore the temporary nature of these recovery periods. They seem to be behaving more like politicians rather than professional economists. Of course we can understand why politicians have to put a positive spin on any news as their political fortunes are dependent on whether the electorate feels good about the economy or not. But why are some economists behaving the same way? The only plausible explanation is that the fortunes of these economists are also probably contingent on those of the politicians.
In any case, we should remind both the politicians and those economists that despite the positive signs in the Malaysian economy, the Japanese economy, which is the second largest in the world, is still mired in a deep slump. In August Japan's exports shrunk by 36%, especially in the auto and steel industries. Much of Japanese exports go to the most important economy in the world - the US. But Japan's export to the U.S. fell by 34.4% this year with the largest decline being in the metal sector which fell by 82.2% in August. The weak Japanese domestic economy is reflected by the fact that its imports fell by 41.3% compared to that of August of 2008. All these reports indicate to us that as far as the world economy is concerned, the traffic jam has not eased up. Furthermore, if we bear in mind that the `roundabout' has not been replaced, it is far wiser for us to be thinking more on how to eventually remove it rather than to waste our time standing by the sides of Jalan Universiti and cheering the temporary easing of the traffic jams. Otherwise the students at Sekolah Sultan Abdul Samad will look at us and think that we are all a bunch of idiots.
A Case of a `Double Whammy’
Back in 1997, world leaders drew up a protocol in Kyoto, Japan to implement the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change. After several years of debate, it officially became an international treaty on 16th February 2005. The protocol represents one of the most serious collective attempts by the world’s political leaders to tackle the various grave environmental problems facing humanity.
As of February 2009, 183 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Sadly, the US which is the producer of the world’s largest amount of greenhouse gas per capita till now refuses to ratify the treaty. One of the main reasons for this refusal is her concern that abiding with the agreed limits will harm its economy.
The US government obviously realised that it was impossible to achieve environmental targets, as stipulated by the Protocol, and economic growth targets at the same time. This fear is not unfounded as total US greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 actually went up by 15.8% compared to 1990 levels. But to castigate the US over this single statistic may be unfair as global greenhouse emissions had also increased by 38% in the period 1992 to 2007.
In any case, the issue of climate change has not been consigned to the back-burner. The world’s political leaders agreed in 2007 to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. At the 33rd G8 summit, G8 nations agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by half come 2050. In December 2009, global leaders are going to meet again in Copenhagen to discuss a framework to solve the problem of climate change.
Is there a basis then to anticipate significant improvements in the control of greenhouse gas emissions in future years? Sadly, the prognosis is not that good and the reason is very simple. The more important and immediate task in the minds of almost all political leaders around the world nowadays is on achieving economic growth rather than on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Political leaders are experienced enough to know that generally the electorate is nowadays concerned more about the economy than the depletion of the ozone layer. Due to their impact on jobs and income, political leaders’ management of economic issues rather than environmental issues will significantly determine their political fate. If we study the history of many countries including Malaysia, it is quite remarkable that compared to previous leaders, current political leaders’ are very much more concerned with the economy. For example, in the case of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib six months into his prime ministership has made more statements on the economy than Tunku Abdul Rahman during his thirteen years in the same office. Moreover, the statements nowadays are almost always, in one form or another, the reassurance to Malaysian voters that the country’s economy will continue to grow.
This need to reassure is because, unlike before, there is a very high level of `financial leverage’ or indebtedness among many private and public sector organizations, indebtedness which carries interest charge, often of the compounding type. To illustrate, the total US debt which includes households, business and financial sector debts is now estimated to be around USD57 trillion compared to only about USD5 trillion in 1957. Highly leveraged firms carry higher risk of becoming bankrupt if sales slow down. So the pressure to generate sales revenue and profit is very high or intense in order to ensure the ability to meet debt commitments. Any lateness in repayment will simply be penalised by additional interest charges. And once major players in any industry engage in financial leveraging, it is difficult for their competitors not to follow suit. Soon almost all firms in all industries cannot avoid becoming leveraged or highly indebted. For them revenue growth is essential. The alternative is bankruptcy or insolvency. Hence, the growth imperative for all economies regardless of the implications for the environment. In the case of the US, when the economy grounded to an almost complete halt in 2008, the US federal government, despite its own enormous public debt of more than US$11 trillion, quickly stepped in to ensure credit will continue to flow to business organizations and for the economy to continue to grow. The cost to the environment due to these measures is hardly discussed.
Humanity is currently facing two extremely serious problems. The first is the global climate problem which is getting worse. The second is the very serious problem of underpaid employees everywhere having to work harder to generate more revenue for their firms. In a way present day employees are now being enslaved. In the past, slaves are physically chained. Modern day slaves are chained by their nation’s indebtedness, their firms’ indebtedness as well as their own personal indebtedness from housing, car or credit card loans and the like. So for most people nowadays, there is no choice but to work if they are to avoid losing their personal possessions and avoid bankruptcy. Pay and working conditions considerations are now not as important as getting secure employment itself.
There are social costs to be borne in all these. For many families, both parents will work day and night. Many have hardly any time for their children’s upbringing. For those who can afford it, maids will do the task for them. It is not a wonder that we are witnessing increases in cases of juvenile delinquencies and family breakdowns. Tackling these problems should be the priority for our political leaders if the fate of our future generations is of the utmost concern. Global warming undoubtedly is a serious problem for it is said to be responsible for many ecological disasters including storms and floods. But it is arguable that the more serious problem is the debt-generated phenomena of modern-day human slavery and oppression and all its attendant negative social consequences. Humanity is now drowning in floods of water and floods of debt. It is a classic but tragic case of a `Double Whammy’. Sadly, these are also all man-made problems caused by making debt an industry integral to the modern economy.
As of February 2009, 183 states have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Sadly, the US which is the producer of the world’s largest amount of greenhouse gas per capita till now refuses to ratify the treaty. One of the main reasons for this refusal is her concern that abiding with the agreed limits will harm its economy.
The US government obviously realised that it was impossible to achieve environmental targets, as stipulated by the Protocol, and economic growth targets at the same time. This fear is not unfounded as total US greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 actually went up by 15.8% compared to 1990 levels. But to castigate the US over this single statistic may be unfair as global greenhouse emissions had also increased by 38% in the period 1992 to 2007.
In any case, the issue of climate change has not been consigned to the back-burner. The world’s political leaders agreed in 2007 to come up with a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. At the 33rd G8 summit, G8 nations agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by half come 2050. In December 2009, global leaders are going to meet again in Copenhagen to discuss a framework to solve the problem of climate change.
Is there a basis then to anticipate significant improvements in the control of greenhouse gas emissions in future years? Sadly, the prognosis is not that good and the reason is very simple. The more important and immediate task in the minds of almost all political leaders around the world nowadays is on achieving economic growth rather than on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Political leaders are experienced enough to know that generally the electorate is nowadays concerned more about the economy than the depletion of the ozone layer. Due to their impact on jobs and income, political leaders’ management of economic issues rather than environmental issues will significantly determine their political fate. If we study the history of many countries including Malaysia, it is quite remarkable that compared to previous leaders, current political leaders’ are very much more concerned with the economy. For example, in the case of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib six months into his prime ministership has made more statements on the economy than Tunku Abdul Rahman during his thirteen years in the same office. Moreover, the statements nowadays are almost always, in one form or another, the reassurance to Malaysian voters that the country’s economy will continue to grow.
This need to reassure is because, unlike before, there is a very high level of `financial leverage’ or indebtedness among many private and public sector organizations, indebtedness which carries interest charge, often of the compounding type. To illustrate, the total US debt which includes households, business and financial sector debts is now estimated to be around USD57 trillion compared to only about USD5 trillion in 1957. Highly leveraged firms carry higher risk of becoming bankrupt if sales slow down. So the pressure to generate sales revenue and profit is very high or intense in order to ensure the ability to meet debt commitments. Any lateness in repayment will simply be penalised by additional interest charges. And once major players in any industry engage in financial leveraging, it is difficult for their competitors not to follow suit. Soon almost all firms in all industries cannot avoid becoming leveraged or highly indebted. For them revenue growth is essential. The alternative is bankruptcy or insolvency. Hence, the growth imperative for all economies regardless of the implications for the environment. In the case of the US, when the economy grounded to an almost complete halt in 2008, the US federal government, despite its own enormous public debt of more than US$11 trillion, quickly stepped in to ensure credit will continue to flow to business organizations and for the economy to continue to grow. The cost to the environment due to these measures is hardly discussed.
Humanity is currently facing two extremely serious problems. The first is the global climate problem which is getting worse. The second is the very serious problem of underpaid employees everywhere having to work harder to generate more revenue for their firms. In a way present day employees are now being enslaved. In the past, slaves are physically chained. Modern day slaves are chained by their nation’s indebtedness, their firms’ indebtedness as well as their own personal indebtedness from housing, car or credit card loans and the like. So for most people nowadays, there is no choice but to work if they are to avoid losing their personal possessions and avoid bankruptcy. Pay and working conditions considerations are now not as important as getting secure employment itself.
There are social costs to be borne in all these. For many families, both parents will work day and night. Many have hardly any time for their children’s upbringing. For those who can afford it, maids will do the task for them. It is not a wonder that we are witnessing increases in cases of juvenile delinquencies and family breakdowns. Tackling these problems should be the priority for our political leaders if the fate of our future generations is of the utmost concern. Global warming undoubtedly is a serious problem for it is said to be responsible for many ecological disasters including storms and floods. But it is arguable that the more serious problem is the debt-generated phenomena of modern-day human slavery and oppression and all its attendant negative social consequences. Humanity is now drowning in floods of water and floods of debt. It is a classic but tragic case of a `Double Whammy’. Sadly, these are also all man-made problems caused by making debt an industry integral to the modern economy.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Ramadhan and Taqwa
The translation of one of the Quranic verses regarding fasting in the month of Ramadhan is as follows: "O ye who believe! Fasting is prescribed to you as it was prescribed to those before you, that ye may (learn) self-restraint." (Al-Baqara, 183).
It is obvious from the verse that one of the objectives of fasting is `Taqwa' or `self-restraint' or `God-consciousness'. As such we Muslims should ask ourselves often whether our current abstinence from food and drinks during this month of Ramadhan has really increased our `God-consciousness'. Have we been able to improve our life in terms of increased commitment to the religion? What about our ability to refrain ourselves from committing sins such backbiting, engaging in conversations that are not allowed in Islam, listening to haram conversations, looking at things or images that are not allowed etc. The best person to answer those questions is our own self. We are the ones who truly knows whether we are improving, stagnant or regressing. Therefore we are also the ones who can really assess whether our Ramadhan has benefited ourselves or not i.e. whether it has fulfilled the prupose as stipulated by Allah s.w.t. in the verse mentioned at the beginning of this article. If we feel that it has not, then nobody can do anything about it other than ourselves. Improvements in iman and amal do not come by themselves but require efforts from us. We have to spend some efforts to improve ourselves. By simply having some intentions to improve without really doing something to improve ourselves will not lead us anywhere. So let us start to do something. Have a personal targets of improvement in this Ramadhan. It could be increasing our daily recitations of Quranic verses or it could be increases in the number of `Nawafil/Sunat' prayers or in the case of men, the number of times we perform our daily fard prayers in Jemaah at the masjid or surau. May Allah help us all to improve ourselves and make us among those whom He classifies as `Muttaqoon' (those who are God-conscious).
It is obvious from the verse that one of the objectives of fasting is `Taqwa' or `self-restraint' or `God-consciousness'. As such we Muslims should ask ourselves often whether our current abstinence from food and drinks during this month of Ramadhan has really increased our `God-consciousness'. Have we been able to improve our life in terms of increased commitment to the religion? What about our ability to refrain ourselves from committing sins such backbiting, engaging in conversations that are not allowed in Islam, listening to haram conversations, looking at things or images that are not allowed etc. The best person to answer those questions is our own self. We are the ones who truly knows whether we are improving, stagnant or regressing. Therefore we are also the ones who can really assess whether our Ramadhan has benefited ourselves or not i.e. whether it has fulfilled the prupose as stipulated by Allah s.w.t. in the verse mentioned at the beginning of this article. If we feel that it has not, then nobody can do anything about it other than ourselves. Improvements in iman and amal do not come by themselves but require efforts from us. We have to spend some efforts to improve ourselves. By simply having some intentions to improve without really doing something to improve ourselves will not lead us anywhere. So let us start to do something. Have a personal targets of improvement in this Ramadhan. It could be increasing our daily recitations of Quranic verses or it could be increases in the number of `Nawafil/Sunat' prayers or in the case of men, the number of times we perform our daily fard prayers in Jemaah at the masjid or surau. May Allah help us all to improve ourselves and make us among those whom He classifies as `Muttaqoon' (those who are God-conscious).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
